Read Editorial with D2G – Ep CXX

In Read Editorial With D2G
April 16, 2016

GOOD MORNING FOLKS! IT’S A TEA TIME AND WE ARE HERE WITH OUR NEW ENDEAVOR – “READ EDITORIAL WITH D2G”. SO FRESHEN YOUR EYES, PUT YOUR PILLOWS BACK AND TAKE A SIP OF YOUR TEA WHILE ENJOYING THIS SHORT PIECE OF A NOTE.

EPISODE – CXX
TOPIC: Reviving a Good Idea
BLOG: The Hindu
WRITER: Editorial
GENRE: Indian Affairs

editorial

READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.

MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC

It was a good idea in the first place, but unfortunately it did not survive judicial scrutiny. By recalling a three-judge Bench’s 2013 order striking down the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and agreeing to hold a fresh hearing on a review petition by the Medical Council of India, the Supreme Court has now revived the idea of holding a national test to ascertain the aptitude and suitability of those seeking to study medicine anywhere in the country. Introduced in 2010 through amendments to existing regulations relating to medical and dental admissions, NEET had a few laudable objectives: saving students the trouble of writing multiple entrance examinations to medical courses in State-run and private institutions, curbing the increasing commercialisation of higher education in medicine, and ensuring a transparent admission process in private, unaided institutions which thrive (If someone or something thrives, they do well and are successful, healthy, or strong) on selling MBBS and postgraduate medical specialty seats to the highest bidder. However, it encountered opposition from two influential quarters. One, State governments were upset with the implicit centralisation of medical education in the idea of a national test. They feared that NEET would undermine their reservation policy. Some like Tamil Nadu see all entrance tests as elitist (Elitist systems, practices, or ideas favour the most powerful, rich, or talented people within a group, place, or society) and against the interests of poor and rural students. And two, private institutions, especially those established by minorities, were against any interference in their admission process, arguing that their unfettered (If you describe something as unfettered, you mean that it is not controlled or limited by anyone or anything) right to regulate their own admissions had been upheld by an 11-judge Supreme Court Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002). When the institutions approached the Supreme Court, a three-judge Bench, by a two-one majority, agreed with them that the regulations introducing NEET violated their constitutional rights.

The dissenting voice of Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, who ruled that NEET could be conducted to regulate admissions without impinging (Something that impinges on you affects you to some extent.) on minority rights or breaching the reservation norms of various States, was in a lost cause then. His reasoning had great force: NEET merely creates a national pool of eligible candidates from among whom colleges and institutions were free to select those belonging to any preferred minority group or any reserved category. In a curious turn of events, Mr. Justice Dave now heads the Constitution Bench that will revisit the entire case. The Bench has said the majority in the earlier verdict had not followed binding precedents and pronounced a hasty order without internal discussion among the judges. The recall of the earlier judgment even before the review has been fully heard has created some confusion. NEET may be back in place, and it is possible that it could be held at least for postgraduate medical admissions this year. However, NEET’s validity has not yet been upheld. States which had obtained the interim stay against NEET may believe that they are still entitled to go ahead with the present admission process. The legal position in such States requires clarification. An early disposal of the review petition is needed both to put in place a free and transparent admission process and to eliminate any confusion.

**************