NEET’s uneven ground: Failing the fairness test

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

The Supreme Court’s vacation bench has issued notices to the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Central Government in response to pleas for a new NEET-UG 2024 examination, following allegations of a paper leak. The bench emphasised the need for answers, stating, “The sanctity has been affected, and we need answers.” Once again, this incident highlights that NEET may not be the most reliable method for evaluating students.

Allegations of a paper leak have surfaced, suggesting some candidates might have received an unfair advantage. This has raised significant concerns about the test’s integrity. Additionally, numerous students experienced technical issues, including poor network connectivity, at several centres, causing disruptions during the examination.

An unexpectedly high number of candidates have achieved top scores, with 67 individuals scoring a perfect 720 and each attaining a 99.997129 percentile. Notably, six of these high scorers were from the same centre, which has sparked suspicion. Additionally, the decision to award grace marks to approximately 1,560 candidates due to lost time has faced criticism, especially since the NTA did not reveal the formula used, despite the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling. The NTA stated that these candidates were compensated with grace marks.

NEET serves as a distinctive admission system for medical courses in India, requiring all aspiring students to pass this exam. The concept of a common entrance test was introduced by Murli Manohar Joshi during his tenure as HRD Minister in the NDA government. This idea received some validation in the Supreme Court’s judgement in the TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka case in 2002.

NEET was introduced by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in 2010. However, in 2013, a three-judge majority in the Christian Medical College Vellore Association vs. Union of India case invalidated NEET, a decision that faced widespread criticism for being anti-student and potentially lowering medical education standards. Consequently, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was amended to include Section 10D, authorising the MCI to conduct NEET. In 2016, a review petition against the 2013 judgement was accepted, and the Supreme Court mandated the implementation of NEET from that year onward. Unexpectedly, the Bench did not heed the Indian Government’s repeated pleas to allow state governments to conduct their own tests, at least in 2016. Notably, the dissenting judge from the 2013 ruling mandated NEET even before a full hearing by the Constitution Bench. Therefore, NEET was enforced by the court rather than the Narendra Modi government. In 2020, the Justice Arun Mishra-led Bench reaffirmed NEET’s validity, extending it to minority institutions as well. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court focused solely on the legality of NEET, neglecting to consider its actual impact on the ground, particularly on underprivileged and minority institutions.

Why is NEET considered unfriendly to students? Firstly, if a student falls ill or performs poorly on this single exam, they must wait an entire year for another chance. Secondly, multiple tests would allow students to apply to specific institutions of their choice, offering more control over their admissions. However, with centralised NEET counselling, students may be placed in colleges they do not wish to attend.

The NEET paper leak has impacted over 2.3 million candidates, compounded by translation errors in the question paper. Additionally, NEET fails to assess essential qualities for future doctors, such as compassion, empathy, and a passion for serving humanity. Moreover, relying on a single test is not an adequate measure. Global best practices consider qualifying exam marks, extracurricular activities, and the statement of purpose, providing a more holistic evaluation.

NEET is often regarded as the best option by our judges and government because they believe it promotes merit. However, is there a true consensus on what merit actually means? British sociologist Michael Dunlop Young’s book The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958) introduced the concept of ‘meritocracy,’ which requires competition and equal opportunity. Yet, can the NTA and judges genuinely believe that the complex notion of merit can be adequately measured by a single test? When NEET and similar admission exams fail to meet this fundamental criterion, the competition is neither fair nor just, and equal opportunity becomes an illusion. Many Western scholars argue that common admission tests cannot assess essential learning abilities such as imagination, curiosity, and motivation.

NEET undeniably has a class element, as evidenced by the Justice AK Rajan Committee, which uncovered clear signs of elitism. The Justice Rajan report on NEET’s impact in Tamil Nadu provided substantial support for arguments against a single test. Among the 86,342 people surveyed by the panel, the majority opposed NEET. The introduction of NEET has reduced diversity in Tamil medical institutions, with the percentage of students from rural areas decreasing from 61.45% to 50.81%.

Likewise, the proportion of candidates from government schools has decreased from 1.12% to 0.6%. Meanwhile, the dominance of English-medium students in medical education has intensified, rising from 85.12% to 98.01%. Economically disadvantaged students have also seen a decline, dropping from 47.42% to 41.05%. Additionally, there has been a decrease in first-generation learners. If similar committees are established in other states, comparable findings may emerge. In 2021, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a law opposing NEET, but it was returned by the Governor in 2022. Upon resubmission, the governor has referred the bill to the president, who is unlikely to give approval.

Furthermore, the existence of a single national test like NEET has led to significant financial gains for commercial coaching institutes. These institutes, predominantly located in urban areas, pose a disadvantage to economically disadvantaged students from rural backgrounds or those educated in vernacular mediums. Another issue is the substantial disparity in syllabus content between CBSE and state boards. Testing unequal candidates through a single test like NEET undermines the principle of equality. It is crucial to redefine our understanding of merit in a way that embraces inclusivity and diversity within society. Merit should not become a tool for exclusion. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud aptly emphasised that the Constitution’s transformative vision should not be overshadowed by misconceptions surrounding merit. The assessment of merit should align with its contribution to societal welfare. The ‘one nation, one test’ policy demands thorough reconsideration and enhancement to better serve its intended purpose.