SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON NEET IS WELCOME
By Nantoo Banerjee
The latest Supreme Court judgment on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS, BDS and their post-graduate courses is most welcome. It is good that private medical colleges and their associates will no longer be allowed to hold separate admission tests for these courses. Some of these institutes are often accused of being easy money making organisations, offering poor quality education. But, it remains still somewhat unclear as to how a common entrance test for medical and dental education will solve the problem of shortage of quality medical professionals across the country? The apex court judgment does not quite link it with a more important unresolved issue of ensuring a uniform educational curriculum, syllabus and right to quality education at the school level across the country.
It is not that the Supreme Court is unconcerned about the discriminatory, and often weak, school level educational system in India. In fact, another apex court judgment in August, 2011, considered this vital issue in threadbare before concluding that a uniform and quality school education is must for all children in the country. It also held political interference responsible for the unequal and often dismal state of school education in India. Unfortunately, the important SC judgment and observation have changed little in the general standard of school education. Unrestricted and, often bogus, private college and university education, which had lately attracted criticism by no less a person than the Reserve Bank governor, Raghuram Rajan, have added new dimension to the country’s unhealthy progress of the educational system.
What the apex court said in 2011 and how it was ignored by political authorities at the centre and states over the last five years, are highly noteworthy. The court said “the State government should have acted bearing in mind that ‘destiny of a nation rests with its youth.’ Personality of a child is developed at the time of basic education during formative years of life. Their career should not be left in conditions with uncertainty to such a great extent. The younger generation has to compete in global market.” The judges further said: “Uniform education system would achieve the code of common culture, removal of disparity, depletion of discriminatory values in human relations. It would enhance the virtues and improve the quality of human life, elevate the thoughts which advance our constitutional philosophy of equal society. In future, it may prove to be a basic preparation for uniform civil code as it may help in diminishing opportunities in those who foment fanatic and fissiparous tendencies.”
But, where is the uniform basic education system and civil code in India? Justice Chauhan, writing the judgment, said: “The government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity, fair play and if a decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed.”
The Bench, quoting a catena of decisions, held that unless it was found that the act done by the authority earlier in existence was either contrary to statutory provisions, was unreasonable or was against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party had come to power. “Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law.” Pointing out that the uniform system of school education law had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, the Bench said: “Bringing [in] legislation in order to nullify a judgment of a competent court would amount to trenching upon the judicial power and no legislation is permissible which is meant to set aside the result of the mandamus issued by a court even though the amending statute may not mention such an objection. The rights embodied in a judgment cannot be taken away by the legislature indirectly.
“If 1.20-crore students are now to revert to the multiple syllabus with the syllabus and textbooks applicable prior to 2010 after the academic term of 2011-12 has begun, they would be utterly confused and would be put to enormous stress. Students cannot be put to so much strain and stress unnecessarily. The entire exercise by the government is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to students, teachers and parents.”
Expressing its anguish, the court then said: “The State government should have acted bearing in mind that ‘destiny of a nation rests with its youth.’ Personality of a child is developed at the time of basic education during formative years of life. Their career should not be left in dolorific conditions with uncertainty.” Unfortunately, nothing much has changed. Education is under the joint list of the Constitution. States follow their own laws and practices, generally choose their own medium of instruction and hold their own board-level secondary school leaving examinations. The ICSE, ISC, CBSE and various state board level secondary and higher secondary examinations follow their own independent systems.
The question is: Where does NEET-style uniform national post-school level admission tests fit in under such diversified school level education system following independent standards, independent curriculum, modes of education and teaching, using multiple languages of instruction and different text books and examination marks giving systems? Why is it important that NEET be conducted only in English and Hindi? What happens to those who followed Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarati, Assamese, Urdu, etc, as principal medium of instruction in schools? The Constitution recognizes these state languages. How can any post-school national level entrance test ignore them? Why include only Hindi if other regional languages are untouchable? If the medium of instruction for higher level technical education such as medical, dental, engineering, information technology, cost and financial accountancy, management, aeronautics, marine education, etc. is generally conducted in English, why should the entrance test to these disciplines be carried out only in one Indian language, Hindi, which is not considered as the first language in large number of Indian states? Unless these fundamental issues are addressed politically, the tests like NEET will only promote a vested interest group in post-school speciality education. (IPA Service)