Madras High Court dismisses BJP leader’s case against Tamil Nadu NEET panel

The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public curiosity litigation petition filed by BJP State secretary K. Nagarajan, which sought to quash an order issued by the Tamil Nadu authorities to represent a high-level committee headed by Justice A.K. Rajan to check the affect of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) on medical aspirants.

Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the structure of the committee “does not amount to subverting any process of admission, far less an act of defiance to any order passed by the Supreme Court” or pose even the remotest problem to the unique authority of the Union to enact a regulation setting requirements for increased schooling.

Terms of reference

The judges identified that the phrases of reference of the committee have been to check whether or not the NEET-based admission course of had affected socially backward college students up to now few years and in that case, examine the problems concerned and recommend various admission procedures which might profit all college students.

The committee would additionally examine the feasibility of implementing such various admission procedures and the authorized steps required to implement such truthful and equitable strategies.

Therefore, “the setting up of the commission can, by no stretch of imagination, be seen to be contrary to any Supreme Court order, whether in letter or in spirit, or as a counter to any legislative action taken by the Union or process put in place. For all we know, the Commission may come up with some material that the State government may use to persuade the Union to search for an alternative or modify the process to make it more inclusive for students belonging to the socially backward and economically weaker sections to participate therein with a better chance of success,” the Bench stated.

The judges stated there was additionally the opposite chance of elevating the requirements of schooling within the State to allow the scholars to compete in NEET. They stated it was a query of coverage whether or not the bar needed to be raised on the faculty stage or lowered on the medical faculty admission stage.

“Such matters of policy are resolved by discussion, and any attempt at mature resolution begins with lending an ear and being receptive to the other point of view,” the judges stated.

“A section of citizens may feel that it is a waste to appoint a commission; that the costs incurred in maintaining such a commission may be better used to provide relief to those who suffered in the course of the pandemic. But these are choices that an elected government has to take and, indeed, in the constitutional scheme, has the freedom to take. Courts cannot rush in and interdict notifications or steps taken pertaining to policy or for garnering public opinion or the like,” the Bench noticed.

Authoring the decision, the Chief Justice stated the courtroom’s speedy interference would have been wanted if the structure of the committee was, in any method, perceived to be an affront to the authority of the Supreme Court beneath Article 141 of the Constitution or in derogation of the duty of the State to help the implementation of an order of the Supreme Court beneath Article 144 of the Constitution or as an alternative choice to a nationwide process for entrance examination performed in accordance with a parliamentary laws in a subject open solely to the parliament.

“Nothing of such kind can be apprehended or reasonably seen to be the effect of the constitution of the committee… The issuance of the Government Order does not exceed the authority of the State government. As long as the State government does not do anything to upset the procedure for admission to medical institutions as established by law, it does not call for any interference,” the courtroom stated.

“A constitutional court’s allegiance to the rule of law needs to be tempered by the respect for the democratic process. Overzealous obeisance to what is perceived to be the rule of law invites an avoidable clash that partners in the sovereign exercise must guard against,” it noticed.

The judges dismissed the case instantly after listening to the petitioner’s counsel and Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan representing the Centre. They didn’t hear both Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram representing the State authorities or a number of different senior counsel together with P. Wilson and S. Prabakaran who have been representing completely different political events, personal organisations and people who wished to implead and defend the structure committee.

“Several bodies, individuals, political parties and others interested have applied for being impleaded. None has been called upon, not even the State. The scope of the petition is limited and it is not the business of the court to play to the galleries by allowing or indulging in discussion beyond the scope of the lis or wider than the perceived malady that is sought to be arrested by the action, public interest or otherwise,” the Bench concluded.