The NEET Impasse: Tamil Nadu’s Constitutional Gambit at the Supreme Court and the Fight for State Autonomy 

In a significant escalation of its long-standing opposition to the national medical entrance exam, the Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court against the President of India’s decision to withhold assent to a state bill seeking a NEET exemption, arguing the action is unconstitutional and undermines state autonomy.

The state’s plea contends that the rejection, processed without stated reasons after a prolonged delay, should trigger a “deemed assent” under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, and it seeks to reactivate the bill, which aims to replace NEET with a Class 12 marks-based system to uphold its social justice policy of ensuring equitable access to medical education for rural and disadvantaged students. This case now positions the Supreme Court to rule on a critical federalism issue, balancing the central government’s push for a standardized national test against a state’s constitutional right to craft its own educational policies for social equity.

The NEET Impasse: Tamil Nadu’s Constitutional Gambit at the Supreme Court and the Fight for State Autonomy 

In a move that strikes at the very heart of India’s federal structure, the Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, not merely challenging a policy, but alleging a profound constitutional violation. The state’s lawsuit against the President of India for withholding assent to its NEET exemption bill is more than a legal skirmish; it is a dramatic escalation in a long-standing battle over who controls educational policy and, by extension, social equity. This case, set to be heard by the apex court imminently, pits a state’s fiercely guarded vision of social justice against the Union government’s push for a standardized national meritocracy. 

The Heart of the Matter: A Bill in Limbo 

The controversy centers on The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021. Passed unanimously by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the bill sought to permanently exempt the state from the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for undergraduate medical admissions. Its core objective is to revert to a system where students are admitted to medical colleges based solely on their Class 12 marks, normalized through a transparent algorithm. 

The bill’s journey, however, hit a critical roadblock. After a protracted delay with the state’s Governor, it was finally forwarded to the President for consideration under Article 201 of the Constitution. This article governs what happens when a state law reserved for the President’s consideration. In March 2025, the President, acting on the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet, withheld assent. The Tamil Nadu government’s petition labels this action “patently unconstitutional, illegal, and liable to be set aside.” 

Beyond a Simple Rejection: The Core Constitutional Arguments 

Tamil Nadu’s suit is built on several nuanced legal and philosophical pillars that go far beyond simple disappointment: 

• The Specter of “Deemed Assent” under Article 254(2): This is the state’s most potent legal weapon. The government pleads for a declaration that the bill should be “deemed to have received the assent of the President.” This argument hinges on the timeline. Article 201 suggests that if the President does not make a decision on a reserved bill “within a reasonable time,” a constitutional crisis of inaction occurs. Tamil Nadu argues that the prolonged delay—stretching over years—followed by an unexplained rejection, is itself unconstitutional. They contend that such inaction should be interpreted as a constitutional green light, effectively allowing the state law to operate, even if it contradicts a central law like the one governing NEET. 

• The Assault on “Legislative Autonomy” and “Cooperative Federalism”: The state’s plea is steeped in the language of federal rights. It argues that education, while now in the Concurrent List, has historically been a domain where states have developed tailored solutions. By mechanically rejecting a bill passed by a state assembly without providing substantive reasons—despite the state having replied to all queries from Union ministries—the Union government is accused of trampling on the state’s legislative autonomy. This, they argue, violates the principle of cooperative federalism, a foundational feature of the Indian Constitution. 

• The Question of Reason and Fairness: A significant part of the grievance is the lack of a reasoned order for the rejection. In an era where administrative law mandates transparency in decision-making, the state argues that a decision of such monumental public importance cannot be a mechanical, opaque exercise of power. The “withholding of assent” appears as a blunt instrument, devoid of the intellectual rigor a matter of this gravity demands. 

The Soul of the Resistance: Why Tamil Nadu Fights NEET 

To understand the fervor behind this legal challenge, one must look at the state’s unique socio-political history. Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEET is not a recent political gambit; it is the culmination of a decades-long philosophy of social engineering. 

The state’s plea quotes a powerful sentiment: “Examination is something quite different from education, but in the name of raising the standard of education, they are making the examinations so severe that the backward communities which have hitherto not had the chance of entering the portals of universities are absolutely kept out.” This echoes the enduring legacy of the Dravidian movement, which has long argued that standardized national tests inherently favor urban, affluent students with access to expensive coaching centers. 

This is not a theoretical fear. The state’s own history informs its stance. It once had a Common Entrance Test (CET) but abolished it in 2007 on the recommendations of the Dr. Anandakrishnan Committee, which found it detrimental to rural and socio-economically disadvantaged students. The shift to a purely marks-based system was a conscious policy choice to level the playing field. The imposition of NEET, from the state’s perspective, is a forced regression that undermines its successful, homegrown model for fostering inclusivity. 

The Broader Implications: A Precedent for the Nation 

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case will have ramifications far beyond the borders of Tamil Nadu. 

• A Test Case for State Rights: Several other states have expressed reservations about NEET or similar one-size-fits-all national tests. The verdict will set a crucial precedent on the extent to which states can legislate to protect what they perceive as their unique social interests against centralizing policies. 

• Clarifying the Governor’s and President’s Roles: The case will provide much-needed clarity on the powers and timelines associated with Articles 201 and 254(2). It will define what constitutes a “reasonable time” for the President to decide on a bill and delineate the boundaries of this often-opaque process. 

• Public Health and Equity: Tamil Nadu invokes Article 47 of the Constitution, which places a duty on the state to improve public health. The state argues that by ensuring a more equitable intake of medical students from rural backgrounds—who are more likely to serve in their home regions—the NEET exemption bill is essential to safeguarding public health. The court’s decision will, therefore, touch upon the link between medical admission policies and the nation’s healthcare infrastructure. 

The Road Ahead 

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this landmark case, it is faced with a delicate task: to adjudicate between the Union’s vision of a uniform standard and a state’s constitutional right to pursue its own path to social justice. The outcome will determine not just the future of thousands of aspiring medical students in Tamil Nadu, but also the balance of power in the Indian federation. The case is more than a dispute over an exam; it is a definitive battle over the soul of Indian federalism and the meaning of equity in a deeply unequal landscape.