Fast-track courts for exam leaks: Can they fix poor investigations and weak laws?

The Prime Minister's announcement of fast-track courts to handle exam paper leak cases comes at a time when accountability for such breaches remains abysmally low. An investigation by The Indian Express, published on June 5, revealed that out of 45 major exam leaks between 2002 and 2025—each affecting at least one lakh candidates—only two resulted in convictions.

The primary obstacles, according to the investigation, are poor quality of investigations and the legal treatment of paper leaks as ordinary offences. Cases are typically registered under Indian Penal Code sections such as 420 (cheating), 467 and 468 (forgery), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy)—all of which carry no stringent bail conditions. This leniency allows accused individuals to secure bail easily, slowing down trials.

Courts have repeatedly rejected closure reports filed by probe agencies due to lack of evidence, and have reprimanded investigators for lapses. For instance, in the 2016 Karnataka PUC Chemistry paper leak, the Bengaluru Sessions Court acquitted 19 accused, including senior officials and the alleged kingpin booked under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA), citing serious investigative shortcomings. Similarly, in the 2016 UP Public Service Commission examination leak, a Special Judicial Magistrate rejected the closure report and ordered a reinvestigation in 2020.

Some cases were closed prematurely. In the 2024 UGC NET case, a Delhi court criticised the CBI for filing a closure report despite possessing evidence of a leak. Such instances highlight the need for faster and more thorough judicial processes.

Fast-track courts could accelerate proceedings. For example, the 2006 Railway Group-D case has seen 142 hearings between 2012 and 2026 and remains at the witness stage. However, experts note that merely speeding up trials is not enough; systemic gaps must be addressed.

Three key issues persist outside the courtroom:

• Institutional complicity: Bodies meant to prevent leaks sometimes enable them. The Rajasthan High Court found that Rajasthan Public Service Commission members were complicit in the 2021 Sub-Inspector exam leak.
• Evolving methods: Leak rackets have advanced from fax transmissions to Bluetooth devices, remote-access software, and compromised printing and logistics firms, outrunning investigative capabilities.
• Weak security: Poor controls at the printing and transport stages make leaks difficult to trace and prosecute. Examples include the 2023 Bihar Police Constable leak, where a printing firm diverted papers to an unauthorised warehouse, and the 2024 UP Police Constable leak, where sealed trunks were tampered with while official seals remained intact.

The success of fast-track courts will depend on whether they can address these foundational flaws. Without robust investigations and legal reforms, even expedited trials may not yield convictions.