Gujarat High Court Strikes Down Retrospective Use of Anti-Cheating Law in Dummy Candidate Scandal

In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has discharged multiple accused involved in alleged dummy candidate rackets for government job exams, holding that the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2023 cannot be applied retrospectively. Justice Gita Gopi, in a common order dated April 23, 2026, set aside a sessions court decision refusing discharge, emphasizing protections under Article 20(1) of the Constitution . This decision comes amid a crackdown on exam malpractices, as reported in media coverage of similar relief granted to petitioners challenging the Act's invocation.

The Proxy Exam Empire Unravels

The cases stemmed from an FIR lodged on April 14, 2023, at Bharatnagar Police Station, Bhavnagar (C.R. No. I-11-80-68-230-274 of 2023), naming dozens under IPC sections like 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, and 201; Section 66(D) of the IT Act; and crucially, Sections 12(1), 12(3), and 12(4) of the Examination Act. A chargesheet led to Sessions Cases 64 and 66 of 2023.

Accused included original candidates and their proxies who allegedly appeared in exams such as Bin Sachivalay Clerk (2022), MPHW (2022), Gram Sevak (2017), Junior Clerk (2017), and even SSC Std-10 (2022). Prosecution stories painted a web of meetings, Aadhaar swaps, and payments—like Rs. 9 lakh for one Junior Clerk proxy—facilitated by middlemen like Prakash alias P.K. Dave. All exams predated the Act's enforcement on March 3, 2023.

Applicants, represented by advocates Kuldeep D. Vaidya and Rathin P. Raval, approached the sessions court under Section 227 CrPC for discharge from Examination Act charges, only to be rebuffed on January 21, 2026—prompting these four clubbed criminal revision applications (Nos. 908, 918, 921, and 651 of 2026).

Defense: No Crime Before the Law Existed

Applicants argued the Act's post-exam enforcement violated Article 20(1) , barring conviction for acts not illegal at the time. They invoked Supreme Court precedents stressing laws govern prospectively unless explicitly retrospective. "The Examination Act came into force on 03.03.2023 and the Examination was conducted prior to the Act coming into force," their pleas underscored, shielding them from these specific charges while IPC and IT Act offenses proceeded.

Prosecution's Pushback: Same Old Cheating Game

The State, via Additional Public Prosecutor Pranav Dhagat, highlighted gritty details—like a 2017 Junior Clerk plot with proxies arriving via arranged calls and hall tickets routed through fixers. Results were manipulated, jobs secured, and payoffs collected. Insisting facts mirrored across cases, they defended charging both originals and dummies under the new Act as a fair escalation against systemic fraud.

Court's Razor-Sharp Constitutional Cut

Justice Gopi zeroed in on retrospectivity, citing Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Esthappan Cherian (2021 (10) SCC 210) : laws aren't retrospective absent clear intent. She quoted CIT v. Vatika Township (2015 (1) SCC 1) on the "principle of fairness"—laws look forward ( lex prospicit non respicit ), not backward. No saving clause in the Act signaled retroapplication, rendering charges "bad, illegal and violative of their fundamental rights."

Precedents like Union of India v. M.C. Ponnose (1970 AIR 395) reinforced: delegated rules can't retroact without express power. The timeline was fatal—all exams pre-2023—trumping prosecution narratives.

Key Observations

“No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence.” (Article 20(1), Constitution of India, as quoted in para 7)

“A rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention, to the contrary.” (Para 8, citing Vatika Township)

“Lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward.” (Para 14)

“The invocation of the Examination Act against all the present applicants is bad, illegal and violative of their fundamental rights.” (Para 15)

Victory for the Accused, Precedent for the Future

The court allowed the revisions, quashing the sessions order qua Examination Act sections: "The applicants are discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 12(1), 12(3) and 12(4) of the Examination Act." Rule made absolute.

This narrows probes to pre-existing laws, signaling caution in applying new anti-cheating statutes to past acts. For job aspirants and investigators, it underscores constitutional bulwarks against ex post facto justice, potentially reshaping how Gujarat tackles exam rackets predating 2023.