Sravasti Dasgupta 
New Delhi: The Rajya Sabha on Friday (August 2) saw a heated discussion after a private members’ Bill sought to remove education from the concurrent list, and repeal the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the National Testing Agency (NTA) to allow states to conduct medical entrance tests, as the examination body faces criticism over recent paper leaks and irregularities in examinations.
The Bill, introduced by DMK MP M. Mohamed Abdulla, faced opposition from members of the treasury benches at the introduction stage itself after they said that any discussion would be against the Supreme Court’s verdict on NEET.
During the discussion, while opposition members called NEET anti-federal and sought its abolition, the treasury benches defended the examination, with Union health minister J.P. Nadda calling the medical education system a “den of business” prior to its introduction.
“The private members’ resolution is brought against precedents and parliamentary norms and practice. The Supreme Court gave directions in 2018 and after those directions and judgement, NEET exam is conducted by the NTA,” said Union minister Jayant Chaudhary as soon as Abdulla rose to introduce the Bill.
“The government is seized of the issue. This debate has been discussed in parliament many times. The government has instituted a high-powered committee headed by eminent personalities to look at the whole reform of the examination process, to review the NTA, to look at the data security protocols. Now if this House is going to discuss the scrapping of NTA and NEET, it will go against the Supreme Court order.”
The attempt to disallow the Bill at the introduction stage was opposed by CPI(M) MP John Brittas, Congress MP Shaktisinh Gohil, AAP MP Raghav Chadha among others.
Brittas reminded the House of the previous week, when his private members’ Bill seeking to make governors constitutionally bound by the advice of the council of ministers of states was defeated after loud protests from the treasury benches led to a division of votes and the Bill finally not being allowed to be introduced.
Brittas said on Friday that Chaudhary had “misrepresented the facts” in the House.
“Actually, it was the decision of the government to bring NEET. In 2013, the Supreme Court disallowed or scuttled NEET. Thereafter on appeal in 2016, the Supreme Court on a review agreed to bring it. It was not an order of the Supreme Court to bring NEET. It has concurred with the Union government’s view,” he said.
“Taking alibi on a Supreme Court verdict is wrong. And it is grossly [unjust] to scuttle private members’ business in the House, which we [saw] last Friday when my Bill was disallowed at the introduction stage. The hoax has to be called out and the member should be allowed to introduce the Bill.”
Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said that the House makes laws for the country, that Supreme Court rulings also constitute the law of the land and that the government is not attempting to deprive the member of his right to move the resolution.
“When the Supreme Court order has been implemented by the government, under such circumstances to discuss this issue is not right. This is why it should be put to a division,” he said.
Congress MP Shaktisinh Gohil said that the matter is not sub-judice and the verdict has come. The private members’ resolution being stalled after being approved by the chairman is wrong, he added.
“It is the chairman’s order that the parliament is above the judiciary. The rights of the House cannot be stopped. To discuss the problems with NEET will help the government in resolving the issue,” he said.
Anti-federal, overcentralisation
When the discussion started, opposition members raised concerns of overcentralisation and corruption in the NTA’s functioning and the conduct of examinations.
TMC MP Jawhar Sircar said that overcentralisation is “anti-federal”.
“This overcentralisation that is being undertaken on a daily basis on every subject is anti-federal,” he said.
He added: “We believe in the autonomy of every state. This exam is in favour of only one board and that has been proved again and again. It is a CBSE-oriented exam and favours CBSE candidates. I am not against the CBSE. Other boards that teach equally well are not given a fair chance under an overcentralising move.”
“[The] NTA system has given way to a lot of coaching centres. You have the CBSE and coaching, and put together you have an advantage and that is one of caste, class and money power. We talk about the lack of accountability. A registered society is running the organisation. Why can’t it be under an Act of parliament? Why can’t it be accounted for [by the] CAG?”
N.R. Elango of the DMK also called it anti-federal and sought support to abolish NEET.
“The persons who are passing NEET don’t go to rural areas and serve the rural population. Only those who are coming without NEET are willing to go to serve rural people. The ground reality is that to pass NEET, you have to go to coaching centres that charge Rs 5-10 lakhs. These are not available in rural areas and the people cannot afford it,” he said.
Elango also said that questions such as those in state government exams, which require reason-based answers, must replace multiple choice questions.
AAP MP Raghav Chadha said that the recent paper leaks had left millions of students “heartbroken” and there was a huge gap between the employability of students and their education. He called for a thorough probe.
“It is a great irony that our children who dream of serving the country are falling victim to corruption. The irregularities are not only a failure of the education system but a blow to those who prepare day and night for the exams. Do their dreams not matter?”
RJD MP Manoj Jha, seeking an abolition of the NTA and NEET, said that education was taken out of the states’ hands through the 42nd Amendmen and state-wise diversity had been ended through exams like NEET and through the NTA.
“The differences in the country should be respected, which NEET and the NTA do not do justice to,” he said.
Jha added that the centralisation of exams had led to coaching centres that remain outside the reach of poor students. Citing Delhi University’s admissions as an example, he said that while differences in state board examinations were sought to be removed through the CUET, the exam had led to mushrooming coaching centres.
“I never thought that for a political science entrance examination, students would go to coaching centres,” he said.
Medical education ‘den of business’
However, Union health minister Nadda defended NEET and said that prior to its introduction, medical education had been a den of business.
“Medical education had become the den of a business. When I was health minister and was bringing NEET, one seat of post graduation would be sold for Rs 8 crore each, and if you had to opt for a discipline like radiology, then it was Rs 12-13 crore,” he said in his reply to the discussion.
Nadda said that the system was riddled with corruption because of “vested interest”.
“The admission list used to be put up for 30-45 minutes, and afterwards, it used to be said, ‘students did not come, therefore we are using these seats at our discretion’. It had become a business. There was a vested interest. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court for a long time.”
Defending the examination from being called anti-federal, Nadda said that NEET is conducted in 13 languages and the number of cities where it is conducted has increased to 571 from 154.
“There has been a 102% increase in economically weaker section category students coming through NEET,” he said.
“ST (Scheduled Tribes) [saw a] 93.5% increase, SC [a] 78.8% increase and correct me if I am wrong, but the OBC category has been added during our regime. Again, people claim to be champions of OBCs, but the real champion is Prime Minister Narendra Modi. OBC representation has increased by 65%,” he added.
The Supreme Court in response to petitions seeking to retroactively cancel this year’s NEET-UG exam due to paper leaks and malpractices, on Friday (August 2) criticised the NTA for its inconsistent decisions regarding the exam and cited its “flip flops” as harming students’ interests.