Uttarakhand High Court quashes exam-cheating case, rules UP anti-cheating law ceased to apply in the state after two years without adaptation

The applicants challenged the summoning order, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 152 of 2019, arising from allegations of mass copying at an examination centre.

They had been charged under Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (“the 1998 Act”).

They argued that the Act had not been adapted for Uttarakhand within the period prescribed by Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, and that their institution was instead governed by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education Act, 2003 and regulations framed in 2016.

The State relied on a letter from the Secretary, School Education Board, asserting that the former Uttar Pradesh law continued to apply unless amended or repealed.

Whether the 1998 Act remained applicable in Uttarakhand after the two-year period under Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, where no adaptation order had been made.

Whether the criminal proceedings under the 1998 Act could continue against the applicants in light of the law governing their institution.

Section 87 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 empowered the appropriate Government, within two years of the appointed day, to adapt or modify pre-existing laws for application in the successor State; the Court held that, absent an adaptation order within that period, the 1998 Act ceased to apply in Uttarakhand after the period expired.

The Court also considered the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education Act, 2003 and regulations framed under it in 2016, including Regulation 29, which provides for handling a student’s examination copy and referral of the matter to a committee.

It invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court found no order adapting the 1998 Act for Uttarakhand within the two-year period prescribed by Section 87; accordingly, it rejected the State’s reliance on the Board Secretary’s letter and held that the Act was no longer applicable in the State after that period.

It further noted that the applicants’ institution was governed by the 2003 Act and the 2016 regulations.

On that basis, it concluded that the FIR and charge sheet under the 1998 Act were not applicable to the applicants and that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, it quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 152 of 2019 under Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the 1998 Act, qua the applicants in both applications.