💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

  • Anti-paper-leak law amended amid exam-integrity protests

    Why in the News

    The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to strengthen the 2024 law against organised cheating and examination paper leaks amid concerns over NEET and recruitment examination irregularities.

    What is the Public Examination Act, 2024?

    1. Objective: Criminalises organised cheating, paper leaks, impersonation and other unfair means.
    2. Coverage: Applies to major public examinations conducted by bodies such as UPSC, SSC and NTA.
    3. Penalties: Provides imprisonment and heavy fines for organised examination malpractice.
    4. Focus: Targets organised networks rather than genuine candidate errors.

    Why was it amended?

    • Exam-leak crisis: Repeated paper leaks and irregularities exposed weaknesses in examination governance.
    • Enforcement gaps: Strengthening was considered necessary after experience with the 2024 framework.
    • Public trust: Fair examinations are essential for merit-based recruitment and equal opportunity.

    What does the crisis reveal?

    • Aspiration-opportunity gap: Large numbers of candidates compete for limited government jobs.
    • Institutional trust deficit: Repeated leaks undermine confidence in recruitment institutions.
    • Governance challenge: Legal punishment alone cannot ensure examination integrity without secure technology, accountable agencies and speedy investigation.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Act: Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
    • Ministry/Department: Department of Personnel and Training
    • Targets: Organised cheating, paper leaks and impersonation
    • Important distinction: The Act does not automatically cover all university or State board examinations unless the concerned government adopts the framework.

    “[2024, GS2, 15] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • What is the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill

    Why in the News?

    Repeated crises in NEET 2024, UGC NET 2024 and NEET 2026 have exposed a gap in how examination breaches are defined and prevented. Despite the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, closure reports found no prosecutable conventional paper leak, raising the deeper question of institutional accountability.

    What is the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024?

    1. Anti cheating law: It criminalises organised cheating, paper leaks and impersonation in public examinations conducted by central agencies.
    2. Penalties: It prescribes stringent imprisonment and fines and targets service providers and organised gangs, not candidates alone.

    What counts as a paper leak?

    1. Traditional meaning: A paper leak is the unauthorised disclosure of a printed question paper before the exam, during printing, storage or transport.
    2. Broader compromise: Confidential material can leak at question setting, moderation, translation or digitisation, disclosing selected questions without any printed paper being recovered.

    Why do repeated crises yield no prosecutable evidence?

    1. Investigation focus: Probes trace physical papers, so a compromise at the source may never produce recoverable evidence of a conventional leak.
    2. Closure reports: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed closure reports in the 2024 cases, reportedly finding no prosecutable leak under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 or this Act.
    3. Detection failure: In NEET 2026, official action followed a whistleblower’s complaint rather than the exam’s own security or intelligence systems.

    Where does primary accountability lie?

    1. Examination authority: Prevention rests with the examination body, here the National Testing Agency (NTA), not with the CBI, police or courts that act only after a crisis.
    2. Lifecycle safeguards: Accountability must run from selection of question setters and translators to centres, digital systems, evaluation and result processing.

    What is the proposed way forward?

    1. White Paper: A committee headed by the former Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) chairman is to document the full spectrum of breaches across the three examinations.
    2. Integrity framework: This should underpin a Public Examination Integrity Framework (PEIF) prescribing standardised end to end standard operating procedures, conflict of interest management and cybersecurity audits.

    What are the challenges to examination integrity?

    1. Insider access: A small number of individuals with privileged access at setting and moderation are the hardest risk to police.
    2. Coaching ecosystems: Organised coaching networks create demand and channels for leaked or guided material.
    3. Cybersecurity: Digitised question banks and candidate data widen the attack surface beyond physical papers.
    4. Scale: Examinations covering millions of candidates across thousands of centres magnify any single point of failure.
    5. Attribution and prosecution: Source compromises leave little physical evidence, making conviction under penal law difficult.
    6. Conflict of interest: Repeated engagement of the same experts and vendors without rotation weakens independent oversight.

    Conclusion

    The central issue is not the absence of a law but the failure to detect and prevent breaches early. Public confidence will be restored by an examination system with lifecycle safeguards and clear institutional accountability, not by harsher penalties or more logistics after the fact.

    Back2Basics:

    Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

    1. Central legislation to prevent unfair means in public examinations conducted by bodies like the NTA, UPSC, SSC, railways and banking recruitment.
    2. Defines offences including paper leaks, impersonation and tampering with computer systems.
    3. Provides for imprisonment of three to ten years and fines up to one crore rupees for organised crimes.
    4. Makes offences cognisable, non bailable and non compoundable.

    Defined Unfair Means

    1. Unauthorized access to or leakage of question papers or answer keys.
    2. Assisting candidates physically or via communication devices inside exam halls.
    3. Tampering with computer networks, hardware, or customized software resources.
    4. Creation of fake examination authorities or issuance of bogus admit cards to cheat

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?

    Linkage: The question tests the objectives, scope and limitations of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The article evaluates the Act’s implementation, showing that institutional safeguards and accountability remain as important as legal penalties in ensuring examination integrity.

  • Activists raise alarm over PM CARES denial of access to audit statements

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not published audited financial statements for the last three financial years. The government maintains that the trust is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and is therefore not bound by its disclosure requirements. Activists argue that the fund has all the characteristics of a public body. They point out that the Prime Minister is its Chairperson, Union Ministers serve as ex officio trustees, and government employees have contributed from their salaries. Yet, the fund remains outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).


    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Establishment: Set up in March 2020 and registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with its trust deed registered in New Delhi on 27 March 2020, to support relief during public health emergencies and other disasters.
    2. Composition: The Prime Minister serves as ex officio Chairperson, and the Union Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex officio trustees.
    3. Funding: Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from individuals and organisations, with the government stating it receives no budgetary support.
    4. Tax and foreign funding benefits: Donations qualify for a 100% deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, count as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fund holds an exemption under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to receive donations from overseas.

    What financial disclosure has the fund made?

    1. Last published statement: The last publicly available audited statement, for financial year 2022 23, showed an opening balance of Rs 5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of Rs 909.64 crore, total receipts of Rs 6,723.07 crore, total payments of Rs 439.38 crore, and a closing balance of Rs 6,283.68 crore as of 31 March 2023.
    2. Disclosure gap: Only the audited statements for 2019 20, 2020 21, 2021 22 and 2022 23 are available on the fund’s website, leaving the last three financial years without any published audit.
    3. Primary use: The fund has primarily financed India’s COVID 19 response and emergency health infrastructure.

    Why does the government’s “not a public authority” position sit uneasily with the fund’s structure?

    1. Government’s legal position: The government maintains the trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs retrospectively amended the relevant Companies Act rules to support this position.
    2. Activists’ counter: Activists argue the fund was presented as set up by the Union government, carries the sanctity of the Prime Minister’s office as chairperson, and drew contributions from government employees’ salaries, features that make it appear to be a public authority in substance.
    3. The accountability gap: The fund remains outside the RTI Act’s disclosure obligations, outside parliamentary scrutiny, and outside audit by the CAG, the three principal mechanisms that apply to ordinary government spending.

    What are the challenges to ensuring transparency in the PM CARES Fund?

    1. A named precedent: Activists cite the electoral bonds case, where sustained anonymity in political funding enabled quid pro quo arrangements between donors and the government, before the Supreme Court struck the scheme down in February 2024 for violating the right to information.
    2. No independent constitutional audit: Without CAG audit, no independent constitutional auditor verifies how contributions, including those from government employees’ salaries, are spent.
    3. Retrospective rule change: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ retrospective amendment to Companies Act rules narrows the scope for legal challenge based on the fund’s original design.
    4. CSR channel scrutiny: Because CSR contributions to PM CARES count toward companies’ mandatory CSR spending obligations, opacity in fund utilisation also affects corporate accountability for those obligations.
    5. No periodic review clause: Unlike time bound government schemes, PM CARES has no periodic legislative or parliamentary review clause forcing disclosure at fixed intervals.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund’s structure gives it the outward markers of a public authority, a Prime Minister led chairpersonship, ministerial trustees and salary contributions from government employees, while its legal classification as a private trust keeps it outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny and CAG audit. Three consecutive years without a published audited statement leave activists’ comparison to the electoral bonds case as the operative risk to track. Whether the fund publishes its pending audits or its RTI exempt status changes remains the open question.

    Back2Basics:

    Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India

    1. Constitutional basis: The CAG is a constitutional authority under Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution, appointed by the President.
    2. Governing law: Its powers and duties are laid out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    3. Mandate: Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and state governments, including bodies substantially financed by government grants, and reports findings for placement before the legislature.
    4. Tenure and independence: Holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through a process similar to a Supreme Court judge’s removal.
    5. Relevance here: PM CARES Fund’s exclusion from CAG audit means its accounts face no scrutiny from this constitutional auditor, unlike most bodies with government backed establishment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ tests the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.The article examines the PM CARES Fund’s exemption from the RTI Act and the resulting concerns over public accountability.

  • NCRB data shows chronic pendency under the National Honour Act, even as government moves to add Vande Mataram

    Why in the News?

    National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data spanning 2014 to 2024 on the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 shows pendency above 90% and a conviction rate below 16%. The government is simultaneously pushing an amendment to criminalise insult to Vande Mataram on par with the national anthem, despite the existing law’s poor enforcement record.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is an Indian law that bans the burning, mutilation, destruction, or disrespect of the national flag, the Constitution, and the national anthem.

    Key Rules and Penalties

    1. National Flag and Constitution: Section 2 prohibits burning, damaging, defacing, or showing disrespect to the flag or Constitution in any public place.
    2. National Anthem: Section 3 penalizes anyone who stops people from singing the national anthem or creates a disturbance during it.
    3. Punishment: Violations are punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum prison term of one year.
    4. Exceptions: Peaceful or lawful criticism aimed at changing or amending the Constitution or flag does not count as a crime

    Why does the enforcement record complicate the case for expanding the law?

    1. Pendency scale: Over 90% of cases registered under the Act between 2014 and 2024 remain pending, indicating a chronic backlog rather than an occasional delay.
    2. Low conviction: A conviction rate below 16% suggests weak evidentiary standards, prosecutorial capacity constraints, or both, in cases actually brought to trial.
    3. Expansion without fixing enforcement: Adding Vande Mataram to the Act’s protected symbols expands what the law covers without addressing why the existing provisions on the national anthem and flag are so poorly enforced.
    4. Symbolic versus functional legislation: A law with a sub-16% conviction rate functions more as a symbolic statement of state intent than as an operative deterrent.

    Conclusion

    The government’s push to expand the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 proceeds without addressing why the existing law convicts fewer than one in six prosecuted cases. Enforcement capacity, not statutory scope, is the constraint the amendment leaves unaddressed.

      Back2Basics

      The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026:

      1. It is a legislative proposal introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24, 2026. It amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to extend statutory protection to India’s national song, Vande Mataram.

      Key Provisions

      1. Inclusion of the National Song: Amends Section 3 of the 1971 Act to place Vande Mataram under the same legal umbrella as the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana.
      2. Offenses Covered: Criminalizes intentionally preventing the singing of the national song or causing a disturbance at an assembly engaged in its rendition.
      3. Penalties: Proposes imprisonment for up to three years, a monetary fine, or both for first-time offenders, and a mandatory minimum of one year in prison for subsequent convictions

    1. Nilekani to lead task force on exams: Modi

      Why in News?

      Prime Minister Modi constituted a six member high powered task force headed by Nandan Nilekani to recommend steps to secure India’s examination system, as the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 is set to be introduced in Parliament.

      Key Highlights

      • The task force is headed by Nandan Nilekani and includes S. Somanath, Tapan Deka, V. Kamakoti, Anita Karwal, and Amrit Lal Meena.
      • It has been tasked with recommending measures to make the public examination system leak proof, transparent, secure, and technology driven.
      • The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 is scheduled to be introduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
      • The proposed reforms seek to strengthen exam security, digital monitoring, accountability, and integrity in recruitment and entrance examinations.
      • Pralhad Joshi has assumed additional charge as Union Education Minister following the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.

      Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024

      • Enacted to prevent unfair practices such as paper leaks, impersonation, and organised cheating in public examinations.
      • Covers examinations conducted by bodies such as: UPSC, SSC, RRBs, NTA, IBPS, and Other notified central recruitment agencies
      • Prescribes:
        • Imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh for individuals involved in unfair means.
        • Imprisonment of 5 to 10 years and a fine of at least ₹1 crore for organised paper leak syndicates.
      • Offences are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.

      [2024, GS2, 15 marks] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

      [2018] Consider the following statements:

      1. As per the right to education (RTE) Act, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a state, a person would be required to possess the minimum qualification laid down by the concerned State council of Teacher education.
      2. As per the RTE Act, for teaching primary classes, a candidate is required to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education guidelines
      3. In India, more than 90 % of teacher education institutions are directly under the State Governments.

      Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

      [A] 1 and 2

      [B] 2 only

      [C] 1 and 3

      [D] 3 only

    2. If amendment bill to the Whistleblowers Act, 2011 tabled in the Parliament is passed, there may be no one left to protect. Critically evaluate.

    3. In the light of the Satyam Scandal (2009), discuss the changes brought in corporate governance to ensure transparency, accountability.

    4. In the integrity index of Transparency International, India stands very low. Discuss briefly the legal, political, economic, social and cultural factors that have caused the decline of public morality in India.

    5. Effectiveness of the government system at various levels and people’s participation in the governance system are inter-dependent. Discuss their relationship with each other in context of India.

    6. “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

      The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a cornerstone of transparent and accountable governance in India. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced changes to the service conditions of the CIC and ICs.

      Amendments to the RTI Act, 2019

      The tenure of the CIC and ICs (earlier fixed at 5 years) is now to be determined by the Central Government.

      The salaries, allowances, and other service conditions of CICs and ICs are also subject to executive notification, replacing the earlier parity with Election Commissioners.

      The status and equivalence of the CIC and ICs with constitutional authorities like the Election Commission have been removed.

      Impact on Autonomy and Independence

      Executive Control Over Tenure, undermines security of office and increasing executive dependence.

      The original status equal to the Election Commission is withdrawn, reducing the Commission’s symbolic and functional autonomy.

      Threat to Federal Autonomy- Centre’s control over State Information Commissions’ service conditions.

      Chilling Effect on Decision-Making- Fear of punitive transfers or reduced tenure can deter bold and impartial rulings against powerful authorities.

      Perceived loss of independence can erode citizens’ confidence in the Commission as a neutral watchdog.

      Compromised autonomy weakens enforcement of the right to information, curbing transparency and accountability.

      Other issues (Satark Nagrik Sangathan Report)

      7 out of 29 Information Commissions were completely defunct between July 2023 and June 2024

      In 2024, 9 Commissions were functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner

      Rising Backlogs- Over 4 lakh appeals and complaints pending

      High Rejection Rate- The CIC returned 42% of appeals/complaints received

      Since 2005, only 9% of all Information Commissioners have been women

      Way Forward

      Establish a National Coordination Committee (NCC) to monitor RTI implementation and ensure uniformity across states.

      Fill vacancies in Information Commissions promptly to prevent delays and backlogs.

      Engage information management experts for proper classification, cataloguing, and storage of records.

      Introduce a separate legal chapter to protect RTI applicants and activists from harassment and retaliation.

      Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Thus, the autonomy of the Information Commissions must be safeguarded to strengthen Right to Information under Article 19.