The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), envisaged as a monolithic, standardised mechanism for admissions into medical and dental programmes across India, necessitates a meticulous and exhaustive re-evaluation. This re-evaluation must rigorously scrutinise its legality, socio-economic efficacy, and foundational objectives. The implications of this examination, with nearly 2.3 million students undertaking the test this year, are substantial and cannot be disregarded. In particular, there are five germane questions which demand a comprehensive re-examination from academic scholars, policymakers and the judiciary in the context of NEET’s overarching framework, legal foundations, socio-economic impacts, and alignment with the broader objectives of equitable and inclusive medical and dental education in India.
First, has NEET been able to effectuate the foundational objectives it was set out to do? Ostensibly instituted to streamline the labyrinthine admissions process into a singular, standardised examination, promote meritocracy, and purportedly eradicate the scourge of capitation fees and bring in transparency. The recent revelations of paper leaks, flagrant irregularities, and allegations of bribery during the latest iteration of the exam have effectively jettisoned any semblance of transparency out the proverbial window.
As for meritocracy, a student who allegedly failed in Class 12 Physics and Chemistry exams scored 705 out of 720 in NEET. In fact, a larger problem with NEET has been the infestation of rot learning culture. According to findings from the Justice A.K. Ranjan Committee Report, the odds of a first-time aspirant succeeding in the medical entrance exam stood at 87.55% prior to the NEET era. However, following the introduction of NEET, these chances plummeted drastically to a mere 28.58%, while more repeaters secured admissions to medical colleges.
Also read: Why NEET as an Entrance Exam Fails to Inspire Confidence
Second, has NEET been able to bridge the socioeconomic inequities in the system? The AK Ranjan Committee report seems to suggest otherwise. After the introduction of NEET, the mean share of OC (Open Category) students increased significantly to 5.17% in government colleges and 12.87% in self-financed colleges, compared to 3.34% and 6.08% respectively in the pre-NEET period. While OC students benefited the most, other groups, except Backward Class Minorities, experienced a slight decline in their shares. This indicates that Backward Class and Most Backward Class groups were negatively impacted by NEET.
In fact, the advent of NEET has precipitated a profound and unequivocal stratification in the demographic composition of aspiring medical students. An incisive examination of the data shows that the proportion of students hailing from families with annual incomes below 2.5 lakh has diminished markedly. On the contrary, there has been a conspicuous and substantial augmentation in the representation of students from families earning in excess of 2.5 lakh.
Table 1: Percentage distribution of students admission to MBBS: Per parent’s annual income
Third, has NEET been able to bridge the urban-rural divergence? The answer to that, I suspect, is NO. The evidentiary data reveals that subsequent to the implementation of NEET, there has been a pronounced and significant disparity in admission rates between rural and urban students in both government and self-financed colleges.
This deviation from the pre-NEET period indicates a substantial inequity in access to medical education (See Table 2). The post-NEET era has witnessed a discernible diminution in the matriculation of rural students relative to their urban counterparts, highlighting a conspicuous geographical disparity This trend suggests a material and systemic reallocation of educational opportunities, thereby raising germane questions regarding the equity and fairness of the NEET protocol in maintaining balanced and inclusive admission practices across diverse demographic cohorts.
Table 2: Percentage distribution of students admission to MBBS: Geographical location-wise
Fourth, is NEET constitutional? The Supreme Court of India in Christian Medical College Vellore Association vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013) deemed the imposition of NEET beyond the statutory competence of the Medical Council Of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India (DCI). It allegedly encroached upon (a) the rights of states to regulate education within their adjudication, (b) the autonomy of private, unaided educational institutions.
In the subsequent review petition, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality and postulated that a uniform examination was indispensable to uphold meritocracy and eliminate malpractices in medical admissions. Nonetheless, this judicial imprimatur necessitates a nuanced disquisition in parliament given the full-fledged paper leak scam, the gross irregularities and the scathing A.K. Ranjan Committee Report that found how NEET has put the underprivileged at a distinct disadvantage.
Lastly, does the mere standardisation or asserted reduction in the plurality of examinations, ostensibly facilitated by NEET, provide an adequate rationale for its continuation, notwithstanding its systemic deficiencies in fulfilling its major foundational objectives and in upholding the principles of social, economic, and political justice within the educational framework? Moreover, the argument for standardisation must be balanced against the principles of social, economic, and political justice. An equitable educational framework necessitates a more nuanced approach that considers the diverse needs and contexts of the student population. The reductionist approach of a single standardised test like NEET may inadvertently marginalise students from underprivileged backgrounds, who may lack the necessary resources and support to compete on an ostensibly level playing field.
We must not view these incidents of paper leaks, irregularities, non-transparent grace marks, and rank inflation as isolated instances of injustice. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The preponderance of evidence everywhere leads inexorably to a critical interrogation: Why persist with a system that ostensibly penalises merit, operates in opacity, and subverts the principles of social, economic, and political justice? The myriad flaws in the NEET framework, from its questionable meritocratic claims to its exacerbation of socio-economic disparities, compel a reevaluation of its very existence.
Snehasis Mukhopadhyay analyses data on political and economic trends.
