While highlighting the major provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, discuss how far it can help in bringing greater transparency, fairness and credibility to the public examinations system

सार्वजनिक परीक्षा (अनुचित साधनों की रोकथाम) विधेयक, 2024 के प्रमुख प्रावधानों पर प्रकाश डालते हुए चर्चा करें कि यह सार्वजनिक परीक्षा प्रणाली में अधिक पारदर्शिता, निष्पक्षता और विश्वसनीयता लाने में कितनी मदद कर सकता है।

Content to refer for Answer Writing:

• The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, was passed in Lok Sabha. 
•  
• The Bill aims to prevent “unfair means” in order to “bring greater transparency, fairness and credibility to the public examinations system”.
•  
• Section 3 of the Bill lists at least 15 actions that amount to using unfair means in public examinations “for monetary or wrongful gain”.
•  
• These acts include: “leakage of question paper or answer key or part thereof” and colluding in such leakage; “accessing or taking possession of question paper or an Optical Mark Recognition response sheet without authority”; “tampering with answer sheets including Optical Mark Recognition response sheets”; “providing solution to one or more questions by any unauthorised person during a public examination”, and “directly or indirectly assisting the candidate” in a public examination.
•  
• The section also lists “tampering with any document necessary for short-listing of candidates or finalising the merit or rank of a candidate”; “tampering with the computer network or a computer resource or a computer system”; “creation of fake website” and “conduct of fake examination, issuance of fake admit cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary gain” as illegal acts.
•  

  Which exams are “public examinations” as defined in the Bill?

• Under Section 2(k), a “public examination” is defined as any examination conducted by a “public examination authority” listed in the Schedule of the Bill, or any “such other authority as may be notified by the Central Government”.
•  
• The schedule lists five public examination authorities: (i) the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), (ii) the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), (iii) the Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), (iv) the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), (v) National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts the JEE (Main), NEET-UG, UGC-NET, the Common University Entrance Test (CUET), etc.

• What punishment does the proposed law provide for violations?

• Section 9 of the Bill states that all offences shall be cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable — which means that an arrest can be made without a warrant and bail will not be a matter of right; rather, a magistrate will determine whether the accused is fit to be released on bail. 
• A non-compoundable offence is one in which the case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant even when the complainant and the accused have reached a compromise, and a trial must necessarily follow.
•  
• Punishment for “any person or persons resorting to unfair means and offences” can be three to five years in prison, and a fine up to Rs 10 lakh. 
•  
• Under Section 10(2), a service provider who is engaged to provide “support of any computer resource or any material, by whatever name it may be called” for the conduct of the examination can be fined up to Rs 1 crore, along with other penalties.
• Section 11(1) says the punishment for organised crime will be “imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to ten years” and a fine “which shall not be less than one crore rupees”.
•  
• The Bill is aimed at effectively and legally deterring persons, organised groups or institutions that indulge in various unfair means and adversely impact the public examination systems for monetary or wrongful gains.”
•  
• It clarifies that “Candidate as defined in the Bill shall not be liable for action within the purview of the Bill and shall continue to be covered under the extant administrative provisions of the concerned public examination authority.”
•  
• The Bill, once it becomes law, will also serve the important function of being “a model draft for States to adopt at their discretion”. 
•  

Here are several strategies to achieve transparency & credibility in exam process in India:

1. Standardization of Examination Processes:

   • Establish standardized examination processes, including question paper setting, distribution, and administration, to ensure uniformity and consistency across different examination boards and educational institutions. Clear guidelines and protocols should be developed and adhered to at all stages of the examination cycle.

2. Digitalization and Technology Integration:

   • Embrace digitalization and technology integration to streamline examination procedures, reduce administrative burdens, and minimize opportunities for malpractice and fraud. 

3. Secure and Proctored Examination Environments:

   • Implement secure and proctored examination environments to prevent cheating, malpractice, and unauthorized access to examination materials. Use of advanced surveillance technologies, biometric authentication, and secure examination centers can deter misconduct and uphold the integrity of examinations.

4. Randomization of Question Papers:

   • Adopt a system of randomization for question papers to prevent leaks and ensure fairness in examination administration. Question banks can be created, and random selection algorithms can be employed to generate unique question sets for each examination session, minimizing the risk of question paper leaks and cheating.

5. Robust Evaluation Mechanisms:

   • Enhance the quality and reliability of evaluation mechanisms by implementing robust processes for answer sheet scrutiny, moderation, and result tabulation. Standardized marking schemes, double-blind evaluation practices, and independent oversight committees can help maintain consistency and fairness in the assessment process.

6. Training and Capacity Building:

   • Provide comprehensive training and capacity building programs for examination administrators, invigilators, evaluators, and other stakeholders involved in the examination system. Training should focus on ethical conduct, procedural compliance, data security, and conflict resolution, ensuring adherence to best practices and professional standards.

7. Stakeholder Engagement and Feedback Mechanisms:

   • Foster greater stakeholder engagement and participation in the examination system through feedback mechanisms, consultations, and public forums. Solicit input from students, parents, teachers, and educational experts to identify areas for improvement, address concerns, and promote accountability and transparency in decision-making processes.

8. Independent Oversight and Accountability Structures:

   • Establish independent oversight bodies, such as examination boards, regulatory authorities, and ombudsman offices, to monitor and evaluate the performance of examination boards and educational institutions. These bodies should have the authority to investigate complaints, conduct audits, and impose sanctions for violations of ethical standards and procedural irregularities.

9. Promotion of Academic Integrity and Ethics:

   • Promote a culture of academic integrity, ethics, and honesty among students, teachers, and educational institutions. Educational campaigns, awareness-raising initiatives, and integrity pledges can help instill values of honesty, fairness, and respect for intellectual property rights, fostering a conducive environment for learning and examination.