Written by Pragati kumari,
Lex Lumen Research Journal Summer Intern,
June 2026
Introduction
The ink on the exam paper barely settles before the notification of procedural compromisation (paper leak) spreads on social media with speed of light. While such notification is normalised news for the whole country but for those millions of candidates, the impact is existential. A paper leak is not just a failure of the education system but also the profound rupture of the contract of trust between the state and the citizens. This is so because when an individual candidate registers for a national or State level examination, they do not merely enter in an academic exercise; rather they involve themselves into a highstake reciprocal contractual relationship. The candidate provides years of unrecoverable labour, capital , mental health whereas the state promises and commits a guarantee of procedural integrity and meritocracy fairness. And that’s why when the security fails , the state is not merely failing a test but it is fundamentally breaching its service obligations to the stakeholders.
The Service-Contract Doctrine
The main question in examining the integrity of the process lies in the fact that , whether the act of the State in becoming an examiner itself qualifies as a “service” or not ?
If we look at the statutory provision for the answer of the questions, the foremost act we will find is the Consumer Protection Act 2019. According to Section 2(11), “deficiency” includes any defect, blemish, inadequacy, or deficiency in the quality, nature, and manner of performance that is required to be maintained under law.[1] The most commonly used defense by the State to surpass the liability is the “sovereign function” doctrine. But with time, it seems more like a lame excuse.[2]
This is termed as an excuse because when the state charges an application fee , and appoints a third party agency for logistics, data management, and platform administration, the act loses its sovereign essence and becomes a commercial act . And exactly this is the point where the grey line appears. the act loses its sovereign essence and becomes a commercial act. In such cases, where a breach happens, it is clearly the deficiency in the service. Courts need to shed their old mindset regarding the division of the “Sovereign” and “Commercial” and realize that contemporary competitive exams are nothing less than economic activities.
Legislative Restitution Gap
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 mainly focuses on punishing those involved in examination fraud through strict penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or both. However, one major issue with the Act is its neglect of students who become victims of such malpractice.[3] It only focuses on punishing criminals and has no provisions for helping students. It creates a gap in this legislation.
For instance, imagine a student preparing and spending two or three years for an exam, and after the exam, he gets a notice that the exam is nullified because of cheating. The student not only sustains mental and emotional damage but also suffers financial damage by way of coaching costs, books, and lost opportunities. [4] The Act does not provide any mechanism for compensating or providing relief to such students, creating a gap in victim protection.[5] And it is clearly visible how this gap is creating ‘ignorance towards the students’.
The Three-Fold Injury: Quantifying the ‘Lost Year’
The gap discussed above becomes even more significant when the nature and extent of the injury suffered by the victims are examined. The harm caused by paper leaks or examination irregularities cannot be assessed merely on a financial basis. In situations where a student is deprived of a fair opportunity because of malpractice, the principle of “Loss of Chance” becomes relevant and important. The decision in Chaplin v. Hicks recognised that the denial of a fair opportunity may itself amount to compensable harm. Similarly, where examination malpractice compromises the fairness of a competitive examination, students may be considered victims of a legal wrong.[6]
The losses suffered by affected candidates may broadly be understood under three categories. First is the pecuniary loss, as a student invests large amounts in coaching fees, books,test series, registration charges, commutation costs , and living expenses, only to face the burden of reappearing in the examination. Secondly, there is a loss of career opportunity , since the loss of even one academic year may disrupt the professional trajectory of aspiring doctors, engineers, and other professionals .[7] And this loss of career opportunity is termed as “ Loss of chance” ,discussed in cases like Chaplin v Hicks . [8]Thirdly, and most importantly, there is psychological distress, as prolonged uncertainty regarding academic and professional futures, along with societal pressure, creates a significant effect on the mental and emotional well-being of students.[9]
In conclusion, the CBI inquiry into the incident in question reveals that the collapse of the system was significant.[10] Therefore, where large-scale irregularities compromise the integrity of an examination system, the very objective of a merit-based assessment stands defeated. This is because, once fairness is undermined, the examination ceases to function as a genuine measure of merit.
Constitutional Dimensions: Articles 14 and 21
Also from the constitutional perspective, a paper leak or examination irregularities may amount to direct violation of Article 14 and article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This is so because in competitive exams, fairness is not merely an administrative requirement but also a constitutional necessity. It simply means that the level playing field is the sine qua non of equal opportunity in public employment and education.[11] Once malpractice enters the process, merit itself becomes questionable and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 stands affected, since some candidates may gain unlawful advantages over others.[12]
Furthermore, for many students those exams are not just an ordinary test but are the primary and mandatory route towards their chosen profession where the examination is a mandatory gateway to a chosen profession, the failure to secure that gateway infringes upon the Right to Livelihood under Article 21.[13] If access to education and employment depends upon competitive examinations, fairness in such examinations must also receive constitutional recognition and protection; and the judiciary must interpret Article 21 to encompass not just the right to work, but the right to a fair, incorruptible process for accessing that work.[14]
The Way Ahead: A Paradigm Change
To change from apathetic legislation to accountability, there must be three paradigm changes:
Victim Compensation Fund: Changing the 2024 Act such that all amounts collected as a fine from the exam mafias should compulsorily go towards the liquidated damages fund.[15]
Mandatory Integrity Insurance: Making it mandatory for public examination bodies to have “Exam Integrity Insurance” which will ensure that compensation is automatically provided based on pre-calculated formulas in case of proven violations.[16]
Litigation Strategy: Changing the litigation strategy from individual petitions to class actions. In this manner, the case involving millions becomes not only a legal headache but also a monetary one, forcing systemic changes.[17]
Conclusion
The candidate is the main investor in the national meritocracy program. It would be sheer hypocrisy to view the candidate as a “passive examinee” without considering the cold truth of the current market environment for education. The time has come for the law to categorize any examination leak as a violation of the trust agreement. Until such time that the State can be made legally responsible for the failure in its service, these examinations will remain vulnerable to those who the law wishes to deter.
References
[1] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(11).
[2] S Krishna Sradha v State of AP [2019] 17 SCC 535.
[3] Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024, ss 8-10.
[4] Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786.
[5] Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024, s 10 (limiting fines to the state exchequer).
[6] Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786
[7] S Krishna Sradha v State of AP [2019] 17 SCC 535
[8] Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786
[9] Constitution of India, art 21 (Right to Livelihood jurisprudence)
[10] Central Bureau of Investigation, Investigation Report: NEET-UG 2026 Breach (2026)
[11] Constitution of India, art 14
[12] Ibid.
[13] Constitution of India, art 21
[14] Constitution of India, art 21
[15] Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 2024 (critique of current penalty structure)
[16] General principles of tortious liability for service providers
[17] Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order 1 Rule 8 (Representative Suit/Class Action)