Following widespread protests over National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) UG 2026 paper leak issue and resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the Union Government introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 and was passed in Lok Sabha on July 29, 2026.

While the Bill was introduced with an intent to curb examination malpractices by facilitating time-bound investigation and speedy trial, there are limitations in the the newly proposed Amendment Bill when it comes to timely closure of investigation and a likely pile up of backlog of cases as observed in other similarly enacted laws.

The newly proposed Bill increases quantum of penalty in case of organised crime networks, from a fine of earlier ₹1 crore in previous anti-cheating law passed in 2024 to up to ₹10 crore in the current Bill.

The Bill has enhanced the period of debarment of service providers engaging in unfair means from four years to eight years and empowers Central government to constitute a special task force to investigate offences.

The Bill also states that investigation of an offence must be completed within two months. However, there are no further provisions stated in the Bill if investigation timeline is not met.

“This is different from other laws. For instance, The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 requires reasons to be recorded in writing for extending time period for preliminary inquiry and investigation,” an analysis by PRS Legislative Research states. “Similarly, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the concerned officer must explain the delay in completing investigation and filing chargesheet within 60 days, in writing.”

The Bill requires that trial must be completed within three months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. “This may contradict a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court in 2002 held that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of criminal proceedings. It further held that criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trials or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time,” the PRS analysis further states.

The new Bill provides for designating a Court of Session by each State and Union Territory as a Special Fast Track Court for speedy adjudication. Similarly, Fast Track Courts have been set up in case of other laws too.

For example, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) also provides for designation of a Court of Session as a Special Court, for each district. A centrally sponsored scheme to this effect was launched in October 2019, including exclusive courts for POCSO cases.

The major challenge in operation of Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) is the pendency of cases, apart from the fact that the average time taken in disposing of the cases widely varies between different States.

As of April 2026, 775 FTSCs were functional, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts. “These Courts have had more than two lakh pending cases since 2023,” the analysis further says. According to data tabled in Rajya Sabha on July 23, 2026, pending cases swelled up from more than 2.02 lakh to 2.45 lakh from 2023 to 2025.

Similar to the Bill, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) requires that investigation in relation to rape and POCSO cases must be completed within two months. Similarly, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet within 60 days. “More than 40% of the cases pending for investigation in 2024 under these laws were pending for more than six months,” the analysis states.

“In POCSO cases, as of August 2025, average time taken in trial in FTSCs ranged from 257 days in Andhra Pradesh to 1,717 days in Delhi.”

In a Parliament reply of August 2025, the Ministry of Law and Justice observed that while the average disposal rate of rape and POCSO Act cases in regular courts is estimated at 3.26 cases per court per month, FTSCs achieve an average rate of 9.51 cases per court per month.

Also, reasons for delay in trial courts as observed by The Law Commission in the past may be absence of some or all accused or non-production of under trial prisoners, with the issue compounded in cases involving a large number of accused.

There could be lack of effort by police in apprehending and producing absconding accused. Further there could be frequent adjournment owing to non-attendance of official witnesses, as also advocates seeking adjournments without adequate justification.

Lack of effective case management measures put by trial judges such as time schedules and ensuring continuity in trial, complacency of Judges after reaching the required number of disposals per month, and inadequate number of Courts and staff strength can also affect the speed of trial, the Law Commission has observed.

It is also pertinent to note that The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act passed in 2024 following the uproar over the earlier NEET UG paper leak case has not secured any conviction under the act over the past two years.

While passing the Amendment Bill in Lok Sabha with a view to strengthen penalties for curbing examination malpractice is good intent, the proof of the pudding will lie in how the law is implemented and whether it helps plug the leaks in the examination system.

Published - July 29, 2026 06:44 pm IST