Q.7. Critically analyze the provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 in tackling unfair means in public examinations.
19,Oct 2024
Posted By : SPM IAS Academy
0 Comments
APSC2023
GS4
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is a critical legislative step aimed at tackling the pervasive problem of unfair practices in public examinations. With education serving as a foundation for merit-based opportunities, cheating undermines the very principles of justice and fairness. While the Act brings much-needed reform, there are both positives and concerns associated with its provisions.
Positives of the Act
Comprehensive Definition of Unfair Means The Act offers a broad definition of unfair means, covering not only traditional cheating methods but also modern issues like the use of electronic devices and digital cheating tools. This is a step forward in addressing the evolving nature of examination malpractices, aligning with the ethical principle of justice by ensuring that all forms of cheating are punishable.
Stringent Penalties as a Deterrent The Act imposes strict penalties, including imprisonment and heavy fines, for individuals caught using unfair means. This serves as a deterrent, particularly for organized cheating networks, reflecting Sardar Patel’s philosophy that “Discipline and strength are the true source of power.” The severe punishments aim to uphold integrity and trust in public examinations, restoring faith in a meritocratic system.
Technological Safeguards The Act mandates the use of technology such as CCTV surveillance, biometric verification, and electronic jammers during examinations. These provisions enhance transparency and reduce human errors, promoting fairness. The ethical value of accountability is embedded here, as these technologies ensure that everyone is monitored equally, thus deterring cheating.
Whistleblower Protection The Act’s protection for whistleblowers encourages individuals to report malpractices without fear of retaliation. This reflects an ethical commitment to transparency and social responsibility, encouraging active citizen participation in upholding examination integrity.
Concerns with the Act
A. Over-Emphasis on Punishment
While strict penalties may act as a deterrent, the Act’s over-reliance on punitive measures raises ethical concerns about proportionality. Many students resort to cheating due to systemic pressures such as academic stress, lack of resources, or socio-economic conditions. Punishment alone, without addressing these root causes, might be seen as a retributive approach rather than a reformative one.
Ethical Perspective:Rehabilitation and education-focused interventions, such as counseling and mentorship programs, should be incorporated to ensure a balanced approach. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” highlighting the need for reformative rather than purely punitive measures.
B. Inequity in Technology Implementation
Though technological safeguards are essential, the digital divide in India could hinder their effective implementation, especially in rural areas or underfunded schools. CCTV cameras, biometric verification, and jammers might be inconsistently applied due to lack of resources, leading to inequitable enforcement. This could disproportionately affect students in marginalized regions.
Ethical Perspective: The ethical value of equality demands that all students have equal protection from cheating and the same level of scrutiny. Uneven application of technology may create systemic biases.
C. Potential for Corruption and Misuse
The provision for stringent penalties may open avenues for corruption, where law enforcement and exam officials might misuse their authority. This could lead to wrongful accusations or unfair practices. Unless strict oversight mechanisms are put in place, the Act’s intentions might be compromised by corrupt elements within the system.
Ethical Perspective: Without accountability mechanisms to monitor the enforcers of the law, the Act might unintentionally create new ethical dilemmas, where the corrupt use the law to exploit vulnerable students.
D. Lack of Preventive Education
The Act primarily focuses on punishment and surveillance but lacks emphasis on preventive measures such as ethics education, awareness campaigns, and mental health support for students. The ethical perspective of virtue ethics—fostering moral character and values—suggests that students need to be taught why cheating is harmful, rather than merely punished for engaging in it.
Ethical Perspective: Promoting ethical awareness and self-discipline through early intervention in schools could reduce the need for punitive measures later. This aligns with Aristotle’s idea of moral education, where good character is developed through habituation and conscious learning.
Way Forward
To address both the strengths and limitations of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, a balanced approach is essential:
Integrating Ethical Education: Introduce mandatory ethics and moral education in school curriculums to help students internalize the values of honesty, integrity, and fairness. Early awareness can prevent the inclination to cheat.
Focus on Rehabilitation: For first-time offenders, focus on rehabilitation rather than harsh punishment. Counseling, workshops on ethics, and community service can serve as corrective measures.
Equitable Technology Implementation: Ensure that rural and underfunded schools are provided with the necessary technological infrastructure to enforce the provisions of the Act uniformly.
Strengthen Accountability: Capacity building of exam officials in tandem with establishment of oversight committees to monitor the actions of exam officials and law enforcement. This will prevent misuse of authority and ensure that corruption does not creep into the implementation of the Act.
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is a significant legislative step toward addressing a critical problem in India’s education system. Its strengths lie in its comprehensive approach to addressing cheating through technology and strong deterrence. However, a broader focus on ethical education, rehabilitation, and equitable enforcement is necessary to ensure that it is not merely a punitive measure but a reformative and just one that builds a culture of integrity and fairness in public examinations.
