Exam Paper Leak Punishment 2026: 5 to 10 Years Jail

Leaking a question paper for a central government exam now starts at five years in prison, not three. Since 31 July 2026 the ceiling is ten years and the fine on that offence can reach ₹50 lakh.

The law doing this is the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Act No. 1 of 2024. It has been in force since 21 June 2024, brought into effect by Notification S.O. 2422(E) dated 21 June 2024. On 31 July 2026 the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, Act 10 of 2026, raised almost every punishment in it and bolted on a fast track trial machine. Every changed figure in the table below took effect on that date.

Read the columns carefully, because the three ₹5 crore and ₹10 crore figures are not the same thing. Under section 10 sub-section 2 the service provider faces a fine upto ₹5 crore. Under section 10 sub-section 3 the director or senior manager faces a fine of ₹5 crore. Under section 11 the organised crime fine is not less than ₹10 crore. A cap, a fixed amount and a floor.

One more thing the table cannot show. Under section 9 every offence in this Act is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Cognizable means police can register and arrest without a magistrate's order first. Non-compoundable means the case cannot be settled and withdrawn by agreement between the parties.

The 2026 amendment inserted a new section 12A and a new section 12B. Together they put clocks on a process that had none.

• Investigation, two months. Section 12A sub-section 1 says the investigation shall be completed within two months. The clock starts from the date the information was recorded at the police station, or from the date the Central Government refers the matter to a Central Investigating Agency, or from the date of the notification constituting a Special Task Force.
• A Special Task Force is now possible. Section 12 sub-section 2, as amended, lets the Central Government constitute a Special Task Force by notification, and where it does, the investigation shall be done only by that Task Force.
• Who investigates. Section 12 sub-section 1 is unchanged. An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall investigate any offence under this Act.
• A designated court. Every State Government and Union territory Administration has to designate a Court of Session as a Special Fast Track Court. Section 12A sub-section 2 requires it to be done by notification, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. This is an existing sessions court given a new label and a new duty, not a new courthouse.
• Trial, three months. Section 12A sub-section 4 says proceedings shall continue on a day-to-day basis, and the proviso says such trial shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. Note the start point. It is the chargesheet, not the FIR.
• Old cases move. Cases pending when the amendment commenced stand transferred to the Special Fast Track Court under section 12A sub-section 5, and section 12A sub-section 6 gives those transferred trials three months from the date of such receipt.
• Prosecutors. Section 12A sub-section 7 says every State Government and Union territory Administration shall, by notification, appoint one or more Special Public Prosecutors for every Special Fast Track Court.
• Appeals. Section 12B sends an appeal from the Special Fast Track Court straight to the High Court, to be heard by a bench of two Judges, to be disposed of as far as possible within three months from admission. It must be filed within thirty days, though the High Court may allow a late appeal for sufficient cause, and no appeal is entertained after ninety days.

All of that is the law on paper from 31 July 2026. Whether your State has actually issued the notification, named the court and appointed the prosecutors is a completely different question, and the Act does not answer it. Hold that thought, because it is the whole point of the RTI at the end of this page.

This is where most readers get it wrong. The Schedule to the Act, which section 2 clause k points to, does not list exams. It lists authorities. The heading reads ANY EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY, and then seven entries:

1. Union Public Service Commission
2. Staff Selection Commission
3. Railway Recruitment Boards
4. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
5. Ministries or Departments of the Central Government and their attached and subordinate offices for recruitment of staff
6. National Testing Agency
7. Such other authority as may be notified by the Central Government

So the question to ask is not whether your exam is named. It is which body conducts it. If the conducting body is one of those, the exam is a public examination under this Act. If your recruitment is run by the UPSC civil services process, the SSC CGL process or the Railway Recruitment Board process, the conducting authority is in that Schedule. More central hiring routes are collected on our government jobs 2026 page.

Two corrections worth making, because both are repeated a lot online.

The 2026 amendment did not add the National Testing Agency to this Act. The National Testing Agency is entry 6 of the Schedule and has been there since the Act was passed in 2024. What the amendment did was raise the punishments and add the fast track machinery. Separately, section 19 of the Act inserts a new serial number 6 into the Schedule of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944. That is a different statute's schedule and has nothing to do with the list above.

State exams are not covered. No State Public Service Commission, no State board, no State police recruitment board appears in the Schedule. The only way a State body comes in is if the Central Government notifies it under entry 7, and section 2 clause k, which speaks of an examination conducted by such other authority as may be notified by the Central Government. The Statement of Objects and Reasons is candid about this. It says the Bill shall serve as a model draft for States to adopt at their discretion.

Be clear-eyed here. This is a criminal statute aimed at leakers, gangs and contractors. It is not a grievance remedy for a candidate.

• There is no complaint form, no helpline and no candidate appeal anywhere in the Act.
• There is no right to a re-exam, no compensation and no refund in the Act. Cancelling or re-conducting an exam is the examination authority's administrative decision under its own rules, not something this Act commands.
• The appeal in section 12B is the convicted person's route to the High Court. It is not yours.
• Under section 6, when an offence happens the service provider shall forthwith report the offence to the concerned police authorities and also inform the public examination authority. The proviso covers the ugly case. If the service provider itself resorts to unfair means or facilitates the offence, the public examination authority shall report the same to the concerned police authorities.

So what can a candidate actually do? Two things. Put the information in writing to the public examination authority and keep dated proof of submission, because section 6 makes reporting to police somebody's statutory duty and your written complaint is what starts it. And because the offences are cognizable, you can also take the material to the police directly.

On candidates and liability, one honest note. The operative words of section 10 sub-section 1 are any person or persons resorting to unfair means. The carve-out people quote sits in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, not in the sections. It says a candidate as defined in the Bill shall not be liable for action within the purview of the Bill and shall continue to be covered under the extant administrative provisions of the concerned public examination authority. That is a statement of intent from 2024 and it explains the design, but only a court applies the sections.

Where the Act does help you is upstream and downstream. Section 13 deems the chairperson, members, officers and employees of a public examination authority to be public servants when acting under the Act. And the fast track machinery generates paper. Notifications, transfers, prosecutor appointments, chargesheets. Paper is what RTI is for. The NEET paper leak explained post walks through what one such episode looked like in practice.

This is a hypothetical, not a reported case. Take a candidate who sits a Staff Selection Commission paper and finds, an hour before the exam, that a chat group is circulating what turns out to be the actual question paper.

1. That fits section 3 clause i, leakage of question paper or answer key or part thereof. It is an unfair means under the Act.
2. She writes to the examination authority the same day with screenshots, timestamps and her roll number, and gets an acknowledgement. Section 6 puts the reporting duty on the service provider and, where the provider is implicated, on the examination authority.
3. Police register a case, because section 9 makes the offence cognizable and non-bailable.
4. Section 12A sub-section 1 gives the investigating officer two months from the date the information was recorded.
5. Once the chargesheet is filed, section 12A sub-section 4 gives the Special Fast Track Court three months to finish the trial, sitting day to day.
6. If there is a conviction, the floor is five years and the fine can go to ₹50 lakh. If the investigation shows collusion amounting to organised crime, section 11 raises the floor to seven years and the fine to not less than ₹10 crore.

Nothing in that sequence gives her a re-exam. What it gives her is a record she can chase, at every step, with an RTI.

No. The Act creates offences and punishments and sets trial deadlines. It says nothing about cancellation, re-examination, compensation or a fee refund. Those sit with the public examination authority under its own rules and notices. If you want to challenge what happened to your own result or marks, the tools are different: see how to get your answer sheet under RTI, what to do when a result is delayed, revaluation through RTI and the step by step in challenging an exam result in 2026.

Unknown, and do not let anyone tell you otherwise without a document. Section 12A sub-section 2 came into force on 31 July 2026 and it obliges every State Government and Union territory Administration to designate a Court of Session by notification, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Whether your State has issued that notification, and whether it has appointed Special Public Prosecutors under sub-section 7, is a factual question answered only by the file. That is exactly what the RTI below asks for.

The amended punishments carry the date 31 July 2026, so they are the punishments the Act prescribes from that date. What the amendment does say about older matters is procedural. Section 12A sub-section 5 provides that cases and trials pending on the date the Amendment Act commenced shall stand transferred to the Special Fast Track Court, and sub-section 6 gives that court three months from the date of such receipt. So an old case can move to the new court on the new clock. The raised punishments themselves are marked with effect from 31 July 2026, and the only thing the amendment says about pre-existing matters is this procedural transfer. Which punishment a court applies to conduct from an earlier date is for the court to decide on the ordinary principles, and this Act text does not deal with it.

This is the gap nobody has filled. The three-month trial clock is only real if a court has been designated and a prosecutor appointed. Nothing published tells you whether that has happened where you live. Ask.

Send an RTI application to your State Home Department and, in a second application, to the Law and Justice or Judicial Department of your State, asking for:

1. A copy of the notification issued under section 12A sub-section 2 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, designating a Court of Session as a Special Fast Track Court, with its number and date. If no notification has been issued, a clear statement to that effect.
2. The number of Special Public Prosecutors appointed under section 12A sub-section 7 for those courts, with a copy of the appointment notification.
3. The number of cases and trials transferred to the Special Fast Track Court under section 12A sub-section 5 since 31 July 2026, and how many of them were completed within three months of receipt.
4. The number of cases registered in the State under this Act since 21 June 2024, and how many investigations were completed within the two-month period in section 12A sub-section 1.

Draft it in a few minutes with the AI RTI Drafter. The reply is due within 30 days. Check your State RTI rules for the application fee, because State fees differ.

Now hold them to the clock, because this topic is all about clocks. This Act tells an investigating officer to finish in two months and a court to finish a trial in three. A Public Information Officer who cannot answer in 30 days whether a court was even designated is failing an easier deadline than the one Parliament set for a criminal trial. Track day 1 to day 30 with the RTI Timeline Calculator. If day 30 passes with silence, that is deemed refusal, and you get 30 days from then to file. Build it with the First Appeal Builder and quote the section numbers above so the appellate authority cannot pretend the request was vague.

For the underlying rights, sections and deadlines, see our plain guide to the RTI Act, 2005, and for the full drafting, appeal and escalation method in one place, read The RTI Playbook.

The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Act No. 1 of 2024, consolidated as on 31 July 2026, incorporating the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, Act 10 of 2026, in force from 31 July 2026. Commencement of the parent Act by Notification S.O. 2422(E) dated 21 June 2024.