Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Against President Withholding Assent To NEET Exemption Bill

The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court challenging the President of India's decision to withhold assent to the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021. The Bill seeks to exempt the State from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and restore admissions based on Class XII marks with a scientific system of normalization.

The decision withholding assent was conveyed by the Governor's Secretariat on March 4, 2025. The State has termed the action patently unconstitutional and a serious violation of the constitutional framework that regulates Centre State relations in legislative matters.

According to the suit filed under Article 131, the President withheld assent mechanically on the aid and advice of the Union Government without offering any reasons. Tamil Nadu states that this was done despite the State providing detailed replies to every objection raised by the Ministries of Health, Education and AYUSH. The plaint argues that unexplained withholding of assent frustrates Article 201 and destroys the working of Article 254(2), which allows State laws on concurrent subjects to prevail within the State after receiving Presidential assent. The State contends that if such withholding is upheld, the constitutional avenue available to States to enact laws that differ from Union legislation will become meaningless.

Tamil Nadu relies extensively on the findings of the Justice A. K. Rajan Committee, which examined the impact of NEET in the State. The Committee received more than eighty thousand responses from stakeholders, and its report concluded that NEET had severely affected students from rural and socio economically disadvantaged backgrounds and from Tamil medium and government schools. The suit states that NEET benefits affluent urban students who can afford years of private coaching and that the rise of repeaters has tilted admissions in favour of those who invest heavily in coaching. The State submits that this pattern undermines the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 15(4) and results in systematic exclusion of first generation learners. The plaint also refers to the growth of an expensive coaching industry and to several reported instances of impersonation and alleged question paper leaks to question the credibility of the exam.

The suit argues that merit in medical admissions cannot be reduced to performance in a single entrance test and cites Supreme Court judgments such as Pradeep Jain and Neil Aurelio Nunes. These decisions recognise that merit must account for social commitment, opportunity structures and the broader context in which students learn. Tamil Nadu asserts that for many decades it maintained high quality and equitable admissions through a system based on Class XII marks under the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2007. That law received Presidential assent and was upheld by both the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court. The State claims that the President's present stand contradicts the earlier view taken while assenting to the 2007 law, even though both relate to admissions and operate within the State's constitutional duty under Article 47 to ensure public health.

The suit also cites precedents in which the President granted assent to State laws that differed from or were inconsistent with central legislation. These include the Tamil Nadu amendment relating to Jallikattu under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and similar departures in labour law amendments enacted by Gujarat, Assam and Odisha. Tamil Nadu argues that the refusal to grant assent to its Bill, despite earlier precedents that allowed such departures, is arbitrary and discriminatory and goes against the ideal of cooperative federalism.

The State therefore seeks a declaration that the President's action is unconstitutional and should be set aside. It also requests a declaration that the Bill is deemed to have received Presidential assent under Article 254(2). In the alternative, the State seeks a direction to the Union Government to place the Bill again before the President for fresh consideration.

 The suit was settled by Senior Advocate P Wilson and filed by Advocate Misha Rohatgi.

In 2023, the State had filed a suit challenging the NEET exam, which is pending.