GS Paper II

News Excerpt: 

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 was introduced in Lok Sabha on February 5, 2024.

Need of the Bill: 

• Instances of Question Paper Leaks: Many cases of question paper leaks in recruitment exams nationwide have occurred in recent years. 

• • There have been at least 48 paper leaks in 16 states over the last five years, disrupting the hiring process for government jobs.
  • For e.g.: In March last year, the Delhi Police arrested five men who had allegedly leaked the National Technical Research Organisation’s (NTRO) recruitment exam. Also, last month, the CBI conducted searches at 12 places across several states following the alleged leak of an exam conducted by the Western Railway’s Railway Recruitment Centre.

• Malpractices Lead to Delay and cancellation of examinations: This adversely impacts the prospects of millions of youth. 
  • There is no specific substantive law to deal with unfair means adopted or offences committed. 
  • It is imperative that elements that exploit vulnerabilities of examination system are identified and effectively dealt with by a comprehensive Central legislation.
  • For e.g.: The move came against the backdrop of cancellation of a series of competitive tests such as the teacher recruitment exam in Rajasthan, Common Eligibility Test (CET) for Group-D posts in Haryana, recruitment exam for junior clerks in Gujarat and constable recruitment examination in Bihar following question paper leak.
• To Bring Greater Transparency: The objective of the Bill is to bring greater transparency, fairness and credibility to the public examination systems and to reassure the youth that their sincere and genuine efforts will be fairly rewarded and their future is safe. 
• The Bill aims to effectively and legally deter persons, organised groups or institutions that indulge in various unfair means and adversely impact the public examination systems for monetary or wrongful gains.

Key Provision of the Bill:

• A “candidate” means a person who has been granted permission by the public examination authority to appear in public examination and includes a person authorised to act as a scribe on his behalf in the public examination;

• The Bill seeks to prevent use of unfair means in public examinations:

• • Section 2(k): Public examinations refer to examinations conducted by authorities specified under the Schedule to the Bill or any other authority notified by the central government.  
  • These authorities include: 
    • Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
    • Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
    • Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)
    • National Testing Agency (NTA)
    • Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
    • Departments of the central government and their attached offices for recruitment.
• Offences in relation to public examinations:  

• • It prohibits collusion or conspiracy to facilitate indulgence in any unfair means. 
  • Section 3: It specifies unfair means to include: 
    • Unauthorised access or leakage of question paper or answer key.
    • Assisting a candidate during a public examination.
    • Tampering with answer sheets including optical mark recognition (OMR) response sheets.
    • Tampering with computer networks or resources.
    • Tampering with documents for shortlisting or finalising of merit list or rank.
    • Conducting fake examinations, issuing fake admit cards or offering letters to cheat, for monetary gain.  
  • It also prohibits: 
    • Disclosing exam-related confidential information before time.
      • Unauthorised people from entering exam centres to create disruptions.  
  • Section 10 (1): The above offences will be punishable with imprisonment between three and five years, and a fine up to Rs 10 lakh. 
  • If the convict fails to pay the fine, “an additional punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed, as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Responsibilities of service providers:  

• In the event of violation of provisions of the Bill, service providers must report to the police and the concerned examination authority. 
• A service provider is an organisation that provides computer resources or any other support to a public examination authority.  Failure to report such incidents will be an offence. 
• The Bill prohibits service providers from shifting the exam centre without permission from the examination authority.   
• An offence by a service provider will be punishable with a fine of up to one crore rupees. Proportionate cost of examination will also be recovered from such a service provider.  
• Further, they will also be barred from conducting public examinations for four years.

• Organised crimes:  

• An organised crime is defined as an unlawful act committed by a person or a group of persons to further a shared interest for wrongful gain in relation to public examinations. 
• Persons committing an organised crime will be punished with imprisonment between five years and 10 years, and a fine of at least one crore rupees. 
• Suppose an institution is held guilty of committing an organised crime. In that case, its property will be attached and forfeited, and a proportionate cost of the examination will also be recovered from it.

• Inquiry and investigation:  

• Section 9: All offences under the Bill will be cognizable (ie, no warrant would be required prior to arrest), non-bailable (ie, bail would not be a matter of right), and non-compoundable (ie, cases would not be open to settlement).
• An officer not below the rank Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police will investigate the offences under the Act.  
• The central government may transfer the investigation to any central investigating agency. 

Conclusion:

Since technical education is in the concurrent list, a central legislation on the subject would mean that states have to adopt the legislation. The Bill, once it becomes law, will also serve the important function of being “a model draft for States to adopt at their discretion”. This would aid States in preventing the criminal elements from disrupting conduct of their State level public examinations.