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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

  • This is not the end. They will be back

    Why in the News

    Students wound down a 36-day protest at Jantar Mantar a month after their attempted march on Parliament. The state conceded the movement’s central demand within days of a crackdown that left over 100 injured, which separates the state’s capacity to repress from its capacity to prevail.

    What is the Cockroach movement?

    1. About: A student movement that held a 36-day protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and attempted a march on Parliament, built around demands on examination integrity and employment.
    2. Origin of the name: The movement took its name from an insult directed at its participants, which landed because it confirmed a generational suspicion that the system discounts merit in favour of proximity to power and capital.
    3. Structure: It is a distributed structure of social-media accounts, campus unions and Left student federations moving in loose, non-hierarchical coordination.
    4. Founder and allies: Its founder is a young man skilled at communications rather than a moral authority, and its closest unifying figure, Sonam Wangchuk, was an ally who lent his hunger strike to a cause he did not create.

    How does its structure differ from earlier Indian mass movements?

    1. The older template: Every major mass movement in India over the last century organised itself around a moral authority, with Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan and Anna Hazare as the reference points.
    2. The inversion: The Cockroach movement inverted that template, since its organisational logic makes a singular leader almost unnecessary for mobilisation.
    3. Where a leader may still be needed: A single figure may eventually become necessary for consolidation, which is a different task from mobilisation.
    4. Resilience without a leader: The movement functions less as a single episode than as a recurring condition that has found a name and a shared vocabulary, which gives it a resilience no single leader could provide.

    What does a leaderless structure gain and what does it cost?

    1. The gain: A leaderless structure is hard for the state to decapitate, since there is no single node whose removal stops the movement.
    2. The three costs: Coalitions without a centre struggle to negotiate coherently, to discipline internal tactical disagreement, and to convert a moment of mobilisation into an institution.
    3. The precedent: India Against Corruption never built that institutional layer, unlike the Aam Aadmi Party it produced. The movement dissolved and the party it created persisted.
    4. The open question: Whether anyone is building an equivalent institutional layer beneath the surface of the Cockroach movement is the most important unresolved question about it.
    5. The untested capacity: Sustaining coherence and pressure over years is a capacity the movement has not yet had occasion to demonstrate.

    Why did coercive dominance not deliver the outcome it promised?

    1. The asymmetry of resources: The state fields cadre strength, a police and paramilitary apparatus, and financial resources that no youth movement funded by small donations can match.
    2. The crackdown: When protestors tried to march on Parliament, the police response left over 100 injured and dozens arrested, with the record showing violence running in one direction only.
    3. The concession: Within days of the crackdown, the government conceded the central demand.
    4. The distinction that follows: The episode separates the state’s capacity to repress from its capacity to prevail, and disproves any account in which coercive machinery automatically wins.
    5. The exposure of the machinery: The students left behind a dazed government, a confused leadership and a police machinery exposed as brutal and lacking the sensitivity the moment required.

    Why was the medical entrance examination leak a trigger rather than a cause?

    1. The distinction: The leak of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), the single national entrance examination for undergraduate medical admission, is a scandal rather than a structural condition. Only a movement fuelled by a structural condition survives the resolution of the immediate grievance.
    2. The labour market: Underneath the leak sits a labour market that cannot absorb the graduates it produces.
    3. The examination system: The examination and recruitment system is widely perceived as corruptible, which is a standing condition rather than a single episode.
    4. The rural crisis: A rural unemployment crisis draws less media attention than its urban counterpart and is arguably deeper and more intractable.
    5. What the insult confirmed: The name given to the movement stuck because it matched what a generation already believed about how selection actually works.

    What separates a low-cost concession from a structural demand?

    1. The cheap concession: A single resignation is a low-cost concession, which is why the government conceded it quickly.
    2. The expensive demands: Systemic examination reform, large-scale job creation and accountability for the crackdown are much harder fiscally and politically.
    3. The durability test: Extracting one concession through a low-cost demand is a different task from sustaining pressure on a structural condition with no single remediable trigger.
    4. What the movement has proved: The movement has already outperformed what its lack of centralised leadership would predict.
    5. What remains unproved: Whether a leaderless coalition can maintain coherence and pressure over years is the test the movement has not yet faced.

    Challenges to Sustaining the Movement

    1. Negotiating without a centre: A distributed coalition cannot make binding commitments across the table, since no faction can deliver the others. Eg. India Against Corruption fragmented once talks moved from street demands to draft legislation, with its constituent groups splitting over the text of the Lokpal Bill.
    2. Conversion into an institution: Movements that do not build an organisational layer dissolve when the immediate demand is met. Eg. The Aam Aadmi Party survived the collapse of India Against Corruption because it built an electoral machine, and the parent movement did not.
    3. State response confined to force: The government has shown no evident plan beyond force, and a ham-handed approach paired with the hope that pressure deters the youth is likely to misfire. Eg. Appointing a committee whose composition is unpalatable to the protestors solves nothing and hardens positions.
    4. Funding asymmetry: A movement funded by small donations cannot sustain legal defence, medical costs and logistics against a prolonged state response. Eg. Dozens arrested after the Parliament march face criminal proceedings that will run for years.
    5. Attention decay: A structural condition without a fresh scandal loses media attention, and rural distress attracts less coverage than its urban counterpart. Eg. Rural unemployment runs deeper than urban graduate unemployment and receives far less national coverage.
    6. Substituting identity for mobility: Where the economic route to status narrows, religion, nationalism, caste and online tribes supply the standing a salary does not, which fractures a common economic demand. Eg. Youth mobilisation in India has repeatedly shifted from employment demands to identity assertion within the same cohort.

    Conclusion

    The movement’s durability rests not on its leaderlessness but on whether a distributed coalition can convert a structural grievance into sustained institutional pressure. The state conceded a single resignation quickly and left the labour market, the examination system and rural unemployment untouched. What is needed on the government’s side is a return to the drawing board rather than force paired with a committee the protestors reject. The alternative is a long confrontation with a generation the state has not learned how to answer.

    “[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?”

  • NTA’s Big Reset: Air-Gapped & Tamper-Resistant

    Why in the News

    A day after the Education Ministry announced an overhaul of the examination system at the National Testing Agency (NTA), a senior agency official set out its operating design: shorter engagement periods for subject experts, information withheld even inside official circles, and question paper work confined to air gapped systems. The design treats paper leakage as an insider access problem rather than a detection problem.

    What does the four tier examination security system involve?

    1. Two distinct levels: The four tier system is operationalised at two levels, the first at the stage of setting question papers and the second at the stage of physical security during the process.
    2. Level one, separation of paper setting functions: Separate sets of people are involved with each key function, namely item writers and those moderating, translating and vetting the items, so no single group sees the paper end to end.
    3. Level two, layered physical screening: Persons coming to the centres are physically frisked, their credentials are established, their electronic devices are verified, and they work only on air gapped systems.
    4. Already field tested: The new system was tested in the recent Council of Scientific and Industrial Research examination and the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) re examination, and is being institutionalised now.

    What is an air gapped system?

    1. Definition: An air gapped system is a computer or system completely isolated from unsecured external networks, including the public internet, so data cannot move in or out over a network connection. Isolation means any transfer requires physical access, which is what the frisking and device verification layers are designed to control.

    Why is the National Testing Agency shortening the engagement of subject experts?

    1. The stated reason: A senior agency official said engagement time is being curtailed because the mafia tries to make these people compromised if they are there for a longer duration.
    2. The threat characterised: The official described what the agency faces as a big mafia, framing leakage as organised rather than opportunistic.
    3. Scale of the churn: The Director General had announced the removal of 600 experts and the onboarding of new ones.
    4. The logic of rotation: A shorter tenure limits the window in which an expert can be identified, approached and cultivated by an organised network.

    Why is information being staggered even inside official circles?

    1. Partial disclosure by design: The agency and the Education Ministry are leaning towards a system where full information is not divulged even within official circles.
    2. The operating rule: Plans are confidential and divulged to people only in parts, on a need to know basis, so that no individual holds the complete process map.
    3. The stated intent: The official said the agency is not disclosing everything and is not opening all its cards, including to people within the system.

    How is physical security being tightened around the examination process?

    1. Frisking at entry: Persons coming to the centres are physically frisked before entry.
    2. Credential verification: Credentials of those entering are established rather than assumed from a pass or list.
    3. Device control: Electronic devices carried by such persons are verified.
    4. Isolated computing: Work is confined to air gapped systems, cutting the network route out of the secure area.
    5. Dedicated security force: Premises are being secured by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which specialises in frisking.

    What did the Parliamentary Standing Committee find about the agency’s record?

    1. The report: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports flagged the agency’s problems in its 371st Report, 2025, submitted to Parliament.
    2. The 2024 record: Of the 14 competitive examinations conducted by the NTA in 2024, at least five faced major issues.
    3. Postponements: Three examinations, namely the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research National Eligibility Test (CSIR-NET) and the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG), had to be postponed.
    4. Leak and result failure: One examination, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG), saw instances of paper leaks, and one, the Common University Entrance Test for undergraduate and postgraduate admission, saw its results postponed.
    5. Question setting errors: In the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main held in January 2025, at least 12 questions had to be withdrawn due to errors noted in the final answer key.
    6. The Committee’s conclusion: Such instances do not inspire the confidence of examinees in the system, and the NTA needs to quickly get its act together so that they do not recur.

    Challenges to the four tier security overhaul

    1. Expert churn trades security for quality: Replacing subject experts frequently reduces the accumulated experience of the item writing pool, which is itself a source of error. e.g. 12 questions withdrawn from JEE Main January 2025 over answer key errors, a failure of question quality rather than of security.
    2. Air gapping does not cover the human carrier: Network isolation stops remote exfiltration but not a person who memorises or physically removes content. e.g. the government’s own submission before the Supreme Court that the system is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.
    3. Need to know secrecy weakens internal audit: Compartmentalised plans that even officials do not see in full make independent internal verification of the process harder. e.g. no single officer being able to certify end to end compliance when each holds only a fragment of the plan.
    4. Outsourced links remain the weak node: Printing, transport and centre operations run through contractors outside the agency’s direct control. e.g. arrests following the NEET-UG leak extended beyond the agency’s own staff.
    5. Frisking capacity does not scale to all centres: Deploying a specialised central force is feasible at paper setting and storage nodes but not at thousands of examination centres. e.g. NEET-UG is conducted for over 23 lakh candidates across the country on a single day.
    6. Tested at small scale, deployed at large scale: The system was validated on the CSIR examination and a re examination, both far smaller than a full national cycle. e.g. a re examination involves a fraction of the centres, invigilators and logistics of a first attempt NEET-UG.

    Conclusion

    The overhaul reorganises examination security around compartmentalisation: shorter expert tenures, split paper setting functions, partial information even internally, and isolated computing behind physical screening. It has been tested on the CSIR examination and the NEET re examination and is now being institutionalised across the agency’s calendar. The Parliamentary Standing Committee’s finding that five of 14 examinations in 2024 failed sets the benchmark this design has to beat. The unresolved element is the human intervention the government itself concedes remains in the chain.

    About the National Testing Agency

    1. Mandate: The NTA is an autonomous testing organisation set up in 2017 under the Ministry of Education to conduct entrance examinations for higher education institutions, and it became operational in 2018.
    2. Legal form: It is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is headed by a Director General.
    3. Examination portfolio: It conducts NEET-UG, JEE Main, UGC-NET, CSIR-NET, the Common University Entrance Test, the Common Management Admission Test and the Graduate Pharmacy Aptitude Test, among others.
    4. Delivery mode: Its examinations run in both pen and paper and computer based modes, across thousands of centres and multiple sessions.
    5. Scale: Its examinations together cover crores of candidates a year, with NEET-UG alone drawing over 23 lakh candidates in 2026.

    Laws and Rules Governing Examination Security

    1. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024: Criminalises leakage of question papers and answer keys, unauthorised access, tampering with computer networks and the conduct of fake examinations, with imprisonment of three to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees for individuals.
    2. Service provider liability: A fine up to one crore rupees and debarment from conducting public examinations for four years.
    3. Organised crime: Imprisonment of five to ten years and a fine of not less than one crore rupees, with all offences cognizable, non bailable and non compoundable.
    4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Supplies the general offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery used alongside the special law.
    5. Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968: The statute under which the force securing examination premises is constituted and deployed.
    6. State anti cheating laws: State statutes such as the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 govern state recruitment and board examinations, which the central Act does not automatically cover.

    “[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?”

  • Supreme Court asks Centre to institutionalise National Testing Agency reforms, cites the Union Public Service Commission as the model

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to file an affidavit within three weeks setting out what it has done to implement the recommendations of the expert committee headed by a former Chairperson of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Bench held that reforms must be institutionalised and carried forward by successive officers rather than restarted with each new committee after each failure.

    What is the National Testing Agency (NTA)?

    1. Status: The National Testing Agency (NTA) is an autonomous testing organisation set up in 2017 under the Ministry of Education and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to conduct entrance examinations for higher education institutions.
    2. Examinations conducted: It conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG), the Joint Entrance Examination Main, the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test, and the Common University Entrance Test, among others.
    3. Why it is before the Court: The agency has been under the Supreme Court’s scanner since the NEET-UG 2026 paper leaks, with petitioners describing the failure as recurring and systemic rather than isolated.

    What is a sovereign database?

    1. Meaning: A sovereign database is one whose servers, storage and control remain within the jurisdiction and ownership of the sovereign authority, rather than on infrastructure owned or operated by a third party or located abroad. The Bench asked whether the NTA has one and where question papers are stored.

    Why did the National Testing Agency come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    1. The trigger event: The 2026 NEET-UG question paper leaks led to cancellation of the examination and left over 23 lakh medical college aspirants stranded.
    2. Criminal process: A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe was ordered into the leaks and arrests were made.
    3. Political consequence: The leaks led to nationwide protests and a police crackdown on students, and ultimately to the resignation of the then Union Education Minister.
    4. The petitioners’ framing: The Court was hearing petitions by the Federation of All India Medical Association and the United Doctors Front, which characterised the 2026 leak as part of a recurring, systemic and catastrophic failure of the NTA in conducting NEET-UG.

    Why does the Court treat committee hopping as the problem rather than the solution?

    1. The Bench’s central objection: The Court held that it should not be that a committee gives recommendations and a new committee is then formed which removes the old one lock, stock and barrel.
    2. The specific sequence at issue: A seven member committee formed in 2024 under a former ISRO Chairperson recommended structural reforms in the NEET system, and the Centre has since constituted a task force under an Infosys co founder for new technological reforms.
    3. The Court’s fix, not replacement but review: The new task force must review the earlier committee’s recommendations and improve on them where necessary, and the earlier committee’s chairperson could be made part of the new body.
    4. The pattern is older than these two: The Bench pointed out that there were two more committees before the 2024 committee, and that recommendations must not remain on paper but must translate into action.
    5. The Solicitor General’s position: The Union government agreed on the need for a permanent mechanism to introduce reforms and maintain their continuity, and stated that it had already accepted the 2024 committee’s recommendations.

    What does the Court mean by institutional memory in an examination body?

    1. The failure mode named: A set of reforms implemented for one examination is undone in the next when senior NTA officers are shifted out, so continuity depends on individuals rather than on the institution.
    2. The standard set: Reforms must be vibrant, institutionalised and carried on within the NTA by successive officers, and must flow down from one generation of officers to the next.
    3. The comparator used: The Court cited the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which has conducted examination after examination without a hitch because it holds institutional memory and institutional expertise.
    4. What the earlier committee already said: The 2024 committee had itself focused on ways to build institutional memory and had identified the problem as systemic rather than logistical.

    What specific institutional gaps did the Bench probe?

    1. Technology capability: The Bench asked how the agency was facing new technological challenges, and whether the necessary infrastructure and software systems were in place.
    2. Data security and storage: It asked about cybersecurity and storage, whether the NTA has a sovereign database, and where question papers are stored.
    3. Physical premises: It asked where the agency’s office is situated and pressed on the need to secure office premises and operational infrastructure.
    4. Manpower: It asked how many officers the body has, how much staff is available, whether the various director and joint director positions had been filled, and how many had taken charge.
    5. Candidate facing systems: It stressed training and preparing personnel for the long term, candidate friendly arrangements and a grievance mechanism, and the strengthening of physical and intellectual capacity.
    6. The government’s response on hiring: The Solicitor General said hiring for scaling up digital infrastructure was under way and that the chief technology officer and chief financial officer had already been selected.

    What has the Centre placed on record?

    1. Earlier affidavit: The Court referred to an affidavit of 4 August filed by the Union government listing several senior appointments to be made to the NTA.
    2. Fresh affidavit directed: The Secretary must file an affidavit within three weeks, containing all details and indicative timelines, on steps taken to implement the 2024 committee’s suggestions as reflected and nuanced by the new task force.
    3. Measures claimed: The Centre’s affidavit described the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and the constitution of the new task force as landmark measures against future paper leaks.
    4. Mandate of the new task force: It has been constituted to recommend end to end reforms focused on leveraging advanced technology such as artificial intelligence and blockchain to strengthen examination security and integrity.
    5. Limits on redesigning NEET-UG: Any structural change in the design of NEET-UG would be undertaken only in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Union Health Ministry and the National Medical Commission.
    6. Assurance to candidates: The Union government committed to giving candidates adequate advance notice of any change in the mode or design of the examination.
    7. The residual admission: The Solicitor General submitted that the system in place is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.

    Challenges to institutionalising reform in the National Testing Agency

    1. Officer rotation defeats continuity: Reforms owned by a posting rather than a post are reversed on transfer, which is precisely the failure the Court described. e.g. reforms implemented for one examination cycle being undone in the next after senior NTA officers were shifted out.
    2. No statutory foundation: The NTA is a registered society rather than a body created by statute, so its powers, tenure protections and accountability are weaker than those of a constitutional or statutory examination body. e.g. the UPSC derives its independence from Article 315 of the Constitution, which the NTA has no equivalent of.
    3. Recommendations without an implementation tracker: Successive committees have produced reports with no published mechanism to show which recommendation was executed and when. e.g. the Court had to direct an affidavit with indicative timelines three weeks out simply to learn the status of the 2024 committee’s recommendations.
    4. The human link in an otherwise sealed chain: Security design can cover technology and logistics but not the conduct of every person with access. e.g. the Solicitor General’s own submission that the system is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.
    5. Vendor and outsourcing dependence: Question paper printing, transport and centre operations run through private contractors whose staff sit outside the agency’s disciplinary reach. e.g. arrests following the NEET-UG leak extended beyond the agency’s own personnel.
    6. State level examinations remain outside the frame: The Court’s directions bind the NTA, and state recruitment and board examinations run on separate legal and administrative regimes. e.g. the Jharkhand government’s cancellation of 22 recruitment examinations over alleged irregularities in the same week.

    Conclusion

    The Court has shifted the remedy from constituting committees to building an institution, holding that reforms must survive the officers who introduced them. The immediate stage is a directed affidavit from the Secretary within three weeks, setting out implementation of the 2024 committee’s recommendations as nuanced by the new task force, with indicative timelines. Whether the NTA acquires a sovereign database, filled senior posts, secured premises and a grievance mechanism is the test the Court has set. Committee count is not the measure of reform; institutional memory is.

    [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?”

  • PM CARES corpus hits all-time high as utilisation collapses to Rs 87.85 lakh

    Why in the News

    Audited statements of the PM CARES Fund for 2023-24 and 2024-25, both published only on 17 August 2026 after a two year delay, show the closing balance at an all time high of Rs 8,452.06 crore while spending fell to a five year low of Rs 87.85 lakh. A fund created to disburse relief in emergencies is now accumulating faster through interest than it is spending, which raises the question of what a relief fund is for when it does not disburse.

    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Full name: The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund, created on 27 March 2020, days after the national lockdown was imposed.
    2. Legal form: A public charitable trust registered under the Registration Act, 1908, rather than a statutory or constitutional fund.
    3. Composition of the trust: The Prime Minister is the ex officio chairman, and the Defence Minister, Home Minister and Finance Minister are ex officio trustees.
    4. Sources of money: Voluntary domestic donations, foreign contributions, interest earned on bank balances and fixed deposits, and refunds returned by implementing agencies.
    5. Position on transparency: The Fund is not treated as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and does not accept audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, being audited instead by an independent chartered accountant.

    What is a public charitable trust?

    1. What it is: A public charitable trust is a private legal arrangement in which trustees hold property for a charitable purpose benefiting an indeterminate section of the public, created by a trust deed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908.
    2. Consequence of the form: It is not created by statute and does not draw on the Consolidated Fund, so parliamentary appropriation control and constitutional audit do not attach to it automatically.

    What is a refund from an implementing agency?

    1. What it is: A refund from an implementing agency is money previously released to an executing body for a sanctioned purpose and returned unspent or unutilised to the fund.
    2. Why it matters here: A refund inflates receipts without any relief being delivered, so a year with high refunds and low disbursement records activity that produced no outcome.

    What do the 2024-25 audited statements show?

    1. Total contributions: Contributions fell to Rs 479.96 crore, comprising Rs 479.04 crore domestic and about Rs 92 lakh foreign, down about 30 percent over the previous year.
    2. Interest income: The Fund received Rs 475.14 crore as interest, of which Rs 469.37 crore came from fixed deposits and Rs 5.76 crore from regular accounts.
    3. Other receipts: About Rs 13.49 lakh was received as refund of tax deducted at source on fixed deposit interest, and Rs 324.65 crore came back as refund from implementing agencies.
    4. Total income: Total income grew to Rs 1,279.9 crore, up 41 percent over the previous year.
    5. Total spending: Total spending fell to Rs 87.85 lakh, comprising Rs 87.84 lakh on the PM CARES for Children Scheme and Rs 451 in bank and short message service charges.
    6. Utilisation ratio: The Fund spent 0.01 percent of its closing balance, and between March 2020 and 31 March 2025 it spent less than one fifth, or 18.1 percent, of its total income.
    7. Closing balance: The closing balance touched an all time high of Rs 8,452.06 crore, 17.83 percent above the previous year’s Rs 7,173.03 crore.
    8. Two year corpus growth: The corpus grew 25.8 percent between 2022-23 and 2024-25, from about Rs 6,722 crore to about Rs 8,453 crore.

    Why has the corpus grown while spending collapsed?

    1. Interest now rivals donations: In 2024-25 interest income of Rs 475 crore was almost the same as donations of Rs 480 crore, so the Fund grows without any fresh public contribution.
    2. The instrument shift: The corpus was moved from savings bank accounts to fixed deposits in 2023-24, which is the immediate reason for the jump in interest earnings.
    3. Refunds outweigh disbursement: In 2024-25, Rs 324.65 crore came back from implementing agencies while only Rs 0.87 crore went out, so money returning exceeded money spent by a factor of over three hundred.
    4. Inflow consistently exceeds outflow: Since 2022-23 the money flowing in through donations and interest has far exceeded the money disbursed in every single year.
    5. Spending narrowed to one scheme: Almost the entire 2024-25 outgo went to the PM CARES for Children Scheme, so the Fund has effectively ceased to operate as a general emergency relief instrument.

    Why does a record corpus in a relief fund raise a governance question rather than settle one?

    1. Both readings are defensible: A large unspent corpus can be read as prudent reserve building for a future emergency, or as money raised on an emergency appeal and then withheld from that emergency.
    2. The appeal was purpose specific: Donations were solicited during a public health emergency, so accumulation departs from the stated purpose on which consent to donate was given.
    3. Scale of the mismatch: Utilisation of 0.01 percent of an available Rs 8,452 crore cannot be explained by a shortage of relief needs during a period of recurring floods, cyclones and heat emergencies.
    4. Refunds without explanation: Neither the identity of the implementing agencies, nor the nature of the payments, nor the reasons for the Rs 324 crore of refunds has been disclosed, so it is not known whether refunds followed faulty procurement.
    5. The oversight gap widens with the corpus: The larger the accumulation, the weaker the case for keeping the Fund outside both the Right to Information Act and constitutional audit.
    6. No competing claim is resolved: A public charitable trust is legally entitled to build a corpus, and the objection is not to legality but to the absence of any published disbursement policy that would justify the accumulation.

    What transparency questions remain unanswered?

    1. Sources of funds: No information is available on who the donors are, including donors of the foreign contributions the Fund has received.
    2. Identity of implementing agencies: The agencies that received and refunded money have not been named.
    3. Purpose of refunded allocations: The purpose for which the refunded money was originally allotted has not been disclosed, leaving open whether refunds followed faulty equipment supply.
    4. Missing audit annexures: The explanatory notes accompanying the audit report were not uploaded alongside the statements.
    5. Delay in publication: Statements for 2023-24 and 2024-25 were both released only on 17 August 2026, after a failure to upload annual disclosures since 2022-23, a lapse publicly flagged on 8 August 2026.
    6. Pattern of delay: The publication dates run 19 August 2020 for 2019-20, 8 February 2022 for 2020-21, 1 November 2022 for 2021-22, 28 December 2024 for 2022-23, and 17 August 2026 for the last two years together, computed from the Internet Archive and the Fund portal’s own metadata.
    7. Auditor change: The prolonged delay in releasing statements coincided with the Centre changing the Fund’s auditors.
    8. Statutory position: The Fund continues to refuse to submit itself to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

    Challenges to the PM CARES Fund

    1. Contested public authority status: The Fund’s exclusion from the Right to Information Act, 2005 rests on it being a trust rather than a body owned or controlled by government, a characterisation litigated repeatedly, e.g. the Delhi High Court has heard a series of petitions since 2020 seeking a declaration that the Fund is a public authority.
    2. Absence of constitutional audit: Money raised in the name of the highest offices of the State is audited by a private chartered accountant rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General, e.g. the National Disaster Response Fund, its statutory counterpart, is audited by the CAG under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
    3. Donor disclosure gap: Neither domestic nor foreign donors are identified, so contributions from entities regulated by the same government cannot be scrutinised for conflict of interest, e.g. central public sector undertakings routed corporate social responsibility funds to the trust in 2020-21.
    4. Corporate social responsibility diversion: Recognition of contributions as qualifying corporate social responsibility spending channels statutory corporate obligations into an unaudited pool, e.g. the Ministry of Corporate Affairs clarified in March 2020 that PM CARES contributions count under Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013.
    5. Duplication with existing funds: The Fund overlaps the pre existing Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and the statutory National Disaster Response Fund without a stated division of purpose, e.g. both the older relief fund and PM CARES made COVID-19 disbursements in the same period.
    6. Idle corpus with no disbursement policy: No published criteria govern when and to whom money is released, so a record balance can coexist with unmet relief demand, e.g. Rs 8,452 crore stood unspent while only Rs 87.85 lakh was disbursed in 2024-25.
    7. Refund opacity as an accountability risk: Large refunds from unnamed agencies can conceal procurement failure rather than reflect prudent recovery, e.g. Rs 324.65 crore was refunded in 2024-25 with no explanation of the original allotment.
    8. Delayed disclosure defeats scrutiny: Financial statements published two years late are of limited use to Parliament or the public, e.g. 2023-24 and 2024-25 accounts were both released on the same day in August 2026.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund now grows chiefly on interest from fixed deposits and on money returned by unnamed implementing agencies, while its actual relief spending has fallen to Rs 87.85 lakh against a corpus of Rs 8,452.06 crore. The accumulation is legally permissible for a public charitable trust and remains unexplained as public policy, because no disbursement criteria and no donor or agency disclosure accompany it. The gap will only close when the Fund is placed within either the Right to Information Act or constitutional audit, and until then each annual statement will restate the same unanswered questions.

  • NTA’s Big Reset: Four-Level Scrutiny, 600 Experts Removed

    Why in the News

    The NTA is overhauling its examination system after the NEET-UG paper leak and UGC-NET errors. Measures include removing 600 experts, introducing a four-tier paper-checking system, strengthening CISF security, and redesigning confidential operations.

    What is NTA?

    • Established: 2017 by the Ministry of Education as an autonomous testing agency.
    • Purpose: Conduct transparent and standardised entrance and eligibility examinations.
    • Major exams: NEET-UG, JEE Main, UGC-NET, CUET, CMAT and CSIR-UGC NET.
    • Governance: Director General + Governing Body chaired by an eminent educationist.

    Confidential Operations (CONOPS)

    • Covers question setting, translation, moderation, printing, storage, transport and distribution.
    • Reforms include secluded rooms, air-gapped systems and device deposit protocols.
    • Air-Gapped System: A computer/network physically isolated from external networks, reducing the risk of remote data theft.

    What is UGC-NET?

    • Conducted by NTA to determine eligibility for Assistant Professor and Junior Research Fellowship (JRF).
    • Conducted twice a year across multiple subjects.

    Key Reforms

    • 600 experts removed and new experts inducted.
    • Four-tier question paper verification.
    • New secured premises with CISF protection.
    • Audit of examination processes.
    • Complete redesign of confidential operations.

    Major Challenges

    • Long confidentiality chain: Multiple actors increase leak risks.
    • Outsourced infrastructure: Dependence on private examination centres.
    • Limited permanent staff: Heavy reliance on deputationists and contractual experts.
    • Question quality: Factual, translation and typographical errors.
    • Multilingual risks: Multiple language versions increase error points.
    • Weak investigation: Lack of standardised investigation and forensic procedures.
    • No independent appellate mechanism: Disputes often reach courts.
    • Candidate burden: Cancellations impose significant time and financial costs.

  • 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