Lok Sabha Imposes Fine Of Rs 1 Cr And Adopts Anti-Cheating Bill To combat The problem Of Malpractices
Last update: Nov 20, 2024
The Lok Sabha adopted the anti-cheating bill (Prevention of Unfair Means) 2024, aimed at curbing malpractices and organized cheating in government recruitment exams on Tuesday. A minimum sentence of three years in prison and a fine of up to ₹1 crore are imposed by the legislation.
Union Personnel Minister Jitendra Singh, while discussing the bill, stressed that applicants would not be harassed and assured that the Bill aimed at punishing those who exploited the system. He explained that the goal is to tackle the misbehavior rather than centralizing the system by recognizing the negative impact of delayed tests on students. Singh acknowledged the difficulty in assuring timely completion and reiterated the government’s commitment to minimize the impact of cancelled exams.
Union Science and Technology Minister Jitendra Singh addressed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. The Public Scrutiny (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 was given the go-ahead by the parliament with a view to stop the practice of cheating and malpractices in government admission tests. The proposed law claims that it has failed to be absolutely punishable by imprisonment for three years and a fine of up to ₹1 crore .
Anti-Cheating-Bill-Lok-Sabha
Discussing the Anti-Cheating Bill, Minister Jitendra Singh assured the legislators that the bill targets abusers of the system and no candidate would be harassed. He made it clear that there were no plans to generalize the policy. However they acknowledged the impact of exam cancellations on students, adding that efforts were being made to minimize the harm caused by such exams.
Jitendra Singh highlighted that approximately 70 lakh candidates participate in exams conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He stated that exams are now conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in 13 languages, with plans to expand to all 22 in the future.
The Minister underlined that penalties function as a deterrence to stop wrongdoing and views this Anti-Cheating Bill as the first step in that direction. He added that in keeping with the growing use of technology and artificial intelligence (AI), the law will progressively promote the holding of tests in additional regional languages.
In response to concerns that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) already in place should contain the transgressions listed in the proposed legislation, Dr. Singh emphasized that BNS does not list all of the charges. He clarified that the Anti-Cheating Bill specifies and recognizes unfair means in exam conduct and made the suggestion that a crime would come under BNS's purview if its severity exceeded a particular threshold.
“We cannot allow the meritorious to be sacrificed at the altar of such organised crimes” says Dr. Singh while quoting in The Hindu.
Concerning the youth who cannot afford to wait indefinitely, Congressman M.K. Vishnu Prasad urged the administration to make sure that a re-examination occurs within three months after the cancellation. He emphasized that 1.04 lakh jobs are applied for by 14 million students.
Additionally, Prasad linked the tragic suicides in Tamil Nadu to the challenge of clearing the NEET exam. The lack of a level playing field—where students who attended a government curriculum in a particular language are forced to compete across India with those who studied at private institutions and teachers’ centres—is hostility, he said the root of which is available for him in Tamil Nadu May NEET.
The Anti-Cheating Bill was criticized for its narrow focus on jail time and punishment, with no provision to treat or curb the root causes of misbehavior, Prasad argued for a more comprehensive approach that has attracted students to training centres. He drew attention to the vulnerability of computer systems, compared it with the possibility of EVMs being hacked and urged the government to adopt separate laws to deal with these issues
BJP member Achutananda Samantha talked about how the competitive environment affects students and said cheating is often seen as a way to pass exams faster. He was the one who highlighted test anxiety, describing the tests as more about elimination than selection, which made coaching all the more important.
N.K. RSP member Premachandran asked the Speaker to refer the bill to a standing parliamentary committee for review. He raised concerns about the law’s overlap and its broad implications, which could be interpreted differently.
Congress MP Adhiranjan Chaudhary questioned the ability of the bill to ensure transparency given the hurdles faced by the state vigilance regime. On the number of vacancies in the Intelligence Council citing a decline in India’s Corruption Perception Index, he expressed doubts about the government’s ability to bridge the transparency gap. Chowdhury reiterated worries expressed by other opposition members over the Bill's ability to stifle opposition voices by giving Central agencies undue power.
How would you rate your experience with this page up to now?
Anti-Cheating-Bill-Lok-Sabha
Discussing the Anti-Cheating Bill, Minister Jitendra Singh assured the legislators that the bill targets abusers of the system and no candidate would be harassed. He made it clear that there were no plans to generalize the policy. However they acknowledged the impact of exam cancellations on students, adding that efforts were being made to minimize the harm caused by such exams.
Jitendra Singh highlighted that approximately 70 lakh candidates participate in exams conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He stated that exams are now conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in 13 languages, with plans to expand to all 22 in the future.
The Minister underlined that penalties function as a deterrence to stop wrongdoing and views this Anti-Cheating Bill as the first step in that direction. He added that in keeping with the growing use of technology and artificial intelligence (AI), the law will progressively promote the holding of tests in additional regional languages.
In response to concerns that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) already in place should contain the transgressions listed in the proposed legislation, Dr. Singh emphasized that BNS does not list all of the charges. He clarified that the Anti-Cheating Bill specifies and recognizes unfair means in exam conduct and made the suggestion that a crime would come under BNS's purview if its severity exceeded a particular threshold.
“We cannot allow the meritorious to be sacrificed at the altar of such organised crimes” says Dr. Singh while quoting in The Hindu.
Concerning the youth who cannot afford to wait indefinitely, Congressman M.K. Vishnu Prasad urged the administration to make sure that a re-examination occurs within three months after the cancellation. He emphasized that 1.04 lakh jobs are applied for by 14 million students.
Additionally, Prasad linked the tragic suicides in Tamil Nadu to the challenge of clearing the NEET exam. The lack of a level playing field—where students who attended a government curriculum in a particular language are forced to compete across India with those who studied at private institutions and teachers’ centres—is hostility, he said the root of which is available for him in Tamil Nadu May NEET.
The Anti-Cheating Bill was criticized for its narrow focus on jail time and punishment, with no provision to treat or curb the root causes of misbehavior, Prasad argued for a more comprehensive approach that has attracted students to training centres. He drew attention to the vulnerability of computer systems, compared it with the possibility of EVMs being hacked and urged the government to adopt separate laws to deal with these issues
BJP member Achutananda Samantha talked about how the competitive environment affects students and said cheating is often seen as a way to pass exams faster. He was the one who highlighted test anxiety, describing the tests as more about elimination than selection, which made coaching all the more important.
N.K. RSP member Premachandran asked the Speaker to refer the bill to a standing parliamentary committee for review. He raised concerns about the law’s overlap and its broad implications, which could be interpreted differently.
Congress MP Adhiranjan Chaudhary questioned the ability of the bill to ensure transparency given the hurdles faced by the state vigilance regime. On the number of vacancies in the Intelligence Council citing a decline in India’s Corruption Perception Index, he expressed doubts about the government’s ability to bridge the transparency gap. Chowdhury reiterated worries expressed by other opposition members over the Bill's ability to stifle opposition voices by giving Central agencies undue power.
