Introduction / Context:
An “unprecedented” rise in cheating indicates both control failures and inadequate deterrence. The courses of action propose immediate administrative control, punitive consequences for offenders, and a legislative deterrent. We must determine whether all are reasonable and complementary.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Cheating has surged beyond normal levels.
- Exam authorities can tighten invigilation, surveillance, logistics, and paper security.
- Sanctions must be meaningful to deter repeat offences.
- Legislative framing as a cognizable offence can strengthen enforcement and coordination with police when required.
Concept / Approach:
- Layered defense is ideal: preventive controls, proportional penalties, and legal backing for serious cases.
- Actions should respect due process and proportionality.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I follows: Immediate operational measures (strict invigilation, jam unauthorized devices, sealed transport of papers) directly curb malpractice.II follows: Debarring detected offenders for a defined period is a proportionate, established penalty that deters.III follows: Making cheating a cognizable offence empowers law-and-order support for organized malpractice rackets; legislation complements administrative rules.
Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions blend institutional penalties with statutory offences for impersonation, paper leaks, and organized cheating.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Single or dual selections underuse available levers in the face of an “unprecedented” surge.
Common Pitfalls:
Relying solely on invigilation without deterrent penalties or legal tools to counter organized fraud.
Final Answer:
All follow
Discussion & Comments