The opposition to the amendments in the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 is meaningless.
How can anyone be against introducing stricter penalties for examination malpractices, mandating time-bound investigations and trials, and providing Special Fast Track Courts to deal with offences under the law? In fact, those guilty of ruining the hope of an entire generation deserve more than increased prison terms and enhanced fines. No amount of monetary penalty or incarceration can be adequate for the corruption, cynicism and despair that an ill-conceived and maladministered system breeds in society.
Equally meaningless is the belief that these amendments will be effective in dealing with the menace of paper leaks that fuelled the protests, forcing the government to give more teeth to a law that has so far bitten none.
The new law is meant to deter wrongdoers. So was the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, which was supposedly meant to fill a legal vacuum. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of that Act read: “There is no specific substantive law to deal with unfair means adopted or offences committed by various entities involved in the conduct of public examinations by the Central Government and its agencies. Therefore, it is imperative that elements that exploit vulnerabilities of the examination system are identified and effectively dealt with by comprehensive Central legislation. 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 is aimed at effectively and legally deterring persons, organized groups or institutions that indulge in various unfair means and adversely impact the public examination systems for monetary or wrongful gains.”
Two years later, we are made to believe that this time the amendments will be the panacea. A law deters only if it is effectively enforced; otherwise, it merely increases the risk and its premium.
Was it simply the repeated paper leaks that brought the students to the streets? Was it the lopsided education system, the over-centralisation of entrance exams, and the dearth of decent jobs? Or was it the ingenious ways of expressing resentment by the youth and its inept handling that caused the upsurge?
Are we still barking up the wrong tree?
How about dealing with the “vulnerabilities of the examination system” referred to in the 2024 Act? What about centralising the examination system and creating a monolithic National Testing Agency (NTA)? What about the massive coaching industry that claims to provide exam-cracking capsules to millions who consume them repeatedly, wasting precious years chasing the ‘golden goose’ of a government job or preparing for tests prone to manipulation? What about the increasing irrelevance of the formal education system for students and parents alike?
I recall a student from Chandigarh telling me 25 years ago that the mathematics teacher in their Class 11 began the academic session by declaring that he would cover only a few chapters in the school, as the remaining, more important ones for the competitive exams would be covered by their tuition centres. The person running one such centre set up a full-fledged university in a few years.
I also remember how insignificant school marks were. In 2023, a leading Delhi college shortlisted over 800 students who had scored more than 90 per cent marks in their CBSE exams. These students were competing for just 30 seats in the BA English Honours programme. The discord in various systems and the utter helplessness of those managing them continues to be lamentable.
Has the same helplessness prompted the government to trust ‘stringent’ legal provisions besides announcing a multi-disciplinary team under the tech-wizard Nandan Nilekani to recommend next-generation structural, technological, and data-security overhauls to make NTA public exams completely leak-proof and transparent?
After the NEET scandal of 2024, the Radhakrishnan Committee was similarly formed to investigate NEET-UG irregularities. The Committee submitted its report in October 2024, containing 101 actionable recommendations. It advised phasing out pen-and-paper exams in favor of computer-based testing, overhauling NTA governance to reduce outsourced dependency, and establishing secure, permanent government testing centre. The panel’s recommendations were divided into short-term (Phase I) and long-term (Phase II) reforms to transform the NTA into a “zero-error, adaptive, and integrative” process. The committee proposed developing 1,000 secure, government-owned Standard Testing Centres, adding permanent professional staff to the NTA, reducing reliance on third-party outsourced personnel, and establishing transparent, AI-driven grievance redressal mechanisms.
In May 2026, the committee submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court detailing the breakdown of action taken on the 101 (60 short-term and 41 long-term) suggestions. The Phase II recommendations for restructuring the NTA and building institutional capacity, such as establishing 10 separate specialised internal verticals, reducing dependency on outsourced/contractual staff, and hiring a cadre of permanent domain experts, remain largely unfulfilled.
As Expenditure Secretary in 2016-17, I chaired the Expenditure Finance Committee to consider the proposal to set up the NTA and flagged the risk of single agency failure, which could disrupt the entire system. However, the Secretary of the department forcefully argued the need to evolve a country-wide, merit-based, uniform system. It is this very NTA which is at the heart of the current controversy, and not the first in its brief history.
What needs to be kept in view is that before the creation of the NTA, such tests were decentralised and candidates were anxiously on the lookout for different schedules, filling multiple forms, and juggling their programs for appearing in these exams at different centers throughout the country. There was also the issue of varying standards of examinations. It was to standardise the examination system and to facilitate the candidates that the NTA was created, which is now found lacking in competence and integrity to the detriment of students.
Only time will tell if the Radhakrishnan-Nilekani recipe bandages the ailing system or proffers an alternative. Or will there be another summer of discontent because of a different ONOE (One Nation, One Exam)?
Ashok Lavasa is a former Election Commissioner. His X handle is @AshokLavasa. Views are personal.
(Edited by Maryam Hassan)
Will a new set of dentures help.