Delhi’s specially designated fast-track court for examination paper leaks and cheating cases is facing a jurisdictional hurdle that has left some cases pending before courts in other districts of the national capital in limbo.
The case was pending before a magistrate at the Karkardooma court, where charges are yet to be framed. “The notification only mentions cases pending at Rouse Avenue Court and not other cases lodged under the paper leak law. This is preventing cases pending before other district courts in Delhi from being heard by the fast-track court.
The first case relates to an incident reported on March 24 at Seemapuri, where police allege that 19 candidates used electronic devices to cheat during the CBSE EMRS recruitment examination for the post of hostel warden. The accused were arrested and booked under provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. On September 3, however, the matter came before the fast-track court when one of the accused, Sourabh Kumar, filed a bail application.
Due to a lack of clarity, a matter is being sent midway to the fast-track court without an official transfer order by the Delhi High Court,” he said.
Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat, who has been appointed to handle examination paper leak cases investigated by Delhi Police , said the present situation was creating uncertainty for both courts and lawyers.
The notification, however, specifically provides for the withdrawal and assignment of entrance examination fraud cases pending in courts at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex to the designated special judge. The HC had initially designated the court of judicial officer Anu Grover Baliga at Rouse Avenue as the special fast-track court to exclusively try offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, along with connected offences. Baliga was subsequently transferred during a major reshuffle of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, and Special Judge Ajay Gupta was assigned to preside over the fast-track court with effect from August 4.
The defence relied on an August 24 order of Special Judge Vineet Kumar of Karkardooma court. Because the newly designated court had exclusive jurisdiction over cases relating to cheating and other offences covered by the anti-paper leak law, kumar’s counsel argued that the case had been sent to the fast-track court.
In that order, the court recorded the prosecution’s submission that matters relating to cheating in public examinations were to be “exclusively tried” by the special fast-track court, with a Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution.
The court consequently allowed the lawyer to move the bail application before the designated fast-track court.
The court, set up at the Rouse Avenue Court Complex to exclusively deal with offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, is currently hearing the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak case against 13 accused persons investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — the only case assigned to it. A similar issue arose in the Janakpuri case, relating to the alleged use of mobile phones by two candidates, Aarti and Hemant, during the Lower Divisional Clerk Examination 2026 on July 26. On August 31, their bail applications were sent to the fast-track court for consideration. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act was enacted by Parliament in 2024 to tackle organised cheating, question-paper leaks and other malpractices in public examinations. It came into force on June 21, 2024.
The problem came to the fore during hearings this week in two separate cases — one involving alleged cheating during the CBSE EMRS recruitment examination at Seemapuri, and another concerning alleged cheating during the Lower Divisional Clerk examination in Janakpuri. Both cases were originally pending before magistrates at Karkardooma and Dwarka courts, respectively. Their bail applications were subsequently sent to the newly designated fast-track court, but Special Judge Ajay Gupta, presiding over the court, flagged that the Delhi High Court ’s notification does not appear to provide for the automatic transfer of cases pending in courts outside the Rouse Avenue complex. Their case was pending before a magistrate in Dwarka and had not yet reached the trial stage. The difficulty, however, lies in how the Delhi High Court’s notification creating the special court is being interpreted. During the recent hearings, Judge Gupta noted that the cases pending before courts in Karkardooma and Dwarka had not been formally transferred to the fast-track court pursuant to an order of the High Court. This has created a peculiar situation: while subordinate courts have taken the view that cases under the anti-paper leak law should be dealt with by the designated fast-track court, the fast-track court has pointed to the absence of a formal transfer mechanism covering cases pending outside Rouse Avenue.
The court observed that the matters had not been received by it through a formal assignment or transfer by the High Court and, therefore, questioned their maintainability before the fast-track court at this stage.
