India’s government has unveiled a fresh package of reforms aimed at strengthening the integrity of public examinations after nationwide protests over leaked entrance exam papers, while simultaneously facing a court challenge over its use of AI-powered surveillance during the demonstrations that prompted the reforms.
The twin developments reflect the government’s efforts to restore confidence in the country’s examination system while defending the security measures employed during one of India’s largest youth protests in decades.
On Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government introduced a bill in parliament proposing amendments to the Public Examinations Act, expanding penalties for examination fraud and strengthening investigative powers. The proposed legislation follows the cancellation of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), India’s undergraduate medical school entrance examination, after question papers were leaked, forcing around two million candidates to sit the examination again.
The cancellation sparked weeks of protests involving tens of thousands of demonstrators in Delhi and other cities. More than a dozen student suicides were linked to the cancellation, while the political fallout culminated in Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation last week. Modi subsequently announced the establishment of special courts to prosecute those responsible for the leaks.
The proposed amendments seek to reinforce legislation enacted in 2024 following earlier NEET paper leaks. While the existing law introduced penalties for those using unfair means, companies involved in conducting examinations and officials within examination authorities, the new proposals substantially increase punishments.
Under the amendments, the minimum prison sentence for offenders would rise from three years to five years, while the maximum financial penalty would increase five-fold from 10 million rupees ($104,000) to 50 million rupees ($522,000). Companies found guilty would also face an eight-year ban, double the current period.
Alongside legislative changes, the government has launched a broader review of the examination system. Modi announced the creation of a high-powered panel chaired by technology expert Nandan Nilekani to recommend reforms aimed at improving the credibility and reliability of public examinations through greater use of technology.
Nilekani, best known for leading the creation of India’s Aadhaar digital identity system and co-founding software company Infosys, has been tasked with recommending measures that the government says will be implemented “as quickly as possible”.
The latest initiative follows recommendations made by an earlier expert committee established after the 2024 NEET paper leaks. That panel submitted 101 recommendations in October, including proposals to replace pen-and-paper examinations with computer-based testing and to conduct examinations in multiple shifts. According to the committee’s chair, most major recommendations have either been implemented or remain in progress.
Even as examination reforms advance, the protests that accelerated those changes have become the focus of a significant legal dispute over digital surveillance.
Student activist Aishe Ghosh has petitioned the Delhi High Court to declare the mass surveillance of protesters unconstitutional, seeking the destruction of personal data collected during the demonstrations and the introduction of judicial guidelines governing the use of surveillance technology at public protests.
The case arises from the deployment of a mobile Delhi Police surveillance vehicle equipped with AI-powered cameras mounted on a telescopic mast providing a 360-degree view of demonstrators. Images of the vehicle circulated widely on social media during the protests, triggering criticism from digital rights advocates.
Although the demonstrations concluded following Pradhan’s resignation, Ghosh has continued pursuing the case, arguing that the issues extend beyond the protests themselves. Activists contend that India lacks legislation governing police use of facial recognition technology and argue that surveillance at the New Delhi protest site breached existing legal protections.
The government has defended its actions, maintaining that surveillance measures were lawful and necessary to preserve public order. During a hearing on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that privacy claims at a public gathering were “ironical” and described the checks as “absolutely necessary” and “in legitimate state interest.”
At a brief hearing on Monday, judges heard arguments that the surveillance employed was disproportionate and that broader disclosure of government policies governing surveillance during protests was required. The court is scheduled to continue hearing the matter on Tuesday.
The controversy has also drawn intervention from civil society organisations. The New Delhi-based Internet Freedom Foundation has called on Delhi Police to delete biometric data allegedly collected during the protests. Delhi Police did not respond to a Reuters request for comment but said in a post on X that it had not “restricted anyone’s freedom through the use of facial recognition technology”.
Questions have also been raised about the technology itself. The surveillance vehicle, branded “Ikshana”, displayed the Delhi Police insignia and was equipped with AI-powered cameras supplied by Indian CCTV company CP Plus. The company stated that while it provided the hardware, operational deployment and database management were entirely controlled by law enforcement authorities.
During the protests, a Reuters reporter observed a computer display inside the vehicle highlighting faces with a green rectangular box and a “face accuracy” match metric. Police officer Raj Kumar Dahiya told Reuters that the system helped identify individuals with criminal histories and that “AI also helps us count the number of protesters.”
The parallel pursuit of tougher examination safeguards and the legal battle over AI surveillance has placed India’s response to the examination scandal at the centre of a wider debate over accountability, technology and the balance between public security and individual rights.
