<p>There are political and constitutional issues involved in the manner in which Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the Centre have so far handled the state’s bill regulating admissions to undergraduate medical colleges. The bill has to be seen in the context of the widespread resistance in the state to the national medical entrance exam, NEET, which is the basis of admissions now. The bill, which takes the state away from the purview of NEET and makes Class 12 marks the basis of admissions, was first passed in September 2021 but was returned by the Governor for reconsideration. It was passed again by the Assembly in February and the Governor referred it to the President, but only after repeated pleas from the government and the boycott of a Governor’s function by the Council of Ministers. The Union Home Ministry has now sought clarifications on the bill from Tamil Nadu.</p>.<p>The Governor had returned the bill claiming that it would undermine the interests of the state’s students. It is the elected government of a state that can better judge the interests of the people than the Governor. Tamil Nadu has seen many protests against NEET and the main complaint is that it is biased in favour of urban, affluent students from the CBSE background. A government-appointed committee has shown this to be so. Many students have committed suicide over this. The government has said that doctors have to be drawn from all social strata, including the most disadvantaged groups. NEET has many advantages, but the question raised by Tamil Nadu is whether the “one nation, one test” idea is good in all situations and whether it accommodates the different educational systems of states and serves the interests of all social groups. The state also sees NEET eventually posing a threat to public health by depriving rural areas of doctors. </p>.<p>It is not for the Governor to take a decision on the matter, and it was wrong on his part to delay it. This was in the tradition of Governors obstructing the decisions and actions of state governments. A government wanting to pursue a different examination system is not a constitutional issue but the Governor refusing to act on the cabinet’s recommendation is. The state has the power to legislate in the matter since education is in the Concurrent List. There is no threat to federalism either if one state follows a different examination system. It should also be noted that Tamil Nadu has not refused to entertain the central quota of seats even if it does not follow NEET. The Centre could let Tamil Nadu experiment with its own system to allow comparison between that and NEET and, in time, let the better system win. </p>
<p>There are political and constitutional issues involved in the manner in which Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and the Centre have so far handled the state’s bill regulating admissions to undergraduate medical colleges. The bill has to be seen in the context of the widespread resistance in the state to the national medical entrance exam, NEET, which is the basis of admissions now. The bill, which takes the state away from the purview of NEET and makes Class 12 marks the basis of admissions, was first passed in September 2021 but was returned by the Governor for reconsideration. It was passed again by the Assembly in February and the Governor referred it to the President, but only after repeated pleas from the government and the boycott of a Governor’s function by the Council of Ministers. The Union Home Ministry has now sought clarifications on the bill from Tamil Nadu.</p>.<p>The Governor had returned the bill claiming that it would undermine the interests of the state’s students. It is the elected government of a state that can better judge the interests of the people than the Governor. Tamil Nadu has seen many protests against NEET and the main complaint is that it is biased in favour of urban, affluent students from the CBSE background. A government-appointed committee has shown this to be so. Many students have committed suicide over this. The government has said that doctors have to be drawn from all social strata, including the most disadvantaged groups. NEET has many advantages, but the question raised by Tamil Nadu is whether the “one nation, one test” idea is good in all situations and whether it accommodates the different educational systems of states and serves the interests of all social groups. The state also sees NEET eventually posing a threat to public health by depriving rural areas of doctors. </p>.<p>It is not for the Governor to take a decision on the matter, and it was wrong on his part to delay it. This was in the tradition of Governors obstructing the decisions and actions of state governments. A government wanting to pursue a different examination system is not a constitutional issue but the Governor refusing to act on the cabinet’s recommendation is. The state has the power to legislate in the matter since education is in the Concurrent List. There is no threat to federalism either if one state follows a different examination system. It should also be noted that Tamil Nadu has not refused to entertain the central quota of seats even if it does not follow NEET. The Centre could let Tamil Nadu experiment with its own system to allow comparison between that and NEET and, in time, let the better system win. </p>
