Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday criticised the anti-paper leak amendment bill cleared by the Lok Sabha, saying that the proposed legislation focuses on punishing offenders after question papers are leaked instead of fixing the reasons behind such incidents.
Following the NEET-UG row that forced Dharmendra Pradhan to resign as the Union education minister last week, the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, this week.
The bill amends the existing anti-paper leak legislation by increasing the maximum punishment to 10 years in prison along with a fine of up to ₹50 lakh.
CJP slams anti-paper leak amendment bill
In a video message posted on X, CJP’s national spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka said the anti-paper leak amendment bill places too much focus on punishment after leaks happen instead of improving the examination process to stop such cases in the first place.
“You have been talking about everything after the paper leak, whether it is fast-track courts, harsher punishments or penalties. But you have not talked about what you are doing to stop paper leaks,” he said.
Instead, he called for the Centre to focus on reforms within the National Testing Agency (NTA), greater transparency in the examination schedule, calendar and syllabus, better monitoring of vendors, preventing blacklisted vendors from returning to the system, and carrying out physical and digital audits to prevent paper leaks.
“You will also have to talk about how to stop paper leaks. Look at our 5-pointer demand charter. Talk to students, academicians, experts, and digital and cyber experts. Don’t take hasty decisions because this is a question of the country’s children’s future,” he added.
Speaking about the bill, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke said legal reforms alone would not be enough without improving the intent of those responsible for implementing them.
He also said that the first hearing in a fast-track court related to a paper leak case had to be postponed because a CBI counsel was not present.
Inside CJP’s 5-pointer demand charter
On its official website, the CJP has published a 5-pointer demand charter that aims to “end India’s public examination crisis”
Here are the five points:
1. Enact a New Public Examinations (Transparency, Accountability and Candidates’ Rights) Act
The CJP seeks tougher punishment for organised paper leak networks, mandatory parliamentary accountability, automatic judicial inquiries into every leak, and the creation of an independent Examinations Ombudsman and a National Examination Vendor Authority.
It also calls for greater transparency through regular audits, public reporting, disclosure of vendor contracts and a model framework for states to adopt similar safeguards for recruitment and entrance examinations.
2. Fix NTA, SSC and National Examination Bodies
The CJP demands setting up a statutory National Testing Commission in place of the NTA and making the SSC a statutory body with a fixed annual examination calendar and time-bound recruitment.
It also wants ministries to publicly disclose vacancies before recruitment begins, and allow states to opt out of NEET for state-quota medical seats while giving them a role in deciding the NEET syllabus.
3. A Students’ Rights Charter
The CJP calls for a right to compensation after paper leaks or cancelled examinations, protection of age limits and examination attempts, affordable education, a fixed annual examination calendar, advance notice before any syllabus or eligibility changes and greater transparency in the evaluation process.
It also demands a time-bound grievance redressal system overseen by the Examinations Ombudsman.
4. Create a National Aspirant Welfare Fund
It demands financial assistance for families of aspirants who lose their lives following paper leaks and access to mental health counselling through coaching institutes in major coaching hubs.
It also seeks stricter regulation of coaching institutes by ensuring transparency in fee structures and protecting students from misleading advertisements.
5. Permanent Parliamentary Oversight
It calls for a White Paper on examination failures and recruitment delays over the past 12 years, to be published within the next six months.
The CJP further seeks an independent audit of the implementation of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations and the presentation of an Annual Students’ Rights Report in Parliament every year.
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposing tougher penalties, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union minister Jitendra Singh on July 27, days after massive student protests led by the CJP took place across the country.
He said the amendment bill shows that the government is willing to learn from past experience and added that the number of suicides linked to paper leak cases has come down over the past few years.
Inside the anti-paper leak amendment bill
The amendments aim to strengthen the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, under which all offences are classified as cognisable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
- For people found guilty of using unfair means, the minimum prison term has been increased from three years to five years, while the maximum sentence has gone up from five years to 10 years. The maximum fine has also been raised from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh.
- Service providers engaged to conduct examinations can now face fines of up to ₹5 crore instead of ₹1 crore. They can also be barred from examination-related work for eight years instead of four years if found guilty. In cases involving “organised”, coordinated attempts to compromise an examination, the minimum prison sentence has been increased from five years to seven years, while fines can now go up to ₹10 crore.
- The bill also introduces two new provisions, Sections 12A and 12B, which set fixed timelines for investigations for the first time. Once a case is referred by the Centre, the investigation must be completed within two months, whether it is handled by a central agency or through the newly created Special Task Force route.
