The Delhi High Court has designated Judge Anu Grover Baliga as the special judge to hear criminal cases involving examination paper leaks and unfair means. The appointment follows the Union government’s decision to establish fast-track courts for such offences.
The Delhi High Court has designated Judge Anu Grover Baliga as the special judge to try criminal cases arising from examination paper leaks and the use of unfair means in public examinations, notifying the appointment within hours of the Union government’s announcement that fast-track courts would be set up for such offences.
A notification to that effect was issued by the High Court on Thursday evening.
Judge Baliga was until now posted as judge-in-charge of the Mediation Centre, Central District, at the Tis Hazari Courts. Her fresh designation reads as “Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-25, (Specially Designated Fast Track Court), to try the offences under Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and connected offences.”
She will preside at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex.
The form of the designation is itself telling. Rouse Avenue houses the designated courts that try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and is the forum where cases involving sitting and former legislators are heard. Locating the paper-leak court within that framework, rather than creating a standalone forum, indicates that the cases contemplated are those likely to come through central agency investigation.
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 is the central legislation enacted to deal with organised cheating, leakage of question papers and related malpractice in public examinations conducted by specified national bodies, including the National Testing Agency, the Union Public Service Commission, the Staff Selection Commission, the Railway Recruitment Boards and banking recruitment authorities.
Broadly, the Act penalises the leakage of question papers or answer keys, unauthorised access to or tampering with examination material, manipulation of seating or results, and the conduct of fake examinations or issuance of fake admit cards.
It draws a distinction between individual offenders and organised crime the latter, involving a nexus of persons or institutions, attracting substantially more stringent punishment, along with provisions for higher fines and, in the case of service providers, recovery of examination costs. Offences under the Act are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
The statute’s efficacy has, however, been contested. Critics among them the Supreme Court Bar Association’s President, Senior Advocate Dr. Vikas Singh, in his recent letter to the Prime Minister have argued that it lacks any time-bound mechanism for investigation or trial. It is precisely that gap which the designation of a fast-track court is intended to address, since a specially designated court supplies the timeline that the statute itself does not.
The notification followed swiftly on the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier the same day. PM Narendra Modi said on Thursday morning that the government had decided to establish fast-track courts to ensure swift and stringent punishment for those involved in paper leaks, describing the measure as part of a continuing series of steps to protect the interests of students.
That announcement came against the backdrop of student protests spreading across the country over successive examination leaks.
In Delhi, students and the Cockroach Janta Party have been demonstrating at Jantar Mantar, pressing for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the alleged leak of the 2026 NEET-UG question paper and related failures in the conduct of public examinations.
The agitation escalated on July 20, when an attempted march to Parliament was stopped by a heavy police deployment, generating multiple FIRs and several rounds of litigation now pending before the Delhi High Court.