💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

  • On caste census & NPAs, same reluctance to make privilege publicly visible

    Why in the News

    A reported miscommunication between the office of the Registrar General of India (RGI), which conducts the Census, and the Ministry of Social Justice, which maintains the lists of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes, has established that the Ministry had in fact offered to supply those lists to the RGI. That matters because the stated ground for putting an “open-ended” caste question into the Census, in place of drop-down lists with an “Others” option for unlisted names, was that caste lists were not available. The sequence runs further back. The Union government reversed its position on counting caste before the 2024 general election, then postponed the Census well beyond its due cycle, with the pending delimitation exercise the operative reason. The same state that refuses to publish a caste tabulation also refuses to name the borrowers whose large loans public sector banks have written off. What is contested is therefore not the feasibility of either count, but whether the state will make privilege publicly visible at all.

    What is the open ended caste question?

    1. The design at issue: An open-ended question records whatever caste name a respondent states, as free text, with no list offered on the schedule.
    2. The alternative it displaced: A drop-down list offers the notified caste names for that State, with an “Others” field capturing any name the list does not carry.
    3. Why the two diverge at tabulation: Free text returns have to be matched to notified caste names after enumeration, and a name that matches no entry cannot be counted against any category.

    What does the reported miscommunication establish?

    1. The stated excuse does not hold: The ground given for the open-ended question was the unavailability of caste lists, and the Ministry of Social Justice had offered the Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Class lists to the RGI.
    2. The delay had a separate driver: The Census was postponed beyond reasonable limits, with the impending delimitation exercise the reason.
    3. The obstruction is not new, only more open: Governments have avoided, prevented or diluted a caste count across administrations, the Congress in 2011 and the Bharatiya Janata Party now.
    4. Opposition has been continuous since 2001: Every proposal to count caste since the 2001 Census has attracted immediate and insistent opposition.

    Who opposes a caste count, and on what interest?

    1. Anti-reservation organisations: Youth for Equality, which opposes reservation, was the primary petitioner against the Bihar caste survey, and the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Mahasabha petitioned against a similar survey in Karnataka.
    2. Dominant caste beneficiaries of reservation: The Akhila Bharata Veerashaiva Lingayat Mahasabha and the Rajya Vokkaliga Sangha petitioned the Karnataka High Court to stay the 2025 caste survey, on the apprehension that a count would reduce their existing share.
    3. The legal arguments were recycled: Petitioners in Bihar and Karnataka invoked grounds already rejected by the Supreme Court or superseded by constitutional amendments, including the 105th Amendment.
    4. The elite response is about status, not quota share: For those in the so-called General Category who occupy the highest positions, being asked their caste is treated as implicating them in something connected to reservation, which is why some technology proprietors, film actors and other prominent individuals dissociated themselves from these surveys.
    5. A partial softening after 2019: Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections, introduced in 2019 and in effect available to the upper castes, softened attitudes to a degree, and beneficiaries of reservation have long attracted resentment from the General Category.

    Why is a caste count conceded in principle and blocked in design?

    1. The electoral bind: An elected government must accommodate the rich and the powerful, and must also seek votes from the mass of people who are neither, so it concedes the principle of a caste count and then designs the count so that it does not produce one.
    2. The debate assumes one kind of benefit: Most participants treat a caste census as being about reservation, so opposition to reservation converts directly into opposition to counting caste.
    3. The spectrum of positions is therefore truncated: A frame built only around reservation leaves out the array of benefits the state confers on those who count but are never counted.

    What does the refusal to name written off defaulters show?

    1. Disclosure was judicially authorised: Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015) held that information on wilful defaulters owing large sums to public sector banks is liable to be released under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
    2. Banks and the regulator have not complied on write-offs: Both the banks and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) have refused to provide details on loans written off.
    3. The 2024 Directions stop short of write-offs: The RBI’s Wilful Defaulters and Large Defaulters Directions, issued in 2024, require individual banks to list on their websites the instances of default where suits have been filed.
    4. Only aggregates are released: No information beyond aggregate amounts is provided on loans written off. Right to Information applicants have asked for those details repeatedly.
    5. The most recent refusal: Bank of Baroda declined to name the defaulters on loans totalling Rs 35,715 crore, written off between 2020-21 and 2025-26, on which average recovery was 28 per cent.

    What links a caste tabulation to a defaulters’ list?

    1. The same state behaves differently on these two datasets: An administration that collects personal data extensively is reluctant to collect or release data in both these instances.
    2. The common root is visibility of privilege: The reluctance stems from an unwillingness to make privilege publicly visible, so the case against the caste census rests on an aversion to counting the privileged and to putting inequality on record.
    3. Neither dataset would reveal anything new: Neither a caste tabulation nor a defaulters’ list would disclose anything about the privileged that is not already known in a general way.
    4. What is being defended is a claim, not a secret: An official and public count or list is resisted because it breaches an implicit right of the privileged to control their own social visibility.

    Challenges to counting caste in the Census

    1. Stated caste names do not map to a fixed list: A respondent’s own term can be a synonym, a sub caste or a spelling variant that matches no entry in any notified list. Eg. The Socio Economic and Caste Census of 2011 threw up roughly 46 lakh distinct caste and sub caste returns.
      The Fix: Publish the enumeration schedule with State specific drop-down lists mapped to a standard code, retaining a free text field for returns outside the list.
    2. There is no single national list to count against: Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Class lists are notified State by State, so one caste can be listed in one State and absent in the next. Eg. The Jat community sits in the central list of Other Backward Classes for some States and not for others.
      The Fix: Publish a concordance mapping every State list entry to a central code before enumeration begins, so a return is classifiable at the point of entry.
    3. Enumeration records a declaration, not an entitlement: The count captures what a household states, with no check against a caste certificate. Eg. Bihar’s caste survey of 2022-23 recorded caste on the respondent’s own declaration.
      The Fix: Record the stated caste name and the existence of a certificate as separate fields, so the two are tabulated apart rather than conflated.
    4. The count’s timetable carries a seat allocation stake: The Census schedule determines when readjustment of constituencies can begin, which gives the timing an interest independent of enumeration. Eg. The freeze on readjustment of Lok Sabha seats under the Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 runs until the first Census taken after 2026.
      The Fix: Separate publication of the caste tabulation from the readjustment exercise, so the count’s release does not wait on a seat allocation decision.
    5. Collecting a return does not commit the state to publishing it: Enumeration and publication are distinct decisions, and the second can be withheld indefinitely. Eg. The caste data of the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census was referred to an expert group and never released.
      The Fix: Release the caste tables on the same notified schedule as the Census’s other tables, so publication is not a separate discretionary step.

    Conclusion

    Two disclosure questions now sit with the executive at the same time. One is whether the Census schedule will carry notified caste lists or free text, which decides whether the enumeration produces a usable tabulation at all. The other is whether the regulator will extend its default disclosure requirement from suits filed to loans written off, which is where the larger sums sit. What to watch is the final form of the Census caste question and any amendment to the RBI’s Directions covering write-offs, since both are administrative decisions that need no legislation and neither has been taken.

    What is transparency and accountability?

    1. Transparency: Public officials and institutions have a duty to act visibly and to provide clear, accessible information about their decisions and actions.
    2. Accountability: Public authorities are obliged to explain their actions, justify them, and take responsibility for them.
    3. Why the pair exists: Information held by the state is the precondition for a citizen questioning its use, so disclosure converts a grievance into a claim the state must answer.
    4. The open government standard: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines open government as transparency in government actions, accessibility of government services and information, and responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs.

    Laws and Rules Governing Transparency and Accountability

    1. Right to Information Act, 2005: Entitles any citizen to seek information from a public authority without stating a reason for the request.
    2. Section 4(1)(b): Requires a public authority to publish specified categories of information on its own motion, so that fewer requests need to be filed.
    3. Section 7: Sets 30 days for a reply, and 48 hours where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person.
    4. Section 8: Lists the exemptions, and Section 8(2) permits disclosure where the public interest outweighs the protected harm.
    5. Section 20: Allows a penalty of Rs 250 a day, to a ceiling of Rs 25,000, on an officer who wrongfully refuses information.
    6. Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019: Removed the fixed five year tenure of Information Commissioners, leaving the term to be prescribed by the Centre, and ended the parity of their salaries with those of Election Commissioners.
    7. Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014: Provides a mechanism to receive disclosures of corruption or misuse of power and to protect the person making them.

    Challenges in Transparency and Accountability

    1. Information Commissions run behind their own caseload: Appeals accumulate faster than commissions dispose of them, so a delayed disclosure loses its use. Eg. Over four lakh appeals were pending across 29 Information Commissions as of 2024.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory disposal limit for appeals, as the Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended, and report disposal against it.
    2. Commissions sit without heads: A commission lacking a Chief Information Commissioner cannot constitute benches, so its docket stops moving. Eg. Nine Information Commissions were without a chief in late 2025.
      The Fix: Begin the appointment process a fixed period before a vacancy arises, with the shortlist published.
    3. The penalty provision is rarely used: The power to fine an officer for wrongful refusal is exercised in a small fraction of the cases that attract it, so refusal carries no cost. Eg. Penalties are imposed in about 4 per cent of the cases where they are warranted.
      The Fix: Require a commission to record written reasons whenever it declines to impose a penalty after finding wrongful refusal.
    4. Exemptions are read wide and the public interest override narrow: The exemption grounds are invoked routinely and the override that answers them almost never is. Eg. Section 8(2)’s public interest override is invoked in under 1 per cent of cases.
      The Fix: Harmonise the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 with the disclosure regime so the public interest override, not the personal information exemption, settles a request naming individuals.
    5. Requesters carry personal risk: Seeking records on local contracts, land and licences exposes the applicant to retaliation. Eg. Over 100 Right to Information users have been killed since 2005.
      The Fix: Notify the rules under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 and extend its machinery to information applicants, so a threatened applicant has a statutory route.

    Back2Basics: The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021

    1. What it did: Restored the power of States and Union Territories to prepare and maintain their own list of socially and educationally backward classes.
    2. Why it was needed: An earlier reading of the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 had left the power to notify backward classes with the Centre alone.
    3. Provisions touched: It amended Article 342A and clarified Article 366(26c), so a State list and the central list operate separately.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 10 marks] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.”

  • Over 7,200 CBI cases under Prevention of Corruption Act pending trial, says CVC report

    Over 7,200 CBI cases under Prevention of Corruption Act pending trial, says CVC report

    Why in the News

    The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has reported in its annual report that over 7,200 cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were awaiting completion of trial at the end of 2025.

    Where does the anti-corruption pipeline stall?

    1. Trials run past two decades: More than 400 of the 7,229 pending Prevention of Corruption Act trials have been open for over 20 years.
    2. Appeals add a second backlog: 14,083 appeals, revisions and writ petitions under the Act were pending in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
    3. Over a third of those are more than a decade old: 3,161 were 10 to 15 years old, 1,347 were 15 to 20 years old and 739 were over 20 years old.
    4. The wider trial load is larger still: Counting cases outside the Act, 11,510 CBI court cases were pending trial at the end of the year.

    What do the investigation and conviction figures show?

    1. Convictions improved: The conviction rate in CBI cases was 71.71 percent in 2025 against 69.14 percent in 2024.
    2. Investigation pendency is small by comparison: 755 corruption related cases were pending investigation, made up of 679 regular cases, 63 preliminary enquiries and 13 Lokpal references (cases the Lokpal has referred to the CBI for investigation).
    3. A year is the usual limit, and 274 cases crossed it: Of the 679 regular cases, 274 had been pending for over one year.
    4. The intake in 2025: The CBI registered 797 regular cases, 177 preliminary enquiries and recorded 31 Lokpal references during the year.

    What capacity does the vigilance system have?

    1. One in seven CBI posts is vacant: Against a sanctioned strength of 7,300, 1,088 posts were vacant, with the largest gap of 672 in the executive ranks.
    2. Departmental inquiries under the Commission: For officers under CVC jurisdiction, 1,460 departmental inquiries were in process during 2025 and 731 were completed.
    3. Inquiries outside its purview: For employees outside its jurisdiction, 9,883 inquiries were in process and 5,561 were completed.
    4. Complaint disposal kept pace: The Commission received 34,153 complaints in 2025 in addition to 1,260 carried forward from 2024, and disposed of 35,193.

    Challenges to prosecuting corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act

    1. Sanction is a gate the executive controls: Section 19 requires the government’s sanction before a court can take cognisance against a public servant, and Section 17A, added by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, requires prior approval even to begin an inquiry into a decision taken in official capacity. Eg. In Vineet Narain v Union of India (1997) the Supreme Court fixed a three month limit for sanction decisions, and the 2018 amendment wrote that limit, extendable by one month, into Section 19 itself.
      The Fix: Treat sanction as deemed granted when the statutory period lapses without a decision.
    2. Special courts are too few for the load: Section 3 of the Act requires trials before special judges, and the same judges carry other criminal work, so a corruption trial waits behind the general docket. Eg. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India the Supreme Court in 2021 recorded 4,984 pending criminal cases against legislators and directed special courts to prioritise them.
      The Fix: Designate exclusive special judges for Prevention of Corruption Act trials in every district with a CBI court, with a monthly disposal target monitored by the High Court.
    3. State consent limits where the CBI can act: Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the CBI needs a State’s consent to investigate within it, and a growing list of States has withdrawn general consent so every case needs a fresh order. Eg. West Bengal withdrew general consent in November 2018, and in 2024 the Supreme Court allowed the State’s suit against the Union over CBI investigations to proceed to trial.
      The Fix: Enact a standalone CBI statute defining its jurisdiction, as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice recommended in 2023.
    4. Deputation, not a cadre, staffs the agency: The CBI fills most executive posts by deputation from State police and central forces, so vacancies persist when States decline to release officers. Eg. In May 2013, during the coal block allocation hearing, the Supreme Court described the CBI as a “caged parrot” after the agency’s status report had been shared with the Law Minister.
      The Fix: Expand direct recruitment at the sub inspector and deputy superintendent levels and offer fixed tenure with cadre security to reduce reliance on deputation.

    Conclusion

    The Commission’s numbers show the agency’s work improving at the stages it controls and stalling at the stages it does not. The pendency now sits with the courts and the sanctioning authorities rather than with the investigators. The marker to watch is whether the next annual report shows the oldest trials closing rather than the backlog growing.

    Back2Basics: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

    1. Origin: Set up in 1964 on the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, and made a statutory body by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
    2. Composition: A Central Vigilance Commissioner and up to two Vigilance Commissioners, appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
    3. Powers over the CBI: It exercises superintendence over the CBI’s investigations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by virtue of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and reviews the progress of those investigations.
    4. Reporting: It submits an annual report to the President, and the report is laid before both Houses of Parliament.

    [2026, GS2, 15 marks] “Transparency and accountability in governance are not about controlling corruption but about creating the trust of stakeholders in the policy process by following the Rule of Law and Participatory Governance.” Comment.”

  • Why India’s R&D system needs a map of where funds really go

    Why India’s R&D system needs a map of where funds really go

    Why in the News

    A NITI Aayog report, ‘Ease of Doing R&D in India’, drawing on a survey of over 400 institutional leaders and 850 scientists, has found that close to 80% of funding under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF, India’s apex research funding body, whose governing board is headed by the Prime Minister and which is mandated to draw much of its funding from non-governmental sources alongside Central contributions) is concentrated in the IITs, despite ANRF’s own mandate to support a wider base of universities and research bodies. The report also flagged that multiple central agencies may be funding overlapping research areas, leading to what it calls “inefficient” use of public money. NITI Aayog’s proposed response is the Unified Project Management System (UPMS), meant to streamline planning, funding, monitoring and evaluation of public R&D projects across ministries. The article argues that UPMS does not by itself fix the deeper gap it is meant to solve: India has no system that can tell funders, researchers or the public who is being funded, by whom, for what, and whether that funding has already been given elsewhere.

    What is a persistent digital identifier (PID), and why does India’s R&D funding lack one?

    1. Persistent digital identifier (PID): A permanent, unique, machine-readable identifier attached to every research grant, comparable to how a PAN number identifies a taxpayer or an IMEI number identifies a phone.
    2. Attached metadata: Each PID is meant to carry a standard set of details, which agency gave the money, to which institution, to which named researcher, what amount, over what period, and in which field, linked so officials can track outcomes when the PID is cited in a published paper.
    3. Scattered and inconsistent records today: This information already exists inside Indian funding agencies, but scattered across dozens of separate databases, in inconsistent formats, often as free text. Eg. A researcher’s name may appear as “IISc, Bangalore” in one dataset and “Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru” in another, enough for an automated system to fail to recognise them as the same institution.

    What does the NITI Aayog report reveal about India’s R&D funding?

    1. Concentration in a few institutions: Close to 80% of ANRF funding is concentrated in the IITs, despite ANRF’s mandate to support a wider base of universities and research bodies than the traditional funding model has managed.
    2. Possible duplication across agencies: Multiple Central agencies are possibly funding similar research areas, resulting in overlap and “inefficient” use of public money, per the report’s survey of over 400 institutional leaders and 850 scientists.
    3. The underlying gap: Both findings point to the same root cause, the absence of a system that can tell funders, researchers or the public who is funded, by whom, for what, and whether that funding has already been given elsewhere.

    How have other countries solved this identifier problem?

    1. Crossref’s Grant Linking System (global, non-profit): Built by the open digital infrastructure organisation Crossref, this system now has more than 2 lakh grants registered worldwide from funders seeking to track duplication and concentration.
    2. Research Organisation Registry (ROR) and ORCID: A funder ID identifies the funding agency down to the division or department; a ROR ID identifies the receiving institution; an ORCID identifier, already familiar to Indian researchers since most journals require it, identifies the individual researcher so funding can be aggregated per person.
    3. Grant DOI, since 2020: Crossref extended its system to a permanent identifier for the grant itself, which can be linked to whatever the grant produces, papers, patents or data.
    4. Government-owned national portals compatible with the global standard: The U.K.’s “Gateway to Research” portal and the European Union’s CORDIS and OpenAIRE infrastructure run their own government-owned single points of entry for funding agencies, while generating identifiers fully compatible with the Crossref/ROR/ORCID standards, giving national governments ownership without breaking compatibility with the global dataset.
    5. Documented scale of the problem elsewhere: A 2013 analysis of U.S. federal grant applications using automated text-matching estimated duplicate or overlapping funding may have cost the U.S. nearly $70 million; a 2020 analysis of nearly 20,000 competitive grants in Denmark found funds concentrated among a small group of researchers and a narrow set of topics, a pattern the article says mirrors what NITI Aayog flagged for India.

    What are India’s options going forward?

    1. Build a sovereign national registry: India could develop and maintain its own India-specific grant registry from the ground up, giving it full control and the ability to tailor the system to its own agencies, federal structure and State research schemes.
    2. Join the existing global infrastructure: India’s funding agencies could become members of the Crossref ecosystem directly, which can be implemented faster since the technical standards and governance already exist internationally.
    3. A hybrid middle path: India could build a single national portal, the NITI Aayog’s own proposed UPMS, that internally mints Crossref-compatible grant DOIs and links every record to ROR and ORCID identifiers, following the model of the U.K.’s Gateway to Research and the EU’s CORDIS/OpenAIRE.

    Challenges to the Unified Project Management System (UPMS)

    1. Legacy data inconsistency: Migrating scattered, free-text agency records into a structured PID system requires resolving years of inconsistent naming across agencies before the system can produce reliable data. Eg. The same institution recorded as “IISc, Bangalore” in one dataset and “Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru” in another. Fix. Mandate a common institutional and researcher master list, cross-validated against existing ORCID and ROR records, before agencies are required to report through UPMS.
    2. Compliance is not self-enforcing: A national portal only produces reliable data if every Central and State funding agency consistently deposits data into it; a voluntary or partially adopted system reproduces the same blind spots the report identifies. Fix. Make UPMS reporting a precondition for releasing funds under any Central research scheme, so compliance is enforced through the funding process itself.

    Conclusion

    NITI Aayog’s Unified Project Management System addresses the process of streamlining India’s R&D funding, but by itself does not supply the persistent digital identifier and metadata infrastructure that would let funders, researchers and the public actually see where public research money goes and whether it has already gone somewhere else. The next milestone is whether UPMS is designed to mint Crossref-compatible identifiers and how many agencies are made to report through it.

    “[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?”

  • 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.