Chennai/New Delhi, November 16, 2025
In a bold assertion of state autonomy, the Tamil Nadu government on Saturday approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging President Droupadi Murmu's decision to withhold assent to the state's controversial anti-NEET exemption bill. The petition, filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, accuses the Centre of undermining federalism by arbitrarily blocking a law aimed at restoring equitable medical admissions based on Class 12 marks. The move comes amid escalating tensions between the DMK-led state administration and the BJP-ruled Union government over the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which Tamil Nadu has long criticized as discriminatory against rural and underprivileged students.
The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 (L.A. Bill No. 43 of 2021), was passed unanimously by the state assembly in 2021, seeking to exempt Tamil Nadu from NEET for admissions to government quota seats in medical colleges. Instead, it proposes reverting to a pre-NEET system where selections are made primarily on the basis of higher secondary (Class 12) performance, supplemented by community reservations to promote social justice. This approach, the state argues, aligns with its successful model from 2007 to 2016, which produced high-quality doctors and bolstered public health outcomes without a national entrance exam.
The bill's journey hit a roadblock earlier this year when the Ministry of Home Affairs informed Governor R.N. Ravi that President Murmu had withheld assent, following scrutiny by the Ministries of Health, Education, and AYUSH. Despite the state submitting detailed clarifications addressing Union concerns—such as alignment with national standards and safeguards against malpractices—the President's office cited unspecified "objections" without providing reasons. Tamil Nadu contends this "mechanical" refusal, allegedly on the aid and advice of the Union cabinet, violates Articles 201 and 254(2) of the Constitution, which allow state laws on concurrent subjects to prevail within the state upon presidential approval.
In its 50-page petition, drafted by a team led by state advocate general P.S. Raman, Tamil Nadu seeks multiple reliefs: a declaration that the withholding is "patently unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary"; a directive deeming the bill to have received assent under Article 254(2); or, alternatively, an order for the Centre to resubmit it to the President for fresh consideration. The state invokes Article 47, emphasizing its duty to improve public health, and argues that NEET exacerbates inequalities under Articles 14 (equality) and 15(4) (reservations for socially backward classes) by favoring urban, affluent students who can afford expensive coaching. Data from the Justice A.K. Rajan Committee, which analyzed over 80,000 public responses, underscores how NEET has led to a surge in admissions from private colleges and a decline in representation from government schools and marginalized communities.
"This is not just about an exam; it's about the soul of federalism," a senior DMK leader told reporters outside the Madras High Court, where the petition was initially reviewed before escalation to the apex court. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, who has spearheaded the anti-NEET campaign since assuming office in 2021, reiterated the state's resolve on social media, stating, "Tamil Nadu's fight for social justice against a one-size-fits-all policy imposed by Delhi will not be silenced. The Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution's federal spirit." The bill's near-unanimous passage—supported by all parties except the BJP—reflects broad political consensus in the state, where NEET is seen as a barrier to upward mobility for first-generation learners from rural and backward areas.
Legal experts view the petition as a landmark test of Centre-state dynamics. It draws on precedents like the Supreme Court's upholding of Tamil Nadu's 2007 admissions law and the 2017 Jallikattu amendment, where the President granted assent to state laws conflicting with central acts. Similar approvals were extended to labour law divergences in Gujarat, Assam, and Odisha. The suit also references ongoing litigation, including Tamil Nadu's 2023 challenge to NEET's constitutionality, which remains pending before a Constitution Bench. "The unexplained veto creates a constitutional impasse, rendering Article 201 meaningless and eroding state legislative competence," the petition argues, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent for other states seeking exemptions.
The Centre has yet to respond formally, but Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda defended NEET in a recent parliamentary session, calling it a "merit-based equalizer" that ensures uniformity and combats malpractices. Pro-NEET advocates, including medical associations, argue it fosters critical thinking over rote learning, though critics like the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) hail Tamil Nadu's move as a "vital stand against elitism in education." With medical counselling season underway, the impasse threatens uncertainty for thousands of aspiring doctors, potentially delaying admissions and fueling protests across the state.
The Supreme Court is expected to list the matter for urgent hearing next week, amid growing calls from opposition leaders in Kerala and Puducherry for similar exemptions. As Tamil Nadu pushes back, this case could redefine the boundaries of cooperative federalism in India's healthcare policy landscape.
For More News Updates Follow Us Www.tconews.in
