Tharoor’s warning — Why the proposed law may fail to stop exam leaks
Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram Shashi Tharoor, while participating in the Lok Sabha debate on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, argued that the proposed law addresses the consequences of examination malpractice rather than the systemic weaknesses that allow leaks and fraud to occur.
Tharoor said the integrity of public examinations is ultimately linked to whether young Indians continue to believe that merit and hard work will be rewarded fairly. Referring to examinations such as NEET, UGC-NET, and JEE, he said students appearing for these tests carry years of preparation, family sacrifices, and aspirations for a better future.
According to him, a leaked question paper does not merely compromise an examination; it destroys the value of honest effort. Students who prepare sincerely lose faith in a system where performance is expected to determine their future.
While agreeing that those who profit from selling examination papers and manipulating results must face strict punishment, Tharoor argued that legal action begins only after students have already suffered.
“By the time we arrest a person who leaked the NEET paper, lakhs of students have already suffered,” he said.
His central criticism was that the Bill adopts a reactive approach by focusing on punishment after malpractice, whereas the country requires a preventive framework that stops vulnerabilities before they become leaks.
According to Tharoor, examination leaks are not isolated crimes but signs of deeper structural weaknesses in the examination system. He argued that the debate should move beyond punishing offenders and focus on rebuilding the credibility of public examinations.
Tharoor’s key objections to the bill
A law cannot guarantee speedy justice without strengthening the justice system
Tharoor questioned whether the Bill’s proposed timelines for investigations and trials can be achieved without improving the capacity of the judicial system. The legislation proposes faster investigation and trial mechanisms, including special fast-track courts. However, Tharoor argued that creating deadlines through law does not automatically ensure speedy justice. He pointed out that faster disposal of cases requires adequate judges, dedicated prosecutors, stronger forensic capabilities, efficient investigations, and effective case management.
“You can pass a law, but justice cannot be legislated into existence,” he said.
He also sought clarity on the proposed special task force under the Bill, questioning its composition, the qualifications required for officers, their tenure, and the circumstances under which cases would be transferred to it. According to him, enforcement mechanisms must be designed carefully because both offenders and investigators operate within the government’s administrative framework.
Examination security failures begin before the leak
Tharoor argued that modern examination fraud does not begin when someone breaks open a sealed question paper packet. According to him, vulnerabilities exist throughout the examination process, including question preparation, moderation, translation, digitisation, printing, storage, and distribution. He said examination security must therefore cover the entire lifecycle of a question paper. He called for every access to sensitive examination material to leave a digital audit trail, allowing independent verification of who accessed information and when. He also stressed the importance of cybersecurity measures to protect examination systems.
Questions over the National Testing Agency’s capacity and accountability
Tharoor raised concerns about the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts several major national examinations. He questioned why an organisation responsible for examinations affecting millions of students continues to face allegations of irregularities and postponements. According to him, the NTA’s institutional structure raises concerns because an agency handling examinations of such importance cannot depend on limited permanent staffing and temporary arrangements. His argument was that accountability must be accompanied by capacity. Examination bodies need adequate personnel, expertise, and systems to ensure reliability. He questioned why structural reforms had not been carried out after examination controversies in 2024 and argued that accountability should not be limited to identifying individual wrongdoers.
The examination model itself creates pressure for malpractice
Tharoor also questioned the broader structure of India’s competitive examination system. Using NEET as an example, he highlighted the imbalance between the number of candidates and available seats. According to him, when millions compete for limited opportunities, a single examination acquires extraordinary importance in a young person’s life. He argued that this environment contributes to the growth of coaching pressure, unfair advantage markets, and organised malpractice. For him, reforming examination integrity requires addressing the conditions that make leaks and cheating attractive in the first place.
What the Union Government’s Bill proposes
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 was introduced by the Union government to deal with organised malpractice in public examinations. The law covers examinations conducted by central recruitment and entrance examination authorities, including bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission, Railway recruitment authorities, and the National Testing Agency. The Act criminalises organised unfair practices such as paper leaks, impersonation, and other forms of examination manipulation. It provides for strict penalties, including imprisonment and financial punishment, for individuals and groups involved in organised malpractice. The government has stated that the objective of strengthening the legal framework is to protect examination integrity, prevent organised cheating networks, and restore confidence among candidates. The proposed amendments seek to strengthen enforcement through faster investigation mechanisms, special arrangements for examination-related offences, and increased accountability for those involved in conducting public examinations.
However, Tharoor’s criticism is that legal action against offenders does not by itself address the weaknesses in examination administration that allow malpractice to occur.
Tharoor proposes alternatives and additional safeguards
He argued that India needs a comprehensive reform of examination architecture rather than only stronger criminal provisions. He suggested that examination security must begin at the stage of question preparation itself, with digital monitoring, independent verification, and cybersecurity safeguards throughout the process. He also called for strengthening examination agencies such as the NTA by improving their institutional capacity, staffing, and accountability systems. According to him, organisations responsible for determining the future of millions of students must have the resources and professional structure required for that responsibility. A major suggestion made by him was a shift away from the single high-stakes examination model. He proposed a system similar to international examinations such as the SAT and GRE, where computer-based tests are conducted multiple times, and students can submit their best scores. According to him, such a system could reduce pressure on students, minimize the consequences of unexpected problems, improve security through computer-adaptive testing, and reduce the incentive for paper leaks.
Tharoor also argued that India needs to expand quality opportunities in professional education. He said excessive competition for limited seats has contributed to the pressure that allows unfair practices to flourish.
Punishment vs prevention
The central difference between the government’s approach and Tharoor’s argument is whether examination integrity can be protected mainly through punishment or whether it requires deeper preventive reform. The government’s approach focuses on deterrence by increasing penalties, strengthening investigations, and ensuring that those involved in malpractice face legal consequences. Tharoor accepts the need for punishment but argues that punishment cannot undo the damage suffered by students after an examination has been compromised. His contention is that once a leak occurs, honest candidates have already lost an opportunity that cannot be restored. Therefore, the priority should be designing systems where leaks are prevented rather than merely investigated afterwards. His proposed solution combines stronger examination security, institutional reform, technological safeguards, and changes to the examination model itself.
Shashi Tharoor’s intervention placed the examination integrity debate within a broader question: whether India’s education system can guarantee fairness to millions of young people. The Union government’s Bill, which is passed in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, July 29, seeks to strengthen the legal response to examination malpractice through stricter punishment and improved enforcement mechanisms. However, Tharoor argues that the success of any reform should not be measured only by how effectively offenders are punished after a leak. For him, the real test is whether the system can prevent such failures and restore students’ confidence that preparation, merit, and hard work — rather than manipulation and unfair advantage — will decide their future.