Hon.
Chairman Sir, I thank you for allowing me to speak
on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill. Sir, this
law was much awaited by crores of youths who have suffered due to paper leaks,
especially in job recruitment. Without taking names of States that have seen
such leaks, it can be safely said that this law would deter further
leaks. Until now, a specific law to punish the wrongdoers was
missing.
There
are a few positive things in this Bill which I would like to point out.
The Bill promotes transparency and fairness. The Bill is designed100 to increase the transparency, fairness,
and credibility of public examination systems. This ensures that the hard
work and genuine efforts120
of candidates are rightly acknowledged and rewarded, thereby
safeguarding their future prospects. The Bill serves as a model draft for
States, offering them the discretion to adopt its provisions. This helps in
establishing a uniform approach to tackle malpractices in public
examinations across different States and prevents disruption in State-level
public examinations. The Bill deters against unfair practices. In Section 10 of
the Bill, there is provision of punishment for any person resorting to unfair
means and offences with imprisonment200
of three to five years and a fine of Rs. 10 lakh. This will effectively deter
individuals, organized groups, or institutions indulging in unfair
means, and protect the integrity of the public examination systems. It ensures that
those who seek240 to
exploit the vulnerabilities of the examination system for monetary or wrongful
gains are legally discouraged and held accountable.
There
are some suggestions from my Party. Why is a candidate given immunity
from the Bill if he indulges in malpractices that lead to the examination
process being vitiated? The Bill mentions that a candidate shall not be
liable for action300 within
the purview of the Bill. I would be happy if the hon. Minister
could clarify this limitation of the functioning of the Bill if the candidate
is a wrongdoer. Secondly, the Bill's implementation might require significant
financial and human resources, raising concerns about its practicality
and effectiveness, especially in rural or resource-limited settings. Has the hon.
Minister made a360 plan on
ensuring that such limitations of resources do not limit the effectiveness of
the Bill? The requirement for States to adopt similar legislation could
lead to inconsistencies in application and enforcement, potentially
creating disparities in the examination systems across400 different regions. Does the hon.
Minister plan on asking the Union Public Service Commission to engage
with the States and helping them out in enforcing the provisions of the Bill?
In conclusion, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024
represents a pivotal step towards ensuring integrity and fairness in public
examination systems. However, the Bill does raise concerns that merit further clarification
and planning. The exemption of candidates from punitive measures even
when involved in480
malpractices, needs more clarity to ensure that the law is comprehensive
and leaves no room for exploitation. With the right500 measures and continued oversight, this
Bill has the potential to significantly enhance the credibility of our public
examination systems, fostering a more just and merit-based society. In Andhra
Pradesh, our hon. Chief Minister has always taken the strongest
action against such forms of corruption, irregularities and other
criminal activities.
Hon.
Chairman Sir, I stand here to support the Public Examinations (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Bill, 2024. I believe that the intent of the Bill is very good.
It is to preserve the value of a public examination as a test of merit.
If unfair means at public600
examinations continue to be very common, like it is today, the aspirants and
students will believe that they have a right to do so because so many
others have done so without being penalised. Cheating leads to delays and
cancellation of examinations adversely impacting the prospects of millions of
youths. In the absence of any specific law to deal with unfair means and
offences committed in the conduct of public examinations, we welcome the
legislation from the Government of India. In this context, I would
also like to mention that in our State of Odisha, all the
examinations have always700
been conducted with fair means till date. No paper leaks are being reported
like in a few other States where720
they have been reported frequently. In this context also, I
would like to appreciate the provision with regard to checking
malpractices and organised cheating in Government recruitment examinations,
proposing a minimum imprisonment and also a fine for persons and organisations
indulging in such illegal practices. Common practices like leakage of question
paper or answer key, directly or indirectly assisting the candidate
in any unauthorised manner, tampering with the computer network
or a computer resource or a computer system, creation of800 fake website for cheating, conduct of
fake examination, issuance of fake admit cards or offer letters, manipulation
in seating arrangements, allocation of dates and shifts for candidates
to facilitate adopting unfair means in examinations, will be controlled because
it will840 now carry
punishment and a fine for both individual and the service provider.
Hon.
Chairperson, Sir, I am from the field of education and I am
surprised and shocked by the new ways that some notorious students and ill-intentioned
people are coming up with. In every examination season, the media reports such scandals.
Things have now gone high-tech. So,900
this Bill is definitely the need of the hour. But we need to go to the
root cause also. Merely tackling the menace of corruption is not enough as
it is just a symptom of deeper issues in the system. The main cause which
is there is a mismatch between the number of aspirants and the number of
opportunities that960 are
available. Learning is conditioned by the proposed examination system. If the
examination pattern tests only memory, then teaching will ensure that students
only prepare for rote memory. This is the general pattern. We need to
address this issue. The1000 National
Education Policy 2020 goes a long way in handling it in formative years. In
a situation where opportunities are really limited, the boundary between the
selected and rejected candidates is a simple cut-off score. It is not
unreasonable to imagine that while those selected are deserving, there
could be deserving candidates even among those who are rejected. 1060
