The Centre on Monday introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha, proposing stricter punishment for paper leaks and other examination-related offences. The Bill, introduced by Minister of State for PMO Jitendra Singh amid Opposition protests, comes days after the government faced intense pressure over the NEET controversy and student protests that eventually led to Dharmendra Pradhan‘s resignation as Education Minister.

The proposed amendments seek to strengthen the existing anti-paper leak framework by increasing penalties, speeding up investigations and introducing a time-bound trial mechanism.

What are the key changes proposed?

  1. Up to 10 years in jail and Rs 50 lakh fine

Under the proposed amendments, individuals involved in leaking question papers or using other unfair means could face a minimum of five years and a maximum of 10 years in prison. The Bill also proposes a fine of up to Rs 50 lakh.

The existing law provides for imprisonment ranging from three to five years for certain offences.

  1. Tougher punishment for organised paper leak networks

The proposed law provides for a minimum jail term of seven years for organised examination-related crimes. Those involved could also face a fine of up to Rs 10 crore.

Under the existing law, organised crimes relating to cheating attract imprisonment of between five and 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs 1 crore.

  1. Paper leak investigations to be completed in two months

One of the major proposed changes is a time limit for investigations. The Bill states that investigations into cases involving paper leaks and other offences under the law should be completed within two months.

This move aims at preventing examination-related cases from remaining unresolved for years.

  1. Fast-track courts for time-bound trials

The Bill also empowers state government and Union Territory administrations to designate Courts of Session as special fast-track courts to try offences under the law. The proposed provisions require proceedings to be conducted on a day-to-day basis, with trials to be completed within three months of the filing of the chargesheet.

  1. Centre empowered to set up special task force

The proposed amendments also empower the Centre to constitute a special task force to investigate paper leak cases and other offences when necessary. The task force could be deployed in cases that require specialised or centralised investigation.

Anti-Paper Leak Bill 2026: What’s Changing

Current Law
Proposed 2026 Amendment
Individual offences: 3-5 years jail
5-10 years jail + up to Rs 50 lakh fine
Organised crime: 5-10 years, min Rs 1 crore fine
Min 7 years jail + up to Rs 10 crore fine
WHY IT MATTERS
The Bill sharply raises both jail terms and fines, especially for organised paper leak networks, signalling intent to treat exam fraud as serious organised crime rather than isolated malpractice.
2 Months
Max Investigation Time
3 Months
Max Trial Time Post-Chargesheet
1
Time-bound investigations
Paper leak and related offence probes must be completed within two months.
2
Fast-track courts
States and UTs can designate Sessions Courts as fast-track courts, with day-to-day proceedings.
3
Centre’s special task force
Centre empowered to set up a task force for cases needing centralised or specialised investigation.
WHAT COUNTS AS AN OFFENCE
A wide net over exam-related fraud
The Bill lists leaking question papers, tampering with OMR sheets, creating fake exam websites, issuing fake admit cards, using unfair means during tests, manipulating exam records, and organised malpractice as punishable offences.
END-TO-END COVERAGE
Rules now cover the entire exam lifecycle
The amendments regulate stages before, during and after an exam — not just the test itself.
1
Before the exam
Pre-audit and readiness verification of centres, candidate check-in, biometric registration, security screening, seat allocation, paper setting and loading.
2
During and after
Invigilation standards, post-examination procedures, and guidelines for candidates requiring scribes.
BACKGROUND
Bill follows months of NEET-linked unrest
The Bill comes days after the government faced intense pressure over the NEET controversy and student protests, which eventually led to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as Education Minister.
1
Builds on the 2024 law
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was India’s first central law targeting exam fraud, covering bodies like UPSC, SSC, Railways, banking recruitment agencies and NTA.
2
Strengthens, doesn’t replace
The 2026 amendment raises penalties and adds time-bound mechanisms to the existing 2024 framework.
REFORM TASK FORCE
Nandan Nilekani to head exam reform panel
PM Modi announced a high-powered task force led by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to recommend measures making public exams more transparent, reliable and technology-driven.
OPPOSITION PROTESTS
Bill introduced amid Lok Sabha protests
Opposition MPs demanded answers over alleged police action against student protesters during the July 20 march to Parliament. TMC’s Saugata Roy, Congress’s Manish Tewari and RSP’s NK Premachandran had indicated opposition to the Bill’s introduction but did not speak. Speaker Om Birla later urged members to join a discussion on the Bill.
Express InfoGenIE | Financial Express

What offences will come under the proposed law?

The Bill lists several activities as illegal, including leaking question papers, tampering with OMR sheets, creating fake examination websites, issuing fake admit cards, using unfair means during examinations, manipulating examination-related records and other forms of organised malpractice linked to public examinations.

New rules proposed for the entire examination process

The proposed amendments cover not just the examination itself but also activities before and after the test.
These include pre-audit of examination centres, verification of examination centre readiness, candidate check-in, biometric registration, security screening, seat allocation, question paper setting and loading, invigilation, post-examination procedures and guidelines for candidates requiring scribes.

Why has the Centre brought the Bill now?

This development comes after months of controversy surrounding alleged examination irregularities and paper leaks. The issue triggered widespread student protests and political pressure, particularly over the NEET controversy. The agitation also saw demands for accountability from the Education Ministry and reforms to the examination system.

Earlier, the Centre had indicated that it would bring in stronger legislation to deal with paper leaks and examination fraud. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was enacted after a series of paper leak controversies. It was India’s first specific central law aimed at tackling unfair means and organised malpractice in public examinations conducted by bodies such as the UPSC, SSC, Railways, banking recruitment agencies and the National Testing Agency (NTA).

Nandan Nilekani-led task force to recommend exam reforms

On Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a high-powered task force headed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to recommend reforms aimed at making public examinations more transparent, reliable and technology-driven.

The task force is expected to examine the use of technology and recommend measures to strengthen the credibility and security of future examinations. The government has also said that those accused in paper leak cases would be tried through fast-track mechanisms.

Opposition protests disrupt Bill’s introduction

The Bill was introduced amid protests by Opposition MPs in the Lok Sabha, who were demanding answers from the government over the alleged police action against student protesters during the July 20 march to Parliament.

After the Bill was introduced, Speaker Om Birla called on Opposition members, including TMC’s Saugata Roy, Congress leader Manish Tewari and RSP’s NK Premachandran, who had indicated their intention to oppose its introduction. However, none of them spoke.

Birla later urged members to participate in a discussion on the Bill, noting that political parties had themselves been demanding debate on examination-related irregularities.