NEET Needs Fundamental Restructuring, Not Cosmetic Fixes
The recurring crises surrounding National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) demonstrate that the problem lies not merely in its implementation but in the design of the system itself.
The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) was introduced with the stated objective of creating a uniform, merit-based admission process for medical education across India. In principle, a common entrance examination may appear fair. In practice, however, NEET has evolved into one of the most contentious educational policies in the country. Repeated controversies over paper leaks, institutional failures, socio-economic inequities, and concerns over federalism have exposed deep structural flaws that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.
The recurring crises surrounding NEET demonstrate that the problem lies not merely in its implementation but in the design of the system itself. If India is committed to ensuring both excellence and equity in medical education, the examination requires fundamental restructuring rather than periodic administrative fixes.
One of the most damaging aspects of NEET has been the repeated erosion of public trust. Allegations of paper leaks, organized cheating networks, evaluation errors, and controversies over grace marks have become recurring features of the examination. The unprecedented number of perfect scorers in some years and the subsequent legal challenges have raised serious questions about the integrity of the process. Investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and interventions by the Supreme Court have only reinforced public concerns that the system remains vulnerable to manipulation.
Equally significant is the question of institutional accountability. The National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts NEET, functions as an autonomous registered society rather than a statutory body directly accountable to Parliament. Considering that the examination determines the future of millions of students every year, such an arrangement raises legitimate concerns about transparency, oversight, and public accountability.
Beyond operational failures lies a deeper constitutional issue. Medical education falls within the Concurrent List of the Constitution, allowing both the Union and the states to legislate in the field. Yet NEET has effectively centralized admissions, substantially reducing the autonomy of states in determining admission policies for their own publicly funded medical colleges.
Several state governments, particularly Tamil Nadu, have consistently argued that admissions should reflect local educational realities and healthcare priorities. States have differing school curricula, varying levels of educational infrastructure, and distinct public health needs. A uniform national examination cannot easily accommodate these regional differences. The centralized model also limits the ability of states to design admission systems that encourage graduates to serve rural and underserved communities.
The Most Persistent Criticism of NEET
Perhaps the most persistent criticism of NEET concerns its socio-economic bias. Although officially presented as a test of merit, the examination increasingly rewards access to expensive coaching rather than school education itself.
A vast commercial coaching industry, worth billions of rupees, has emerged around NEET. Students from affluent families often spend years in specialized coaching centres, repeat the examination multiple times, and receive extensive professional guidance. In contrast, students from government schools, rural backgrounds, and economically weaker families frequently rely solely on their school education.
The examination syllabus closely follows the NCERT curriculum, placing many state board students at a disadvantage. The disparity is particularly acute in states where school curricula differ significantly from NCERT textbooks. Consequently, NEET has widened educational inequalities instead of reducing them.
The psychological burden imposed by the examination is equally troubling. For millions of students, years of preparation culminate in a single high-stakes test conducted on one day. Any illness, technical problem, administrative error, or unforeseen circumstance can irreversibly affect a student’s future.
Repeated cancellations, court cases, delayed results, and discussions of possible retests further intensify anxiety. The enormous pressure associated with NEET has contributed to serious mental health concerns among students, particularly in major coaching centres across the country. An admission system should evaluate talent without subjecting young people to such extreme psychological stress.
TN Model
Tamil Nadu’s response offers an important example of how policy can partially offset these structural disadvantages. In 2020, the state introduced a 7.5 percent horizontal reservation for students who had studied in government schools from Classes VI to XII.
Based on the recommendations of the Justice P. Kalaiyarasan Committee, the policy operates across all existing reservation categories as a “quota within a quota.” The measure directly addresses several inequities created by NEET.
- First, it reduces the overwhelming advantage enjoyed by students with access to expensive coaching by creating a separate merit pool for government school students. Instead of competing against candidates backed by years of costly coaching, these students compete with peers from similar educational backgrounds.
- Second, the reservation helps bridge the curriculum gap between state board education and the NCERT-oriented examination. The Kalaiyarasan Committee recognized that government school students face systemic disadvantages arising from disparities in infrastructure, teaching quality, learning resources, and medium of instruction. The reservation acknowledges these structural barriers rather than treating unequal educational conditions as equal competition.
- Third, the policy has reversed the dramatic decline in government school representation that followed the introduction of NEET. Before NEET, government school students had a significantly higher presence in medical admissions based on board examination marks. After NEET, their representation reportedly fell below two percent. The 7.5 percent reservation now secures several hundred medical and dental seats annually for eligible government school students, restoring some degree of educational inclusion.
- Finally, the policy supports broader public health objectives. Government school students in Tamil Nadu are disproportionately drawn from rural, economically weaker, and first-generation learner families. These students are statistically more likely to return to underserved areas to practice medicine. By improving their representation in medical education, the reservation contributes to strengthening rural healthcare services while also promoting social mobility.
Long Term Solution
However, even this successful intervention has limitations. The Madras High Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the reservation, observed that such affirmative action should not become a permanent substitute for improving the quality of government school education. The long-term solution lies in strengthening public education so that government school students can compete on genuinely equal terms.
The broader lesson is clear. Reservation policies can mitigate the consequences of an unequal system, but they cannot eliminate the structural flaws embedded within that system.
Meaningful reform requires a comprehensive approach. States should be given greater flexibility to determine admissions for their own quota of medical seats, including the option of incorporating Class XII performance where appropriate. The examination process itself should move away from a single high-stakes event towards multiple computer-based testing sessions or hybrid assessment models that reduce the risks associated with a single day’s performance. Anti-cheating laws should be strengthened, and the NTA should be reconstituted as a statutory body with clearly defined parliamentary oversight and greater institutional accountability.
Also Read: How effective are NEET and the likes in evaluating students true potential?
Most importantly, India must reconsider its understanding of merit. True merit cannot be measured solely by performance in a single examination. It must also take into account the vastly unequal educational opportunities available to students, the social context in which learning occurs, and the constitutional commitment to equality of opportunity.
NEET has undoubtedly standardized admissions. But standardization is not synonymous with fairness. A genuinely equitable medical admission system must balance academic standards with social justice, federal principles, transparency, and public confidence. Until these objectives are reconciled, controversies surrounding NEET are likely to continue, and the search for a fairer alternative will remain both necessary and urgent.
[The writer, Pon Chandran, is Human Rights Activist associated with the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Coimbatore. He writes on Constitutional Rights, Public Policy, Education, and Social Justice, with a particular interest in issues relating to equity in access to education and democratic governance.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
