On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a petition opposing the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party's signature campaign in Tamil Nadu schools against the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET).

Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, on the bench, expressed the view that current students are well-informed enough to discern such campaigns against national-level exams.

Justice Kant commented, "Students nowadays are well-informed and aware. Such campaigns against a national-level examination with central planning will not affect them. Let those who want to campaign. This is not a matter for (Article) 32."

NEET is the pre-medical entrance exam for admission to government and private medical colleges in India.

The campaign in question, called NEET Vilaku, Nam llakku (our goal is to abolish NEET), was launched by the DMK, led by Tamil Nadu Youth Welfare and Sports Development Minister Udayanidhi Stalin. The collected signatures are intended to be presented to President Draupadi Murmu.

Advocate ML Ravi initially opposed the campaign and filed a petition in the Madras High Court in November 2023. However, he withdrew the petition before the High Court as it seemed inclined to dismiss it with costs. Advocate Ravi then brought the present plea before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner in the public interest litigation (PIL) argued that NEET is an established examination, and a minister should not protest against it. The plea contended that the ruling party in the state was engaging in political activities in schools without parental consent. The petitioner also claimed that such campaigns might negatively impact students' motivation for preparing for entrance exams.

It's noteworthy that the Supreme Court is currently handling a plea by the DMK-led State of Tamil Nadu challenging the validity of NEET. The state argues that NEET violates federalism by usurping the states' power to admit students to government seats in medical colleges. Additionally, it claims that NEET violates the right to equality under

Article 14 of the Constitution, adversely affecting students in Tamil Nadu, especially those from rural areas and state-board affiliated schools who cannot afford entrance coaching centers.

Case: ML Ravi vs Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.