Abolish NEET – Protest in Chennai
Related articles
The massive students’ protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, has once again brought the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) to the centre of public debate. While the immediate trigger was the alleged leakage of the NEET-UG 2026 question paper, the larger question remains: Is the problem merely administrative failure, or does it lie in the very structure of NEET itself?
The recent agitation demonstrated the determination of thousands of students and youth to defend the integrity of medical education. Yet, the movement also exposed a deeper challenge—whether the protest addressed the root cause or merely its immediate manifestation.
A Protest Born Out of Outrage
The protest, organised by the recently formed Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), gathered momentum rapidly through online mobilisation. On 20 June 2026, thousands assembled at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, holding him politically accountable for the widespread NEET-UG 2026 paper leak. The examination, conducted on 3 May 2026, allegedly witnessed irregularities across several locations. Investigations led to arrests at multiple stages of the examination process—from question paper preparation to distribution—indicating the scale of the alleged scam.
Coinciding with the re-examination held on 21 June, the protest intensified further. Environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and even undertook a fast in support of the students’ demands, drawing national attention to the issue.
Is Resignation the Real Solution?
While demanding ministerial accountability is a legitimate democratic response, it raises an important question: Would replacing a minister resolve the fundamental problems associated with NEET?
The movement largely focused on administrative responsibility for the paper leak. However, it paid relatively little attention to examining whether NEET itself has become an inequitable mechanism for admission to medical education. The paper leak is undoubtedly a serious concern. But the larger debate is whether NEET, irrespective of such irregularities, serves the principles of fairness, equality and academic merit.
The Shift from Academic Performance to Entrance Coaching
Before NEET was introduced, admissions to medical colleges were primarily based on marks obtained in the Higher Secondary (+2) public examinations. These examinations reflected the culmination of twelve years of formal schooling and were recognised as the principal academic qualification for higher education. NEET fundamentally altered this system.
Instead of rewarding sustained academic performance, admission increasingly depends on performance in a single national entrance examination. Success in NEET often reflects access to specialised coaching, intensive preparation and financial resources rather than classroom learning alone.
As a result, the significance of school education has gradually diminished, while the coaching industry has assumed unprecedented influence over medical admissions.
The Question of Equity
A major criticism of NEET concerns the unequal educational backgrounds of candidates.
The examination largely follows the CBSE pattern, whereas a substantial number of aspirants study under various State Board syllabi. These differences in curriculum and examination style place many students— particularly those from State Board schools— at a comparative disadvantage.
Consequently, students from rural backgrounds and economically weaker sections frequently face structural hurdles despite performing well in their Higher Secondary examinations.
Critics therefore argue that NEET does not measure students on a truly level playing field
Can an Entrance Test Replace Twelve Years of Schooling?
The concept of an “eligibility test” itself deserves closer scrutiny. The Higher Secondary public examination is already an established academic assessment conducted after years of structured education. Critics argue that introducing another examination to determine eligibility effectively undermines the value of school education.
Moreover, entrance examinations evaluate students through a limited testing format and cannot necessarily measure the breadth of learning reflected in academic public examinations. The question, therefore, is whether an entrance test should outweigh years of formal academic achievement.
The Missed Opportunity
The mobilisation at Jantar Mantar was remarkable in scale and enthusiasm.
However, according to this perspective, the movement stopped short of addressing what many in Tamil Nadu have consistently identified as the central issue—the abolition of NEET itself.
Had the nationwide agitation focused on structural reform rather than solely demanding ministerial resignation, it might have generated a broader and more enduring national debate on medical admissions.
“The challenge now is to define the objective with greater clarity. If the demand remains confined to accountability for examination malpractice, the movement may secure only temporary remedies. If, however, the debate expands to examine the structure and purpose of NEET itself, it could reshape the national discourse on educational equity”
Tamil Nadu’s Distinctive Position
Unlike many other states, Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed NEET since its introduction. Successive governments, opposition parties and various social organisations have demanded its abolition, arguing that the examination disproportionately disadvantages students from rural, government-school and socially marginalised backgrounds.
The demand has therefore evolved beyond party politics into a larger movement concerning educational equity and social justice.
A Constitutional Question
The NEET debate also raises broader constitutional concerns. Education was originally placed under the State List in the Constitution before being shifted to the Concurrent List, allowing both the Union and State governments to legislate.
Critics argue that decisions regarding medical admissions have increasingly become centralised, leaving States with limited autonomy despite the shared constitutional responsibility. This dimension adds a significant federal aspect to the ongoing debate.
The Coaching Culture
One of the unintended consequences of NEET has been the rapid expansion of the coaching industry. Many aspiring medical students devote enormous amounts of time and money to specialised coaching classes, often treating their Higher Secondary education as secondary.
This shift has altered the priorities of school education itself. Students frequently focus on mastering examination techniques for NEET rather than engaging deeply with the academic curriculum. The result is an education system increasingly driven by coaching rather than classroom learning.
Reframing the National Conversation
The recent protests have successfully drawn nationwide attention to the vulnerabilities in the conduct of NEET. Yet administrative reforms alone may not settle the larger debate.
If the objective is to create a fair, equitable and academically sound admission system, the discussion must move beyond examination irregularities to examine whether NEET itself fulfils those goals.
Those advocating abolition argue that medical admissions should once again be based primarily on Higher Secondary (+2) public examination marks, restoring the centrality of school education and eliminating dependence on costly coaching systems.
The Road Ahead
The nationwide student mobilisation has demonstrated both energy and commitment. It has opened an important democratic space for questioning the future of medical admissions in India.
The challenge now is to define the objective with greater clarity. If the demand remains confined to accountability for examination malpractice, the movement may secure only temporary remedies.
If, however, the debate expands to examine the structure and purpose of NEET itself, it could reshape the national discourse on educational equity.
For those advocating systemic reform, the slogan is no longer merely about punishing those responsible for examination irregularities. It is about redefining the framework of medical admissions.
The demand, they argue, must be reset: not simply accountability for NEET, but the abolition of NEET itself.
