USE OF UNFAIR MEANS (CHEATING) IN PUBLIC EXAMINATION

Posted 15 Mar 2024

6 min read

Introduction

Parliament passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act (PEA), 2024. The Act deals with unfair means adopted or offences committed by various entities involved in conducting public examinations by the Central Government and its agencies.

Stakeholders, their interest in public examination and the impact of cheating

Stakeholder	Interest	Impact of cheating
Students	Increased knowledge. Secure employment prospects. Develop confidence and skills like time management through healthy competition. Assess their learning.	Hinders the learning process. Gives some students an unfair advantage over the others. Achievements of students obtained via sincere work are diminished. Compromises the serious candidates' prospects for the future.
Government and public authorities	Select qualified officials. Provide employment to youth. Transparency, fairness and credibility in the hiring process.	Unqualified candidates are selected, leading to poor service delivery. Scams and postponement of examination adds to the additional costs. Repetitive instances of cheating widened the trust deficit between the public and the government.
Society	Develop qualified human resources to serve society. Promote virtues like honesty, hard work etc.	Society is poorly served if people are permitted to become credentialed, certified, and licensed through cheating. Increase in the social acceptability of cheating in public life. Perpetuates moral corruption in the society.
Examination centres, service providers	Monetary gains from conducting exams	Loss of future opportunities and profits.

Ethical reasonings against cheating in examinations

Violates deontological ethics: Students have adopted unfair means (cheating) for favourable ends (results).
Against Utilitarianism: Cheating does not serve the Society and does not satisfy its interests as people who are not capable of providing the needed knowledge and services are given positions.
Violates Categorical Imperative: As per Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.
- It would be reasonable to conclude that the would-be cheaters should not want to have inferior care and services from providers who cheated their way into positions.

Justice as Fairness Principle: Cheating violates human liberties and equality of opportunities and supports unjust differences.
Virtue Ethics: Virtues of truth, trust, and excellence of character do not support deception or dishonesty.

Reasons for cheating in examinations

Ambiguous attitudes: Parents and teachers sometimes support a culture that is accepting of cheating, such as allowing students to plagiarise.
Competitive and societal pressures: In today's increasingly competitive atmosphere, doing well in exams is becoming more and more important for survival.
- Further, success is often measured by whether a student has a passing grade rather than the ability to complete the learning process with integrity.
Delayed justice: There is a general perception of the judicial system being slow and ineffective, lessening the fear of repercussions.
High-end technology: Cheaters have access to many devices helping in cheating like spy mics, Bluetooth devices, and so on.
Institutional apathy: Lack of proper monitoring systems to curb the use of unfair means and absence of appropriate punishments may further encourage cheating.
Ambition and Pursuit of self-interest: Students may intentionally cheat to gain an unjust advantage over others.
- Further, other entities may assist in cheating for monetary gains.
Altruistic cheating: A person may use unfair means to benefit someone else, such as parents using monetary means to help out their children in an examination, friends helping out each other etc..

How ‘Does PEA 2024’ seek to prevent the use of unfair means in public examinations?

Wide definition of unfair means: The Act lists 15 actions that amount to using unfair means in public examinations “for monetary or wrongful gain,” like leakage of question paper/ answer key, directly or indirectly assisting the candidate, wilful violation of norms or standards, tampering with the computer network or a computer resource, creation of fake website, etc.
Strict punitive action: All offenses under the Act will be cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. Penalties specified in the act-
- For Persons resorting to unfair means and offences under the Act: Imprisonment for a term 3-5 years and fine up to ten lakh rupees.
- For Service provider: Fine up to one crore rupees and proportionate cost of examination and being barred for a period of four years
- Organized crimes: Imprisonment of 5- 10 years and fine of up to one crore rupees.
Transparency and accountability: In the event of a violation, service providers (providing devices like computers) must report to the police and the concerned examination authority.
Officers empowered to investigate: An officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police.

Public Examination covered under the Act

Any Examination conducted by—

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

Way forward

Technologically based solutions: New strategies need to be considered and employed to better manage the advancement of technology use for illegitimate purposes.
- For instance, the government decided to set up a High-level National Technical Committee on Public Examinations to develop protocols for insulating digital platforms.
Social stigma towards cheating: Value-based education and making use of role models should be used to build negative attitudes towards cheating in society.
Parental Involvement: Parents should support their children's learning without resorting to unethical practices making ethical learning at home.

Check your ethical aptitude

You have been studying for a public examination for a considerable amount of time, but you have not been successful in passing it by a very small margin. You were approached by a person who informed you that he works at the examination centre for your upcoming exam. He said that he could provide you with the key to a few questions in exchange for money. He stated that he has been engaging in this activity for a considerable amount of time, and because he is doing it on a very small scale, he is never caught. Hence, the likelihood of you being caught is likewise low.

On the basis of the case study answer the following questions: