NEET and the Constitution: A Critical Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) has been in the spotlight due to a paper leak and other irregularities that it went through, but the decision is still pending before the Supreme Court. But since its inception in 2010, it has been a point of debate over its controversial constitutionality. NEET is a medical entrance exam that determines admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses across India. Its aim is to create a uniform and transparent system of medical admission. It covers all government, private and linguistic and religious minority medical colleges. However, its impact has brought legal challenges. In this article, we will dive into the constitutional aspects surrounding NEET, exploring the arguments in favor and against the exam and proposing recommendations.

Constitutional Basis for NEET

Legislative authority of central government: NEET falls within the domain of medical education, covered under the Concurrent List. Therefore, both the central government and state governments can legislate. But there can be a deadlock between them. So, article 254 of the Constitution provides that during conflict central law prevails. The central government’s decision to conduct NEET across the country takes precedence.

Entry 66 of List I (Union List) deals with coordinating standards in higher education and research institutions. The National Medical Commission (NMC) Act, governing NEET, is linked to this entry. Whereas entry 25 of the Concurrent List deals with education, including medical education. However, the Supreme Court has held that Entry 66 of List I prevail over Entry 25 of List III in matters related to medical education standards.[i] 

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: The MCA Act, 1956 establishes a regulation for medical education and professional standards. Under this Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI) sees medical education, including admissions. The MCI amended the Graduate Medical Regulations (1997) and Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations (2000) to include NEET. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2016 introduced section 10D, mandating a uniform entrance exam for medical institutions. Additionally, section 33 of the Act empowers the Council to regulate all matters related to uniform entrance examinations.[ii]

Potential of violation: In the case of Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India, questions arose about the MCI authority to conduct NEET. Concerns were raised regarding potential violations of Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) and the rights of religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that these regulatory measures do not infringe upon institutions’ rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 25, and 30 of the Constitution. While the Constitution limits state interference with life, liberty, and rights, it does not compromise national interests.

The judgment emphasizes that Article 19(1)(g) rights are not absolute and can be reasonably restricted in the interest of students, merit, and excellence. Balancing religious minority rights under Article 30 with other constitutional provisions is crucial for the nation’s welfare.[iii]

Argument against the NEET

The NEET exam was first time challenged in 2013. It was declared to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court. But it was restored in 2016. But even after that, NEET exam has been challenged many times in courts across India.

In 2017, a student’s suicide in Tamil Nadu triggered protests against NEET. Despite scoring 98% in her school-leaving exam, she could not secure admission due to her NEET score. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of NEET-based admissions. Tamil Nadu, has consistently opposed NEET. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party claims that 26 students have died by suicide due to NEET. In 2021, Ranjan Committee recommended abolishing NEET, citing bias toward affluent urban students and private English-medium schools. Concerns were raised about doctor shortages in government hospitals and rural areas.[iv] There have been several arguments that NEET has been unconstitutional:

Single Entrance Test:  Critics says that uniform approach disregards regional variations in educational standards, curriculum, and language. In 2013, India’s Supreme Court agreed with this argument. It said that a uniform test affected the “level playing field” because of the educational disparity between urban and rural areas. The court said that just “academic brilliance” was not enough in medicine but that the country needed “barefoot doctors" who would be ready to serve in remote areas.[v]

Infringement of state autonomy: States, including Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, argue that NEET infringes their autonomy to regulate medical admissions. They say that a common entrance test undermines their ability to tailor admissions based on local needs and priorities. In 2021, Tamil Nadu passed the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, proposing admission based on Class XII marks. Chief Minister MK Stalin introduced the bill in the assembly, asserting that in entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) in Schedule VII of the Constitution, states have the power to oversee education, including medical education, subject to specific provisions in Entries 63, 64, 65, and 66 of List I. However, it has not been given assent by the president as in case of concurrent list with colliding laws with Union government.[vi]

NEET against equality: It has been argued that NEET has brought students from rural and backward areas to a disadvantaged position compared to students from urban and semi-urban areas with more resources. Further, NEET is based on the NCERT/CBSE syllabus which puts students from the state board in a disadvantageous position. The state board syllabus and NCERT syllabus are different. The NEET is, therefore, indirectly compelling the students to opt for CBSE/NCERT board, which is violative of the federal structure of the Constitution. Further, NEET is only conducted in English, Hindi, and a few regional languages, not acknowledging the linguistic diversity. This puts students from the vernacular medium at a disadvantageous position. [vii]

Argument in favour of NEET

Though NEET has been criticized due to many reasons but it was upheld by the supreme court in 2016. The arguments that favour the NEET exam are as follows:

• Uniformity and Equality: NEET’s primary objective is to standardize the medical entrance examination process across India. Previously, each state conducted its own medical entrance tests, leading to variations in difficulty levels, syllabi, and evaluation criteria. By replacing these state-level exams with a single national test, NEET ensures uniformity. Dr Preeti Srivastava vs State of MP[viii] which stated that merit should be the only criterion for admission in medical colleges and that there is a requirement of excellence in medical education. Veterinary Council of India vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research[ix] which held that prescribing standards of education includes the power to conduct Common Entrance test.

• Prevention of Capitation Fees: Capitation fees refer to additional payments charged by private medical institutions during admission. Before NEET, private colleges were found admitting students based on their ability to pay these extra fees, leading to an unfair advantage for affluent candidates. NEET disrupted this practice by introducing. The era of capitation fees seems over, although much higher fees are now charged in “white” by private institutions.[x] Money still rules and deserving students are often left out of the race because of costs. But anyway, the NEET exam has put control on capitation fees to some extent and focussing on meritocracy.

• Elimination of Malpractices: By mandating a single test, NEET reduces corruption. Private colleges can no longer manipulate admissions based on financial influence or other malpractices. Before NEET, middlemen and brokers played a significant role in medical admissions. They facilitated deals between colleges and students, often for a hefty fee. NEET’s centralized process minimizes the involvement of intermediaries.[xi] Students apply directly based on their scores, reducing the scope for corruption.

Recommendation

There can be several alternatives that can strengthen the medical education in India:

• Holistic Admission Criteria: NEET scores alone may not capture a student’s potential. There should be a holistic admission process consisting of various factors such as NEET Score, class 12th Marks, other aptitude and soft skills like communication skills, and empathy, which are crucial for medical professionals.[xii]

• Balancing between center and state: While NEET should be the primary measure for medical admission. Further evaluation should be allowed by different state and private colleges. States should have the flexibility to design their admission policies, but there should also be a common framework to maintain consistency. A collaborative 

• Transparency and Fairness: Transparency and fairness in the examination process is vital. Ensuring that the evaluation process is unbiased. Candidates should trust that their hard work will be rewarded. There should be strict legal action regarding crimes related to paper leaks and irregularities.[xiii]

Conclusion

The constitutional basis for NEET stems from its alignment with Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the central government to coordinate standards in higher education. The National Medical Commission Act, which governs NEET, reinforces this central authority. Despite this, NEET's imposition has faced substantial resistance. Critics argue that the uniform entrance test disregards regional educational disparities, potentially disadvantaging students from rural areas and non-CBSE backgrounds. The argument that NEET infringes on state autonomy is significant, with states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal contending that it undermines their authority to tailor admissions to local needs and educational standards. Ensuring transparency and integrity in the examination process remains crucial. Addressing issues like paper leaks and irregularities with stringent legal measures is essential to maintain public trust in NEET. Ultimately, a collaborative approach that respects both central and state interests while prioritizing fairness and merit could enhance the effectiveness of medical admissions in India, benefiting students and the broader healthcare system alike.

REFERENCES

[i] “NEET: What Constitution says about role of Centre, States in education”; published on 25 September 2021; written by Salil Kumar; (https://thefederal.com/analysis/neet-what-constitution-says-about-role-of-centre-states-in-education/?infinitescroll=1); accessed on 9 July 2024

[ii] The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2016/IMC_%28A%29_Bill,_2016.pdf); accessed on 9 July 2024

[iii] “Supreme Court Holds Clearing ‘NEET’ Compulsory for Admission in Private Medical Courses”; published on 16 may 2020; written by Ajay Bhargava and Trishala Trivedi (https://www.mondaq.com/india/education/934874/supreme-court-holds-clearing-neet-compulsory-for-admission-in-private-medical-courses) ; accessed on 9 July 2024

[iv] “The contentious exam deciding the fate of India’s doctors”; published on 2 July 2024; written by Umang Poddar, Saradha V; (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51yxv7pd65o); accessed on 9 July 2024

[v] Supreme court of India Judgement; delivered by CJI Kabir, Justice Sen and Justice Dave (https://webapi.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/40580.pdf); accessed on 9 July 2024

[vi] “NEET: What Constitution says about role of Centre, States in education”; published on 25 September 2021; written by Salil Kumar; (https://thefederal.com/analysis/neet-what-constitution-says-about-role-of-centre-states-in-education/?infinitescroll=1); accessed on 9 July 2024

[vii] “NEET against equality, federalism', Tamil Nadu files suit in SC”; published on 19 February 2024; written by Ashish Tripathi( https://www.deccanherald.com/india/neet-against-equality-federalism-tamil-nadu-files-suit-in-sc-1192822.html) ; accessed on 9 July 2024

[viii] Supreme court of India Judgement; delivered by Justice R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bha; (https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/20701.pdf); accessed on 9 July 2024

[ix] Supreme court of India Judgement; delivered by D.P. Wadhwal, Rajendra Babu; (https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/16575.pdf); accessed on 9 July

[x] “NEET got rid of capitation fees but private colleges still squeeze students”; published on February 11 2022; written by Arockiaraj;

 (https://inmathi.com/2022/02/11/neet-got-rid-of-capitation-fees-but-private-colleges-still-squeeze-students/40871/); accessed on 9 July 2024

[xi] “College admissions: Story of the tightly-knit group of middlemen who 'fix' admissions” ; published on 25 December 2021; written by Devina Sengupta; (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/college-admissions-story-of-the-tightly-knit-group-of-middlemen-who-fix admissions/articleshow/11234507.cms?from=mdr) accessed on 9 July 2024

[xii] “Holistic admission process replacing academic-only criteria in Indian universities”; published on 28 May 2024; written by Abhishek Sahu;

(https://www.moneycontrol.com/education/holistic-admission-process-replacing-academic-only-criteria-in-indian-universities-article-12733986.html); accessed om 9 July

[xiii] “Will stricter laws prevent paper leaks?” ; published on 30 June 2024; written by Abhik Deb; (https://scroll.in/article/1069926/will-stricter-laws-prevent-paper-leaks) ; accessed on 9 July 2024

~Authored by Sahil Gupta