NEET abolition: State can demand, Centre can reject

NEET abolition: State can demand, Centre can reject

TN Can Enact Law As Edu On Concurrent List

A.Subramani@timesgroup.com

Chennai:14.09.2021

Tamil Nadu’s renewed battle to scrap NEET is neither impossible nor easy, for it is as much political as constitutional.

Political, because it would need the Union government’s consent and presidential assent. Constitutional, because education, after the 42nd amendment, is on the concurrent list where the Centre and the states have equal power to enact laws.

“As long as education is on the concurrent list, the state government can enact a law,” said Justice D Hariparanthaman, who retired as a Madras high court judge. He, however, added that the law will not come into force till the Centre gives its nod. In 2017, the AIADMK government made a similar attempt, but it did not pursue it. The President rejected it. There are several state-specific laws concerning concurrent list subjects that Tamil Nadu enacted and got the presidential assent.

For example, in 2006 Tamil Nadu did away with the entrance examination for professional courses. Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2006, received presidential assent in March 2007, and in March 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the state law. Similarly, it was a Tamil Nadu-specific amendment to the Hindu Marriages Act which enabled a Hindu in the state to marry without following the rituals. Section 7(A) was inserted in the act by the C N Annadurai government. No other state has this provision.

In 1977, the MGR government inserted Section 2(A)(2) in the Industrial Disputes Act, enabling an individual workman to raise a dispute without the government’s reference. Though the subject is jointly occupied by the Union and state governments, and when even Left bastions like Bengal and Kerala did not have such a law, the Centre gave its assent for the Tamil Naduspecific amendment.

Jallikattu is the most recent Tamil Nadu law which got the presidential assent though it differed from the Centre’s stand. In January 2017, by amending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (a subject on the concurrent list), Tamil Nadu ensured that jallikattu was exempted from the list of banned performances by animals.

In 1994, the Jayalalithaa government did a Houdini act when Tamil Nadu, with just 39 MPs, mustered a two-thirds majority in the 534-member parliament to include its 69% reservation law in the Ninth Schedule, thereby insulating the state law from judicial review. “Just as now, even then the issue was as political as constitutional. It was a quid pro quo by the Jayalalithaa government for its support to the PV Narasimha Rao government to pass the Panchayati Raj Act in Parliament,” said Justice Hariparanthaman.

The possibility of the law being rejected by the Union government does not mean Tamil Nadu should not demand its right guaranteed by the Constitution. “It is a limited constitutional power, but if Tamil Nadu does not enact a law as per its stated policy, it will amount to giving up its right,” he said.

IN THE PAST: In 1977, the MGR government inserted Section 2(A)(2) in the Industrial Disputes Act, enabling an individual workman to raise a dispute without the government’s reference; Jallikattu is the most recent Tamil Nadu law which got the presidential assent though it differed from the Centre’s stand