NEET’s promise has failed; it’s time to trust States

The unprecedented protests by students across the country following the NEET question paper leak are not merely about one compromised examination. They reflect a deeper crisis of confidence in a system that was projected as the ultimate guardian of merit. When lakhs of students lose faith in the fairness of the process that determines their future, the nation’s conscience is shaken.

Tamil Nadu was the first State to raise the red flag against NEET — not because of irregularities in its conduct, but because of the very philosophy behind a single, high-stakes national examination deciding the future of every aspiring medical student. The problem was structural, not procedural. Recent events have vindicated that concern.

The Union Government introduced NEET with three principal promises. First, that it would reduce the burden of multiple entrance examinations. Second, that it would eliminate the scourge of capitation fees and commercialisation of medical admissions. Third, that it would improve standards by ensuring only the most meritorious students entered medical colleges, thereby producing better doctors.

On every one of these counts, NEET has failed.

Instead of reducing inequality, it has merely shifted the centre of learning from schools to coaching centres. A student’s 12 years of schooling have been reduced to a secondary consideration before a three-hour multiple-choice examination. Merit is no longer measured through sustained academic performance but by the ability to master coaching-centric test-taking techniques. This has disproportionately benefited those who can afford expensive coaching while disadvantaging rural students, government school students, first-generation learners, women, and those studying in State Boards and vernacular languages.

The assumption that a single objective test measures merit better than years of consistent academic achievement is not supported by international evidence. Research across advanced federal democracies suggests exactly the opposite for undergraduate admissions. Countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and Germany admit students through school performance, standardisation methods, and holistic evaluation — not through a single nationwide entrance examination. Where entrance tests are used, they are generally one component among several, not the sole determinant.

Medical education demands perseverance, empathy, discipline and long-term academic excellence. These qualities cannot be captured adequately in a single examination conducted in one day.

NEET’s own experience further exposes the myth of merit. The qualifying threshold for undergraduate admissions remains remarkably low. For postgraduate and super-speciality admissions, qualifying percentiles have repeatedly been reduced to zero percentile and, in some cases, even negative marks, simply to fill expensive private college seats. If merit truly governed the system, such extraordinary relaxations would never become necessary. Instead, the reality is stark: poor students must compete at the highest level for limited government seats, while those with financial means can access private medical education with far lower benchmarks. That is not meritocracy; it is privilege institutionalised.

Equally misplaced is the belief that NEET has curbed commercialisation. The coaching industry has flourished into a multi-thousand-crore enterprise, with families spending enormous sums over several years to prepare their children. The burden that NEET promised to eliminate has merely changed form — from capitation fees to coaching fees. Simultaneously, deemed universities and private self-financing medical colleges have found new ways to commercialise medical education. Instead of demanding capitation fees and donations upfront, many have sharply increased tuition fees and other institutional charges, making medical education increasingly unaffordable for poor and middle-class families. The nomenclature may have changed, but the financial burden has not. Commercialisation has merely been repackaged, not eliminated.

Tamil Nadu’s outlook

Tamil Nadu recognised these concerns early. We constituted the Justice A.K. Rajan Committee, which received overwhelming public participation and concluded that NEET neither improved medical education nor ensured social justice. It found that the examination disproportionately disadvantaged students from rural backgrounds, economically weaker sections, State Board students, women and first-generation learners.

Acting on these findings, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly unanimously passed legislation seeking exemption from NEET. The Governor withheld assent. The Union Government declined to engage meaningfully with the substance of the State’s concerns. Instead of consultation, there was confrontation. Instead of cooperative federalism, there was centralised insistence on uniformity. Genuine constitutional concerns were viewed through an ideological prism rather than addressed through dialogue.

Education is a subject where diversity is a constitutional strength, not a weakness. States have invested for decades in building public education systems and expanding medical infrastructure. Over the past two decades, India has witnessed a remarkable increase in medical colleges. Today, almost every district in Tamil Nadu has a government medical college, built largely through State resources and public investment.

If States are trusted to establish institutions, recruit faculty, maintain standards and fund medical education, they must also be trusted to determine admissions consistent with their own educational systems and social justice policies.

One nation need not mean one examination.

The solution lies in strengthening school education, restoring confidence in School Board assessments and allowing States to formulate admission policies suited to their constitutional responsibilities and local realities. Statistical harmonisation can fairly compare marks awarded by different Boards. The answer to multiple applications is a common application portal — not a common entrance examination.

States that seek exemption from NEET should be allowed to do so. Diversity in admissions need not compromise standards; indeed, it can strengthen both equity and excellence.

Another aspect requiring urgent reconsideration is the All India Quota (AIQ). This judicially created system diverts State-funded medical seats to a central pool, weakening federalism, State autonomy and social justice. It disproportionately burdens women as they are unlikely to relocate to another State for postgraduation, fails to address regional disparities effectively, and deprives States of the benefits of their investments. It should be replaced with a voluntary, State-led framework.

The recent student protests must serve as a wake-up call — not merely to improve examination security but to fundamentally rethink the entire framework of high-stakes national entrance examinations. The Union Government must consult States, educators, students, medical professionals and all stakeholders with an open mind rather than treating uniformity as an end in itself. India does not need greater centralisation. It needs greater trust in its States, its schools and its students.

The strength of our Union lies not in uniformity imposed from above, but in respecting diversity within a shared constitutional framework. It is time to move beyond the illusion that one examination can measure every student’s potential.

The future of medical education — and the aspirations of millions of young Indians —deserve a fairer, more humane and more federal approach. NEET has failed its own promises. It is time to trust the States again.

M.K. Stalin is former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and President, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)