The nationwide Generation Z (Gen Z) protests over recurring examination paper leaks have forced the government into an unprecedented response. Among the centrepieces of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, is the creation of special fast-track courts to prosecute offences under the new law.
The amendment requires every state and Union territory, in consultation with the respective High Courts, to designate a court of session as a special fast-track court. Trials are expected to proceed on a day-to-day basis and, “ordinarily”, conclude within three months of the filing of the charge sheet. Every state is also required to appoint one or more special public prosecutors for these courts.
Combined with the prime minister’s public commitment to eradicate the paper leak mafia, the amendment represents the toughest legal response yet to an examination scandal that has shaken public confidence in India’s recruitment and admission systems.
Yet, the obvious question remains: is this the beginning of meaningful institutional reform, or merely a hurried political response to an unprecedented youth movement led by the Cockroach Janta Party?
History offers reason for caution.
The record of India’s investigation and prosecution of major examination scams has been disappointing. While investigative agencies, particularly the CBI, have registered numerous cases involving middlemen, institutional insiders and organised syndicates, convictions have remained elusive. Courts have repeatedly criticised investigations for delays and incomplete evidence, while trials have stretched endlessly.
At least 158 cases involving recruitment and entrance examination irregularities remain pending despite completion of investigations. Some have been awaiting trial for over two decades.
Delhi alone has nearly 25 such cases awaiting commencement of trial despite completed investigations. They include alleged irregularities in the AIIMS postgraduate entrance examination (2010-11), the Delhi University Medical and Dental Entrance Examination (2011), the Common Admission Test (2004), Staff Selection Commission recruitment examinations (2013), and several teachers’ recruitment cases.
Recognising the mounting backlog, the CBI has now approached High Courts seeking transfer of these long-pending matters to the newly established special fast-track courts under the anti-paper leak legislation.
The proposal appears sensible. Whether it proves effective is another matter.
India has travelled this road before. The modern concept of fast-track courts received its greatest impetus following the horrific Nirbhaya gangrape in December 2012. Massive public outrage compelled the government to establish fast-track special courts dedicated to rape and POCSO cases, promising swift justice for victims. Nearly 790 such courts were announced.
However, despite their noble objective, the system soon encountered familiar obstacles. Investigative delays, inadequate staffing, procedural bottlenecks and infrastructure shortages undermined the promise of speedy justice.
The numbers tell the story. As of January 2023, more than 2.43 lakh POCSO cases remained pending before fast-track special courts. Research by the India Child Protection Fund found that the country’s fast-track courts were disposing of an average of just 28 cases annually, against the original target of 165 cases per court.
The gap between promise and performance could hardly be wider. The new anti-paper leak courts risk inheriting the same structural weaknesses.
Administrative disruptions have already surfaced. Within days of the Delhi High Court designating Judge Anu Grover Baliga to preside over the newly constituted fast- track court at Rouse Avenue for examination-related offences, she was transferred during a routine reshuffle of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The cases, including those arising from the controversial 2026 NEET examination, have now been assigned to Special Judge Ajay Gupta, who had earlier been hearing the matters.
While such transfers are routine, they illustrate how administrative decisions can interrupt the very continuity that fast-track mechanisms are designed to ensure.
The larger challenge lies elsewhere.
General fast-track courts have historically functioned less as specialised institutions and more as regular courts carrying additional responsibilities. Most continue to operate from existing court buildings without dedicated infrastructure, separate staff or independent administrative systems. Once the initial public outrage subsides, the familiar weaknesses tend to re-emerge.
Many fast-track courts continue to struggle with inadequate infrastructure, shortage of judges and administrative personnel, limited technological support, delayed investigations, non-availability of investigating officers, slow submission of forensic reports and mounting judicial workloads. Judges assigned to these courts often continue to hear their regular caseloads, making genuinely continuous hearings difficult.
Ironically, the pressure to dispose of cases quickly may itself affect the quality of adjudication. Judges, prosecutors and witnesses frequently work under unrealistic disposal targets, increasing the risk that speed overtakes thoroughness.
These concerns were highlighted in a comprehensive study by the National Law University, Delhi, titled, “Evaluation of Functioning of Fast Track Courts in India”.
The study concluded that fast-track courts were created without dedicated infrastructure, specialised administration, independent staffing or procedural innovation.
In practice, they function much like ordinary courts while carrying the additional burden of accelerated timelines.
Its conclusion was sobering: fast-track courts often satisfy public expectations symbolically without addressing the systemic deficiencies that generate delays in the first place.
That raises an uncomfortable question: Are fast-track courts treating the disease—or merely its symptoms?
The real solution to examination fraud arguably lies not at the prosecution stage, but much earlier, in prevention.
A leak-proof examination system would reduce the need for criminal prosecutions altogether. However, that would require secure printing facilities similar to those used for the Union Budget, end-to-end encrypted logistics, GPS-monitored transportation, professional security agencies, tighter chain-of-custody protocols and advanced surveillance technologies.
China offers one possible model. Every year, more than ten million students sit the highly competitive Gaokao examination under conditions resembling a national security operation. Question setters are isolated for weeks before the examinations. Question papers are transported under armed escort in GPS-tracked vehicles. Examination centres employ AI-powered surveillance cameras, signal jammers, biometric verification and even drone monitoring to detect cheating.
India’s federal structure makes replication of such a system more complex. Different states conduct examinations under varying procedures and security standards. Establishing fast-track courts is, therefore, administratively simpler than overhauling the examination ecosystem itself.
But simpler does not necessarily mean better.
The latest amendment is undoubtedly a step forward. Swift prosecution sends an important message that examination fraud will no longer be treated as a minor administrative lapse.
Yet, unless investigations improve, institutions strengthen and prevention becomes the central objective, fast-track courts alone may simply accelerate an already overloaded system without delivering the certainty of punishment that deters organised crime.
Justice delayed may be justice denied. But justice hurried, without strengthening the system beneath it, can be equally disappointing.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine
The post Making Haste, Slowly appeared first on India Legal.