INTRODUCTION

About the National Testing Agency (NTA):

• Establishment:The body was set up in 2017 as an autonomous and self-sustained testing organisation under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education after cabinet approval. It was established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

• Features: 

• The NTA is non-statutory testing agency led by a governing body

• NTA comes under the purview of the Right to Information Act (RTI).

• Function: The NTA is responsible for conducting entrance examinations for admission to higher educational institutions (universities, colleges, etc.) and fellowship programs.

• Composition: The NTA’s governing body comprises a team of 14 persons , including directors from esteemed institutions such as three IITs, two NITs, and two IIMs, along with other educational and medical experts and bureaucrats.

• Exams Conducted:

• Major entrance exams facilitated by NTA include:

• National Eligibility Test (NET) for lectureship and research positions.

• Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main for engineering programs.

• National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for undergraduate medical programs.

• Common Management Admission Test(CMAT) for admission to Management Programme(s) in India.

• Graduate Pharmacy Aptitude Test(GPAT) is conducted for admission of Pharmacy graduates into the Masters programmes

Core issues and  allegations

• NEET Allegations 2024: NEET is the largest exam under the ‘One Exam, One Nation’ model due to the number of candidates (over 20 lakh applicants), languages, and diversity.

• Errors: 

• Instances like the distribution of the wrong question paper at some centres.

• Both primary and back-up question papers were accessed simultaneously without clear emergency protocols.

• Wrong normalisation methodology for awarding “grace marks” for such candidates.

• Consequences

• The distribution error led to panic among candidates. Incorrect papers were retrieved, and the correct ones were distributed without compensating for lost time.

• Exceptionally huge grace marks were awarded for the time lost, which was later scrapped due to a public outcry.

• Way Forward

• Statement of Procedures(SOPs):The NTA must devise SOPs similar to those of the IITs to stabilise cut-offs, avoid inflated scores and ranks, and achieve a long-tail distribution.

• Adopting a professional war-room culture: Necessary to facilitate quick and sound decision-making throughout the examination process.

• Cancellation of UGC NET June 2024: The Centre announced the cancellation of the examination,a day after conducting it due to indications of compromised integrity. A fresh examination will be scheduled, and the matter has been referred to the CBI for investigation.

• Postponement of CSIR NET and NEET PG Entrance, 2024: NTA cited unavoidable circumstances as well as logistic issues for the postponement of these CSIR-NET. The Health Ministry’s National Board of Exams also cancelled NEET-PG amidst all the controversy.

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

• Enforcement:The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 was passed by Parliament on February 9 and received the President’s assent on February 12. However, it was notified by the Union government to come into effect from June 21 only after all the NEET controversy.

• Objective: To prevent unfair means in public examinations conducted by the designated authorities and ensuring integrity and fairness in the assessment processes.

Analysis of the act

• Public Examinations:

• Definition: “Public examination" is any examination conducted by entities listed in the Schedule or any other authority notified by the Central Government.

• Authorities: The Act’s schedule includes the exams conducted by:

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

• Staff Selection Commission (SSC)

• Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs)

• Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)

• National Testing Agency (NTA)

• Ministries or Departments of the Central Government, including their attached and subordinate offices, involved in the recruitment of staff. 

• Such other authority as may be notified by the Central Government

• Candidate:

• Definition: The law defines a "candidate" in public examinations as either "a person who has been granted permission by the public examination authority to appear in the examination" or "a person authorised to act as a scribe on behalf of another candidate in the examination."

• Service Provider: 

• Definition: The Act defines a service provider as any entity engaged by the public examination authority to conduct public examinations and their affiliates or subcontractors providing computer resources or materials.

• Investigation:

•  An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall investigate any offence under this Act.

• Additionally, the central government can refer the case to any central investigating agency

• Actions Constituting Unfair Means: Section 3 of the Act specifies several actions that are deemed to constitute unfair means in public examinations for monetary or wrongful gain, including:

• Leakage of question papers or answer keys.

• Unauthorised access or possession of question papers or response sheets.

• Tampering with answer sheets or response sheets.

• Providing solutions to candidates during examinations.

• Assisting candidates directly or indirectly.

• Tampering with documents necessary for candidate short-listing or merit determination.

• Tampering with computer networks, resources, or systems.

• Creating fake websites or conducting fake examinations.

• Issuing fake admit cards or offer letters for monetary gain.

• Designation as Public Servants: The Act designates the chairperson, members, officers, and other employees of the public examination authority as ‘public servants’ within the meaning of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita

• Legal Protection: Section 14 ensures no suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings can be initiated against any public servant for actions done in good faith or intended in the discharge of their official functions or exercise of their powers.

• The first provision to Section 14 states that public servants of any public examination authority are subject to administrative action according to the service rules of the authority.

• The second provision allows for proceedings against public servants where there is a prima facie case of an offence under the Act.

• Stringent punitive clauses: Section 9 States that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

• Individuals: Individuals found guilty of committing offences under the Act face imprisonment for a minimum of three years, extendable up to five years, along with a fine of up to Rs.10 lakh.

• Defaulting on the fine may lead to additional imprisonment, as per the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which will replace the IPC starting July 1. 

• Service Providers: Act imposes a fine on service providers of up to Rs.1 crore.

• Service providers are also liable to pay the proportionate cost of the examination and may be barred from conducting public examinations for four years.

• Burden of Proof: Section 10(4) shifts the burden of proving innocence to the accused.

• Individuals can avoid punishment if they prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge and that they took due diligence to prevent it.

• Bona fide candidates: Bona fide candidates and their scribes, meaning genuine and honest test-takers, are exempt from the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act. 

• This Act targets those who facilitate cheating, not the students themselves. 

• The Act clarifies that even students who violate exam rules will not be penalised under its provisions. 

• Instead, the relevant examination authority will take appropriate disciplinary action.

• Rules: Post enforcement of the Act, the rules have been  notified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on June 24, 2024.

• Computer-Based Test (CBT) Parameters: The Rules comprehensively outline the procedures for CBT, encompassing candidate registration, centre allocation, admit card issuance, question paper handling, answer evaluation, and final recommendations.

• National Recruitment Agency: The central government’s National Recruitment Agency shall prepare the norms, standards, and guidelines for CBTs in consultation with stakeholders. Once finalised, these norms will be notified by the Centre.

• Reporting Framework: The Rules outline a structured framework for reporting incidents of unfair means:

• The venue in-charge prepares a detailed report (Form 1) along with findings if any incident occurs.

• This report is submitted to the Regional Officer through the Centre Coordinator.

• If a prima facie case for filing a First Information Report (FIR) is established, the venue in-charge initiates necessary action.

• In cases where lower-level personnel fail to report incidents, the Centre Coordinator reports the matter (Form 2) to the Regional Officer.

• The Regional Officer conducts an inquiry and directs the Centre Coordinator to file an FIR if a service provider representative at the examination centre level is found involved.

Need for the act

• Addressing Paper Leaks: This act is prompted by the rampant issue of paper leaks in recruitment exams nationwide. These leaks have disrupted government job recruitments, impacting millions of applicants and delaying crucial hiring decisions.

• Example:Over the past five years, 48 instances of paper leaks across 16 states have been identified affecting 1.51 crore applicants vying for about 1.2 lakh government job vacancies

• Legislative Void: Currently, there is no specific law addressing malpractices in public examinations, hindering effective prosecution of those involved. This gap leaves the examination system vulnerable to exploitation.

• Ensuring Fairness and Credibility: The Act aims to enhance transparency and fairness in public exams, reassuring aspirants that their efforts will be recognized. By deterring manipulation, it seeks to restore public trust in examination integrity.

• Safeguarding Youth and Future Prospects: Beyond immediate disruptions, the Act aims to secure the future prospects of youth by ensuring exams are conducted securely and impartially.

Issues with the act

• Delayed notification: The act passed by Parliament in February and receiving Presidential assent shortly thereafter was notified only in June. This has raised concerns about the government's rationale despite the Act's significance in addressing paper leaks and exam malpractices.

• Delayed rule framing: Section 16(1) mandates the Centre to formulate rules to operationalize the provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, through notification in the Official Gazette.

• Though passed in February, the late notification of the Act raises concerns about timely rule preparation and without the requisite rules in place, the effective implementation of the Act could be hindered.

• Non Retrospective Nature: The Act does not apply retrospectively, meaning it cannot address past incidents of malpractice in public examinations that occurred before its enactment and notification and cannot address recent question paper leaks in NEET-UG and UGC-NET exams.

• Ambiguity in Candidate Accountability:  The Bill exempts "candidates" from legal action under its provisions, leaving them under the administrative measures of public examination authorities. However, the government's position on leniency towards candidates implicated in recent question paper leaks and securing undeserved ranks remains unclear.

• Potential Government Overlook: The definition of institutions excludes the public testing agencies like National Testing Agency from its purview, which is currently under scrutiny for its omissions and commissions.  In response to demands from students and parents, the central government had to replace the NTA director-general.

• Questionable Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the act is questionable, as existing state laws against cheating in public examinations in Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh have not proven to be effective deterrents.

Way forward with the  act

• Fast-Track Rule Formulation: Prioritise the development and notification of clear and comprehensive rules outlining the Act's operational procedures.

• Ensure transparency: By involving stakeholders like examination boards, educational institutions, and student representatives in the rule-making process.

• Strengthen Candidate Regulations: While protecting innocent candidates is important, create clear guidelines with sanctions for those actively involved in acquiring or utilising leaked exam materials.

• Robust Enforcement Mechanisms:Allocate adequate resources for establishing dedicated investigation and prosecution units to handle exam malpractice cases effectively.

• Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch nationwide campaigns to educate students, parents, and the public about the Act's provisions and the consequences of cheating.

• Model law: The Act should serve as a model draft for States to adopt at their discretion, aiding them in preventing criminal elements from disrupting State-level public examinations.

CONCLUSION

The Act's effectiveness hinges on overcoming its limitations. While retrospective application may be a legal hurdle, amendments for serious cases could show a commitment to accountability. Public awareness campaigns are crucial for fostering academic inte

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
National Testing Agency Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024