Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to CTET Candidate Accused of Using Proxy; Terms Act a Threat to Educational Integrity
By Rajesh Pandey
In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of examinations and the integrity of the academic system, the Allahabad High Court has refused bail to a man accused of resorting to fraudulent means in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET).
The accused, Sandeep Singh Patel, was allegedly involved in a case where a proxy candidate appeared in his place, using forged documents and failing biometric authentication.
Delivering a detailed order on July 8, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh underscored the grave societal impact of such acts, stating that using a solver in place of the actual candidate undermines not just the examination process but also the very foundation of a merit-based system.
#ExamFraud #CTETScam
The court observed that acts like impersonation and cheating fundamentally distort the level playing field for deserving candidates and promote a culture of dishonesty, which could deeply damage the morale of students who rely on hard work and sincerity.
“Cheating in an examination deeply affects the career of meritorious students who rely on hard work and honesty,” Justice Singh stated.
“It creates an uneven playing field, where merit is overshadowed by manipulation. Over time, such practices erode trust in the system and diminish the motivation of genuine students.”
#AcademicIntegrity #JusticeAgainstCheating
The incident in question occurred on December 15, 2024, during the administration of the CTET. According to case records, invigilators at the examination centre noticed irregularities and grew suspicious of one candidate, Lokendra Shukla, who was ultimately found to be impersonating Sandeep Singh Patel. The impersonation was enabled by a fake admit card, and the impersonator failed biometric verification, leading to their immediate identification and subsequent arrest.
Following the discovery, both Sandeep Singh Patel and Lokendra Shukla were booked under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as the newly enacted Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, a legal framework aimed specifically at curbing malpractice in public examinations.
#AntiCheatingLaw #UPExamLaw2024
In his plea for bail, Sandeep Singh Patel claimed that he had been hospitalized from December 14 to December 17 and therefore could not have orchestrated or participated in the alleged cheating. He further contended that he had no personal or financial ties with the impersonator or any co-accused, and asserted that his criminal record was clean, making him an unlikely flight risk. He also pointed out that one of the co-accused had already been granted bail.
However, the prosecution countered these claims, presenting compelling evidence, including call detail records (CDRs) that established direct contact between Sandeep Singh and other individuals involved in the fraud.
According to the state counsel, these communications were not incidental but formed part of a premeditated scheme where Sandeep knowingly allowed a proxy to appear for him in the exam, with the intent to pass without actual merit.
Justice Singh, upon reviewing the evidence, found no merit in the applicant’s argument of non-involvement. Instead, the court stated that the phone records indicated his complicity and established that Sandeep was the primary beneficiary of the fraudulent act.
As a result, the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to presume innocence at this stage.
“It cannot be presumed that the present applicant is not involved in the said offence,” the order noted, stressing that the very nature of the crime posed a threat to institutional fairness and justice.
