Published on November 17, 2025
Delhi, India
In a high-stakes escalation of the long-simmering debate over medical education access, the Tamil Nadu government filed a petition in the Supreme Court on November 15, 2025, contesting President Droupadi Murmu’s refusal to grant assent to the state’s anti-NEET bill. This move transforms a state-level grievance into a national conversation on federalism, equity, and the role of centralized exams like NEET in perpetuating social divides. Drawing from official filings, constitutional analyses, and stakeholder reactions, this article dissects the petition’s core elements, underlying tensions, and broader ramifications. With NEET’s controversies— from paper leaks to coaching monopolies—still fresh, Tamil Nadu’s stand could redefine medical admissions across India.
Historical Context: The Roots of Tamil Nadu’s Resistance to NEET
Tamil Nadu’s aversion to NEET isn’t new; it’s rooted in a proven legacy of equitable admissions that the state argues NEET has eroded. Key points include:
- Pre-NEET Success Model: From 2007 to 2017, Tamil Nadu used Class 12 board marks with normalization for admissions, yielding a 47% Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education—far surpassing the national 29% average—and producing globally competitive doctors without entrance exams.
- NEET’s Imposition and Backlash: Enforced nationally in 2017, NEET shifted dynamics, with over 70% of MBBS seats now filled by “repeaters” (affluent students affording coaching), sidelining rural and first-generation learners from Tamil-medium schools.
- Legislative Pushback: The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021, unanimously passed by the assembly, sought to revive the pre-NEET system via a Common Entrance Test (CET) or board-based selection, exempting the state under Article 254(2) for repugnant central laws.
This history underscores Tamil Nadu’s claim that NEET isn’t a meritocracy but a barrier, fueling a ₹10,000-crore coaching industry while ignoring local socio-economic realities.
The Trigger: President’s Refusal and Procedural Irregularities
The petition hinges on the March 4, 2025, communication from the President’s office via the Governor, denying assent without rationale—a move Tamil Nadu labels “mechanical and arbitrary.” Critical aspects:
- Timeline Breakdown: Bill passed in 2021; Governor reserved it under Article 201 for presidential review; state addressed Union Ministry objections (e.g., from Health and Education); yet assent withheld silently, stalling implementation for over four years.
- Lack of Transparency: No reasons provided, despite constitutional norms under Article 201 requiring consideration; contrasts with past approvals, like President APJ Abdul Kalam’s 2006 nod to a similar exemption.
- Governor’s Role: Highlights ongoing Centre-state friction in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R.N. Ravi has delayed multiple bills, amplifying perceptions of federal overreach.
Analytically, this refusal exemplifies “silent vetoes,” eroding trust in Article 201’s safeguards and prompting judicial intervention to prevent legislative paralysis.
Core Arguments in the Petition: A Blueprint for Constitutional Relief
Filed by senior advocates P. Wilson and Misha Rohatgi, the suit demands the court deem the bill “assented” and declare the refusal unconstitutional. It weaves equity with federal principles:
- Federalism Under Siege: Argues the denial violates state autonomy on concurrent list subjects (education, health), creating a “grave constitutional impasse” that undermines Article 254(2)’s provision for state overrides on repugnant laws.
- Equity and Public Health Imperative: Cites Article 47’s directive for health improvements, positioning NEET as discriminatory—favoring urban CBSE students—while a 2021 state study of 80,000 stakeholders showed overwhelming support for scrapping it.
- Remedies Sought: Urges declaration of unconstitutionality, fresh presidential reconsideration, or “deemed assent”; hearing likely within a week, per court scheduling.
This framing positions the case not as anti-NEET per se, but pro-federal balance, potentially setting precedents for other states like Karnataka eyeing exemptions.
Broader Implications: Federal Tensions, Student Impacts, and NEET’s Future
Beyond legalities, the petition spotlights systemic cracks in India’s education federalism, with ripple effects:
- Socio-Economic Divides: NEET’s coaching bias exacerbates inequality; Tamil Nadu data reveals rural dropouts surging post-2017, threatening public health workforce diversity.
- Political Ramifications: Cross-party support (DMK-led coalition, minus BJP) signals a united southern front against centralization, echoing Jallikattu exemptions and testing NDA’s unity.
- National Precedent: A win could inspire exemptions in diverse states, challenging NEET’s uniformity; loss might entrench it, ignoring reforms like bilingual papers or rural quotas.
Stakeholder voices amplify urgency: Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called it a “social justice battle,” while experts warn of eroding trust in institutions amid recent NEET scandals.
Public and Media Reactions: A Pulse on the Ground
Social media and news echoes reveal polarized yet engaged discourse:
- Support Surge: X (formerly Twitter) threads hail it as a “federal showdown,” with users like @legalworld0 breaking down the “student-impact story” and garnering hundreds of views.
- Media Consensus: Outlets like The Wire and Bar & Bench frame it as a Centre-state clash, emphasizing procedural flaws; NDTV highlights restoration of “equitable admissions.”
- Critics’ Caution: Pro-NEET voices argue for reforms over abolition, citing national standardization benefits, though irregularities (e.g., 2024 leaks) fuel sympathy.
Overall, reactions tilt toward empathy for underprivileged aspirants, boosting online traction with hashtags like #AbolishNEET.
Potential Outcomes and Forward Path
As the Supreme Court deliberates—possibly by late November 2025—this case could pivot medical education:
- Optimistic Scenario: Deemed assent revives Tamil Nadu’s model, pressuring NEET reforms nationwide.
- Pessimistic View: Upholding refusal reinforces central dominance, risking more state-Centre standoffs.
- Long-Term Lens: Regardless, it demands dialogue on hybrid systems blending equity and merit.
