IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) W.M.P.No. of 2021 IN W.P.No. 13384 of 2021 Suba.Veerapandian advocate arul.moli mam –I submit that the speculation of an interested party to a litigation cannot create a ground for Public Interest Litigation. The fact that there is a large number of students in rural areas and sub-urban localities who are not opting for Science Groups in Higher Secondary Level and the number of students dropping out without writing NEET exam after filing applications are also a matter for concern of the state. Further, the lower middle class children especially the women students are not enjoying the luxury of staying at home for 2 or 3 years to make consecutive attempts to write the NEET and secure admission. These adversities are not limited to the points mentioned above alone. Even assuming that state decides to submit a review application to reconsider the decision dated 29.04.2020 made in CMC, Vellore Vs Union Of India, the state needs a data collected by a competent Committee. Hence constituting a committee to examine effects of NEET cannot be considered as an effort to thwart the judgment of the Supreme Court.

CLEAN COPY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
W.M.P.No. of 2021
IN
W.P.No. 13384 of 2021

Suba.Veerapandian
Aged 70 years
S/o. Visalatchi Ramasubbaiya
No. 28, SBS Colony,
Alwar Thiru Nagar,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai-87
…Petitioner/Proposed Respondent

-Versus-
1. Union of India
Rep by its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
New Delhi- 110001

2. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Health & Family Welfare (MCA-1) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai- 600009
… Respondents/Respondents
3. K. Nagarajan,
S/o. Karuppiah Nadar,
5038, Vika Flats, 5th Street,
Ram Nagar North,
Madippakkam, Chennai – 60009 … Respondent/Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT OF SUBA.VEERAPANDIAN

I, Suba.Veerapandiyan, S/o. Visalatchi Ramasubbaiya, aged about 70 years, residing at No. 28, SBS Colony, Alwar Thiru Nagar, Valasaravakkam,
Chennai-87, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the petitioner herein and as such well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. I submit that I am Doctorate in Tamil and served as Assistant Professor of Tamil in S.I.V.E.T College, Gowrivakkam, Chennai. After 21 years of educational experience and close association with the students of different

social strata, I obtained voluntary retirement from service in the year 1997 and entered into social work. I have been addressing meetings in all forums to promote the principles of equality, justice and freedom in the real spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution of India. I have widely travelled to various countries including America, Canada, UK, Malaysia, Singapore, Germany, France, Switzerland, Norway, Kuwait, Muscat, Australia and addressed the gatherings on Literature, Social and Political issues. I have been fighting for the rights of the educational and employment rights of the people belonging to the underprivileged social sections. I am also functioning as the General Secretary of a Social Organisation by name Dravida Iyakka Thamizhar Peravi and I am the founder of Karunchattai Pathipagam and editor of an E-Magazine by name Karunchattai Tamizhar. This organisation has been working to promote the fundamental duties mandated under Article 51 of the Constitution of India. I have written 50 books on various topics.

3. I submit that as I am leading the organization with the main objective of achieving social justice by inclusive growth and affirmative action, I am qualified to file this impleading petition in the W.P.No.13384 of 2021 which has been filed by an individual challenging the G.O.(MS).283 Health and Family Welfare [MCA-1] Department dated 10.06.2021 by which the 2nd respondent has appointed a High Level Committee to conduct a study about the impact of NEET Examination on the students of Tamil Nadu. I pray this Hon’ble Court to permit me to be impleaded as a respondent in the above writ petition and I further pray this Hon’ble Court to consider my submissions and dismiss the writ petition at the threshold.

4. I submit that the petitioner has no Locus Standi to file the Public Interest Litigation in this matter because he is the State Secretary of the Political Party (BJP) which is the ruling party in India, and brought the amendment to the Medical Council of India ACT and Dental Council of India to prescribe NEET as a mandatory requirement for admission of students into medical colleges throughout India. Therefore the petitioner and his party are keen in protecting their agenda in bringing such amendment. To preempt any move against the decision of his party, he is using this Court of Law to achieve their vested interests. It is nothing but abuse of Court of Law and the process of Law as well.

5. I submit that the mere reading of G.O.Ms.No.283 will make it apparently clear that the 2nd respondent has appointed the High Level Committee to

examine the position and find out whether NEET has affected the under privileged students of Tamil Nadu. It is no way affecting or challenging the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in C.M.C. Vellore VS The Union of India dated April 29,2020.

6. I submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition under a fallacious belief that a decision rendered by the Supreme Court will permanently prevent the Union Government and the State Governments from exercising their mandates to the people under legislative powers. In cases of necessity to remove the bottleneck, even the parliament has amended the Constitution.

7. I submit that even in this case the Supreme Court has given two different decisions
(i) it was initially a challenge to the notification issued by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India dated 21.12.2010 for implementation of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test for Admission to MBBS Course and also to the Post Graduate Medical Education. The matters were filed in the year 2012-2013. All those writ petitions were heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Bench comprising of three Judges by the order dated 18.07.2013 quashed the notifications imposing NEET.

(ii) Subsequently during the year 2016 a Review Petition came to be filed and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the order dated 11.04.2016 and the Judgment already rendered on 18.07.2013 was recalled. This fact is mentioned in the Judgment rendered in CMC, Vellore Vs Union Of India at paragraph 6. As the said recalling order is not available on the website, I am relying on the reported Judgment dated April 29, 2020.

(iii) Subsequently a writ petition (C) No.443 of 2016 came to be filed along with the writ petition (C) No.750 of 2016 for directing the respondent authorities to conduct NEET Examination for Admission to all Graduate Medical and Dental Coursed throughout the Country. Those writ petitions along with other matters were taken up by Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court and by the Judgment dated April 29,2020 the Supreme Court upheld the decision to prescribe uniform Examination of NEET for Admissions in the Graduate and Post Graduate Professional Courses of Medical and Dental as well as Dental Science.

I submit that the above sequence of the Judicial Process make it evident that the decision of the Court of Law is subject to change depending upon the
facts and circumstances. Hence a judicial verdict cannot be treated as a bar for preventing the State from exercising its power and its endeavor to set right an anomalous position and to change the status quo.

8. I further submit that the petitioner seems to be unaware of the history of the First Amendment brought to the Constitution of India by which various clauses of Articles were brought into the constitution as early as in June 1951. The basis for bringing in the Amendment under Article 15 by way inserting Article 15(4) was a result of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras quashing the Communal General Order known as Communal G.O, by the Judgment in Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras which was upheld by the Supreme Court of India by the orders dated 9th April 1951, reported in AIR 1951 SCC 226. The Supreme Court held that the communal G.O was inconsistent with part III of the Constitution of India and was therefore invalid. However, soon after the above judgment the Union of India brought in the First Amendment to the Constitution of India to fulfill their obligation to the people under Directive principles of State policy. Hence it is common in a democratic and federal structure with the magnificent constitution of a Republic Country and demarcating the division of powers between the three pillars of democracy lies in the checks and balances. I submit that if the argument advanced by the petitioner that a decision of the Supreme Court will preclude the state from taking any steps to make a change in the status quo is entertained that would be a death knell to all the community based affirmative action in India.

9. I submit that the Statement Of Objects And Reasons to the First Amendment reads as follows: “It is laid down in article 46 as a directive principle of State policy that the State should promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice. In order that any special provision that the State may make for the educational, economic or social advancement of any backward class of citizens may not be challenged on the ground of being discriminatory, it is proposed that article 15(3) should be suitably amplified.” The same principles are applicable to the present situation also.

10. I submit that it is imperative to the State Government to study and analyze the constrains of the students in their persuit to get admissions in to Medical Colleges. It is pertinent to mention that in order to drive this policy forward

armed with accurate and current information, the state namely the 2nd respondent has appointed another High Level Committee headed by Justice D.Murugesan, a retired Judge of this Hon’ble Court and also served as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. As the petitioner is motivated by his political stand of his party has chosen to challenge the appointment of the High Level Committee to study the impact of NEET. This act of the petitioner exposes the lack of bonafidies in filing this writ petition, and this is nothing but a litigation for their political purpose.

11. I submit that the choice of words used by the petitioner to describe the lakhs and lakhs of students who had qualified for admission in to Medical Colleges and who after graduation, rendered great service to the society. The petitioner represents the privileged class of students and calling the other section as below average would prove that he is the representative of the privileged sections who do not want to permit others to share the benefits provided by the state.

12. I further state that Tamil Nadu is the only State which has

i. experimented and experienced all forms of educational stream like the State Board, Matriculation, CBSE and ICSE.

ii. appointed a committee headed by the renowned Educationist, Dr.Ananthakrishnan, the former Vice Chancellor of Anna University and implemented the recommendations as ‘Samacheer Kalvi’ which means Equalised Education.

iii. There by declared that the policy of the State is to provide educational opportunities to the children of all sections of the society and provide special provisions according to their requirements by way of reservation for their adequate representation in all categories.

iv. Conducted a common entrance test for the Professional Educational Institutions for more than two decades and from the experience of the same, found out the impediments which the children from rural areas, socially, educationally weaker sections suffered and hence abolished the common entrance test by enacting Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Act 3 of 2007). Therefore, the State has got rich experience to decide the policy which is suitable to the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu.

v. When the NEET examination was reintroduced as an Ordinance in the Parliament of India, the debates recorded on 01/08/2016 proves the fact that the then Union Education Minister Shri.Jagat Prakash Nadda, has admitted that “all except Tamil Nadu. So, this clarity should be there, that except Tamil Nadu, it was said that NEET in principle is accepted. Then, we decided to go for an Ordinance” (Page 174 of the Uncorrected Minutes of the Parliament in reference NBR-LT/1A/1100).

13. I submit that in spite of the above distinctive stand taken by the Members of all Parties from Tamil Nadu, the Union Government has implemented the NEET Examination for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. But the data collected by various sources and published by way of research articles and in newspapers provide the following adverse impact which has created a dent in the confidence of the students and opportunities thereby affecting their future, and resulting in suicides also.

i. The number of students applying for the examination is decreasing with each year and in addition to that the number of students dropping out without writing the examination after applying is increasing every year. Therefore, the percentage of students projected by the NEET supporters to have been increasing is a farce.

ii. When the students are studying in different streams, adopting one scheme for formulating the NEET examination will apparently affect the students from the other streams. It is applicable vice versa. If the testing agency adopts the State Board syllabus as the basis for the examination, the same impediment will be there for the CBSE and other stream students. Therefore, it is indeed causing undue sufferings to the students for implementing the impractical policy of the Union Government.

iii. It is evidenced that the students with financially affluent background are able to pay huge tuition fees and get trained to write the NEET examination which is definitely not the symbol for merit and the same facility is not available even to the urban/lower middle-class families.

iv. The removal of maximum age is making a 17-year-old candidate to
compete 22-year-old candidate who is repeating the examination for the third or fourth time. It is giving way to an uneven unjust practice and depriving the chances of the candidates attempting the exam for the first time.

v. Repeating the NEET exam for the second or third time is certainly a luxury which is available to a small section of the society. The meritorious students who are at the threshold to seek the way for their livelihood cannot afford to stay idle and prepare for NEET.

14. Since the marks obtained in the academic public examination has not been given weightage, a large number of students aiming for medical college admission are tempted to spend more time for preparing towards the NEET examination and hence their score in the public examination is reduced. Once such students are not able to get admission into medical college, their chances of getting admission into the next level of colleges also become impossible.

15. I submit that it is pertinent to consider that NEET is not a fool proof method to procure meritorious candidates, as it is said to be. It should be noted that in the 50% seats of Management Quota, in the Self-financing Institutions, students who are financially affluent and had acquired the just pass, that is the qualifying percentile in the NEET examination were admitted. That means, a student who scored 107 (qualifying percentile) will pay the huge fee to the Private Institution and become a doctor while a student from socially and/or economically weaker section who scored 254 and could not secure a seat in the Government Institutions will not get a chance to become a Doctor.

16. I submit that Conducting a common entrance test like NEET has proved to be highly impossible in practice because only in the NEET examinations, huge malpractices, including impersonations have taken place and hence it is not the sole proof for efficiency.

17. I submit that the speculation of an interested party to a litigation cannot create a ground for Public Interest Litigation. The fact that there is a large number of students in rural areas and sub-urban localities who are not opting for Science Groups in Higher Secondary Level and the number of students dropping out without writing NEET exam after filing applications are also a matter for concern of the state. Further, the lower middle class children especially the women students are not enjoying the luxury of staying at home for 2 or 3 years to make consecutive attempts to write the NEET and secure admission. These adversities are not limited to the points mentioned above alone. Even assuming that state decides to submit a review application to reconsider the decision dated 29.04.2020 made in CMC, Vellore Vs Union Of India, the state needs a data collected by a competent Committee. Hence constituting a committee to examine effects of NEET cannot be considered as an effort to thwart the judgment of the Supreme Court.

For the reasons stated above and the arguments to be submitted at the time of hearing of the case, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner as a respondent in the W.P.No.13384 of 2021 and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai and BEFORE ME
signed his name in my presence
this the 2nd day of July 2021 ADVOCATE :: CHENNAI

You may also like...