SYNOPSIS “Examination is something quite different from education, but in the name of raising the standard of education, they are making the examinations so impossible and so severe that the backward communities which have hitherto not had the chance of entering the portals of University are absolutely kept out”
[15/11, 19:51] Sekarreporter: SYNOPSIS
“Examination is something quite different from education, but in the name of raising the standard of education, they are making the examinations so impossible and so severe that the backward communities which have hitherto not had the chance of entering the portals of University are absolutely kept out”
– Hon’ble Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
The present Original Suit arises out of a grave constitutional impasse created by the Hon’ble President of India by withholding assent to The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 (L.A. Bill No. 43 of 2021) hereinafter referred to as “TN Bill, 2021”, which had been unanimously passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and forwarded for Presidential consideration by the Hon’ble Governor under Article 201 of the Constitution. The impugned action, communicated through the Governor’s Secretariat on 04.03.2025, was taken mechanically on the aid and advice of the Union Government, without assigning any reasons, despite detailed replies furnished by the State to every objection and clarification raised by the Union Ministries. The present suit raises substantial question of law as to interpretation of the constitution raising signification questions relating to the State’s legislative autonomy, constitutional federalism, the scope of Article 201, Article 254(2), and the State’s primary duty under Article 47 to safeguard public health by ensuring equitable access to medical education.
Since independence, the Plaintiff State has evolved its own system of admissions to professional courses that has been carefully designed to have high standards and to reflect the social realities of the State. Historically, the Plaintiff State of Tamil Nadu introduced a Common Entrance Test (CET) for engineering and medical admissions, but found it disproportionately harmful to students from rural and socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. However, acting on the recommendations of the Dr. Anandakrishnan Committee, the State abolished CET and enacted The Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007). TheAct, which received Presidential assent on 03.03.2007, mandated admissions solely on the basis of Class XII Board marks, with normalization across Boards. For a decade thereafter, the medical and professional colleges situated in the Plaintiff State admitted students transparently and equitably, producing world-class doctors, while maintaining high standards in medical education and a remarkable Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education of 47%, far above the national average of 29% Union Government target in NEP 2020 is to achieve 50% by 2035.
This equilibrium was disrupted when the Union of India i.e. the Defendant No.2, through the Medical Council of India and later the National Medical Commission, sought to impose a uniform National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as “NEET”) in Tamil Nadu along with the rest of the country. The Plaintiff State was compelled from 2017 to adopt NEET as the sole criterion for medical admissions. The experience since then has been devastating for the vulnerable classes. The Justice (Retired) A.K. Rajan Committee, appointed by the State Government constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 283 dated 10.06.2021, undertook an exhaustive study of NEET’s impact. The Committee received over 80,000 responses from stakeholders, of which, the overwhelming majority favoured scrapping NEET in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Committee’s report categorically found that NEET-based admissions had tilted the system in favour of affluent, urban, CBSE-educated students who could afford years of private coaching, while excluding bright but underprivileged students from government schools, Tamil-medium education, rural backgrounds, and socio-economically backward classes. The Committee concluded that NEET was inequitable, antithetical to social justice, and had the effect of structurally disenfranchising disadvantaged groups from access to medical education.
The NEET has also fuelled a parallel and highly commercialised coaching industry, which now generates thousands of crores annually. Students aspiring for medical education are compelled to spend lakhs of rupees on coaching over multiple years, often at the cost of other holistic learning. This hampers level playing field to all students. This trend has led to the disturbing phenomenon of “repeaters” – students who repeatedly attempt NEET after years of coaching – disproportionately succeeding over fresh higher secondary graduates. Data reveals that in Tamil Nadu, more than 70% of students securing MBBS admissions post-NEET are repeaters, while first-generation learners from government schools are effectively excluded. This is a direct affront to Article 14 and Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which mandate equality and protective discrimination in favour of socially and educationally backward classes.
Moreover, NEET has undermined the very objectives that the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (herein after “NMC Act”) claims to achieve. While the NMC Act emphasises accessibility, affordability, and diversity in medical education, NEET has made access costlier, entrenched inequities, and failed to ensure diversity. Private tuition centres continue to charge exorbitant fees, and joined only by affluent people, who can afford. Thus, merit is not advanced but undermined; NEET has failed to prevent commercialisation or capitation, contrary to the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s expectations.
NEET has also promoted some of the students to indulge in impersonation in exams. Several irregularities and fraud surrounding the NEET exams in the earlier years including individuals accused of paper leaks impersonation and selling question papers or inflated scores were reported by some states. It is to be noted that a numerical score adopted through NEET cannot measure complex and qualitative attributes. The system that prioritises scores above all other factors may encourage students to focus on optimising their scores rather than gaining a deep understanding of the subject. This can lead to memorisation (“mugging up”) rather than genuine learning. Educational system cannot be stagnant and inflexible towards the evolving academic environment. One of the major criticisms in NEET is the “one-size-fits-all” approach in medical entrance exams which does not adopt equitable and inclusive approach. This rigid medical entrance exam system, is sought to be thrusted compulsorily through the State’s throat by way of Section 14 of the NMC Act. This is now sought to be departed under the impugned TN Bill 2021 by adopting a standard, scientific normalisation of mark methods, which could lead to better outcomes in the admission of candidates.
The objections raised by the Defendant No.2 to the TN Bill, 2021 rests on misplaced premises. The Ministries of Health, Education, and AYUSH contend that the Bill conflicts with Section 14 of the NMC Act and that a uniform entrance exam is necessary for national meritocracy. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr Pradeep Jain and others Vs Union of India reported in (1984)3SCC654 has held thus:
“But let us understand what we mean when we say that selection for admission to medical colleges must be based on merit. What is merit which must govern the process of selection? It undoubtedly consists of a high degree of intelligence coupled with a keen and incisive mind, sound knowledge of the basic subjects and infinite capacity for hard work, but that is not enough; it also calls for a sense of social commitment and dedication to the cause of the poor. We agree with Krishna Iyer, J. when he says in Jagdish Saran’s case (supra) : “If potential for rural service or aptitude for rendering medical attention among backward people is a criterion of merit-and it, undoubtedly, is in a land of sickness and misery, neglect and penury, wails and tears-then, surely, belonging to a university catering to a deprived region is a plus point of merit. Excellence is composite and the heart and its sensitivity are as precious in the case of educational values as the head and its creativity and social medicine for the common people is more relevant than peak performance in freak cases.”
Merit cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human sympathies are equally important. The heart is as much a factor as the head in assessing the social, value of a member of he medical profession. This is also an aspect which may, to the limited extent possible, be home in mind while determining merit for selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges though concededly it would not be easy to do so, since it is a factor which is extremely difficult to judge and not easily susceptible to evaluation.
This Hon’ble Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India (2022) 4 SCC 1, has decisively held that “merit” is not a function of marks alone. Social and educational background, opportunity structures, and equity considerations are integral to determining merit. Thus, policy of the Plaintiff State in granting admissions based on Class XII marks with normalization is constitutionally valid and fully consistent with the principle of substantive equality.
The stand by the Plaintiff State is further fortified by its constitutional duty under Article 47 to improve public health. Public health is intrinsically linked with medical education, and the State, as parens patriae, has the responsibility to determine admissions in a manner that ensures equitable regional representation and accessibility. Medical education cannot be seen in isolation from public health, and admissions policies are vital material resources under Entry 6, List II of the Constitution. The Plaintiff State of Tamil Nadu, with a population of more than 8 crore, has built a robust healthcare infrastructure, attracting lakhs of medical tourists annually, and producing generations of distinguished doctors—all under its earlier admission system based on Class XII marks. To suggest that NEET alone can secure quality is factually baseless and constitutionally unsustainable.
The Constitution itself provides a mechanism for reconciling conflicts between State and Union legislation under Article 254(2). Where a State legislation on a concurrent subject is inconsistent with Union legislation, it can still prevail in that State if reserved for Presidential consideration and assented to. The TN Bill 2021 was consciously forwarded under Article 201 read with Article 254(2) precisely because its provisions were inconsistent with Section 14 of the NMC Act. This process of constitutional reconciliation has ample precedents, including the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 (Jallikattu), which received Presidential assent despite conflicting with the The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; a Union Legislation, as well as similar amendments in Karnataka and Maharashtra. More recently, the State amendments introduced by the States of Gujarat, Assam, and Odisha bringing substantial amendments to the realm of labour laws were assented to by the Hon’ble President in 2021, within a span of six months. Therefore, the withholding of assent to the TN Bill 2021 is against Article 201 of Constitution besides arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the spirit of cooperative federalism. The declaration of the President in withholding the Bill is not only without any reasons but is self-contradictory to the declaration of assent granted earlier by the Hon’ble President to The Tamil Nadu Admissions in Professional Educational Institutions Bill 2006, which culminated into Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 2007, under Article 201 which abolished common entrance test.
The constitutionality of the resultant Act i.e. The Tamil Nadu Admissions in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2007 was upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in S. Aswin Kumar vs State of Tamil Nadu WP(C) No. 5396 of 2007 and batch and subsequently, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.03.2011 dismissed Civil Appeals titled as Minor AS Prabhu vs. State of Tamil Nadu CA No. 2761 of 2007 and batch filed against the judgement by the Hon’ble Madras High Court finding no infirmity in the judgement.
Therefore, the Hon’ble President cannot take a stand which is contradictory to the declaration of assent in the case of The Tamil Nadu Admissions in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2007 on the issue of the legislative competence of State.
That inspite of the detailed replies by the Plaintiff State to every objection raised by the Defendant No.2 highlighting the inequities of NEET, the Plaintiff State’s superior GER, and its commitment to social justice—the Hon’ble President has withheld assent mechanically, without assigning any cogent reasons. Such silence renders Article 201 nugatory, defeats the federal balance, and undermines legislative autonomy of States. If such withholding is upheld, Article 254(2) would become otiose, and no State would ever be able to enact a law inconsistent with Union law, even though the Constitution expressly permits it. This is an affront to federalism, sovereign power of the State Legislature, its autonomy, which forms a basic feature of the Constitution.
In light of these facts, the cause of action for the present suit is the act of withholding of assent by the Hon’ble President to the TN Bill 2021 as it is patently unconstitutional, violative of Articles 201, and 254(2) of the Constitution. The Bill seeks to redefine and not to undermine merit in a manner consistent with enhancing standards of admission, social justice, democratize access to medical education, strengthen the public health system by taking care of realities of the Plaintiff State of Tamil Nadu, and give effect to the State’s constitutional obligations. The Hon’ble President’s action in withholding assent without assigning any cogent reasons leading to the decision to withhold, despite the Bill having been twice passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly, cannot be sustained in law. In the light of the above, the Plaintiff State of Tamil Nadu most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Declare that the action of the Hon’ble President of India in withholding assent to the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 (L.A. Bill No.43 of 2021), as communicated by the Secretary to the Governor of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 04.03.2025 pursuant to letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in F.No.17/15/2022-Judl & PP. dated 27.02.2025, as patently unconstitutional, illegal and liable to be set aside;
b. Hold and declare that the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 (L.A. Bill No. 43 of 2021) is deemed to have received the assent of the Hon’ble President of India under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India;
OR IN ALTERNATIVE
c. Direct the Defendants to forthwith place The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 (L.A. Bill No. 43 of 2021) before the Hon’ble President of India under Article 201 and 254(2) of the Constitution for fresh consideration of Bill and granting assent under Art 254(2) of the Constitution of India
d. Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
Settled by
P.Wilson Senior Advocate
Filed by
Misha Rohatgi Mohta
[15/11, 19:51] Sekarreporter: 👍
