Beyond Criminalisation: A Doctrinal Study Of Individual, Institutional And State Liability For Public Examination Paper Leaks In India

Abstract

Public examination paper leaks in India have generally been approached as questions of criminal misconduct, examination cancellation and deterrent punishment. Recent controversies, particularly NEET-UG 2024 and the alleged NEET-UG 2026 leak, demonstrate that a compromised examination creates several distinct legal relationships: between perpetrators and the State, between examination authorities and service providers, between officials entrusted with confidential material and the public, between knowing beneficiaries and innocent candidates, and between candidates and public authorities whose failures may have affected the integrity of the examination. This paper undertakes a doctrinal study of these relationships through the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Rules 2024, the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act 2026, relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence, and official material concerning NEET-UG 2024 and 2026. It argues that Indian law has moved beyond a candidate-centric model of malpractice by recognizing service-provider and organized-crime liability and by strengthening investigation and trial mechanisms. Nevertheless, the framework remains less developed on the allocation of institutional and State responsibility and remedies for innocent candidates. The paper therefore proposes a role-based doctrinal framework distinguishing perpetrator, insider, beneficiary, service-provider, institutional and State responsibility, while maintaining proportionality between the extent of proven malpractice and the remedy imposed on the candidate population.