Not the law but the system

The passage of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 marks the government’s latest attempt to restore public confidence after the NEET paper leak scandal triggered nationwide student protests and ultimately led to the resignation of the Union Education Minister. Parliament has now strengthened the 2024 law by doubling the maximum prison term for examination fraud from five to ten years, raising fines to as much as Rs.50 lakh for individuals, prescribing even harsher punishment for organised crime syndicates, and mandating Special Fast Track Courts to handle such cases. History offers little reason for optimism. India already has numerous stringent laws carrying severe penalties for economic crimes, corruption, organised crime and national security offences. Yet crimes continue, not because penalties are inadequate, but because investigations are delayed, influential offenders often escape accountability, and convictions remain uncertain. A law is only as effective as the system that enforces it. When those responsible for wrongdoings are protected by political influence, bureaucratic shielding or institutional failure, even the harshest legislation becomes little more than words on paper. The Opposition therefore has a valid point in describing the amendment as a superficial response. Stronger punishment may satisfy public anger in the immediate aftermath of a scandal, but it does little to address the institutional weaknesses that allow examination papers to be compromised in the first place. Preventing leaks requires secure digital infrastructure, transparent examination processes, independent auditing, professional management, stronger cyber security, and clear accountability for officials entrusted with conducting examinations. None of these reforms receives adequate attention in the amendment. The Bill also raises practical concerns. It mandates Special Fast Track Courts and prescribes strict timelines for investigation and trial. However, India’s existing fast track courts are themselves burdened with enormous backlogs. Simply creating another category of special courts does not guarantee speedy justice unless they are adequately staffed, funded and monitored. There are also questions over whether rigid statutory timelines are consistent with judicial principles laid down by the Supreme Court, making implementation more complicated than the legislation suggests. Examination fraud is only one symptom of a much larger problem. Chronic underfunding, unequal access to quality education, shortages of trained teachers, weak institutional autonomy, poor implementation of reforms and an excessive dependence on high stakes competitive examinations have together created an environment where desperation fuels malpractice. Unless these structural deficiencies are addressed, paper leaks will continue to reappear in different forms regardless of how severe the punishment becomes. The 2026 amendment, viewed in isolation, resembles a red herring. It creates the appearance of decisive action while diverting attention from the systemic failures that have repeatedly undermined public examinations. India certainly needs strict laws against organised examination fraud, but it needs something even more important, a transparent and accountable system in which every official, institution and offender is held equally responsible regardless of position, wealth or political influence. Only then can students regain confidence that success in public examinations depends on merit rather than manipulation. The government’s decision to constitute a high level task force under Nandan Nilekani to recommend comprehensive reforms is therefore a more significant development than the amendment itself. Its recommendations, if implemented sincerely, have the potential to strengthen the integrity of the examination system. However, the task force will ultimately be judged not by the quality of its report but by the government’s willingness to act on its recommendations.