The Kerala government has requested 45 days to study the demands put forward by representatives of the association of primary school junior teacher qualifiers (LPST).
This request followed negotiations between the state authorities and representatives of the Kerala Association of all LPST qualifiers.
Demands to abolish the NEET exam have been reinforced in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The state government insists that admission to medical seats should be determined based on the marks of the 12th-grade certificate. Furthermore, the government reiterated its position on the necessity of abolishing NEET and returning education from the concurrent list to the states' competence list.
The State Minister for Health and Social Welfare, K.G. Arundraj, supported this official stance. He stated that the system based on 12th-grade scores should be used for admission to medical institutions, and the NEET exam itself must be abolished. The Tamil Nadu government's position on this issue goes beyond just university admissions, affecting the rights of the states and the structure of the education system.
The Tamil Nadu government argues that NEET harms students from rural areas, low-income groups, government schools, and those who study in local languages. The state believes that this exam favors students who can afford expensive private coaching classes. The government also points out that centralized national exams conducted on a single day can be susceptible to weaknesses in the system, leading to instances of examination material leaks and the cancellation of the NEET-UG exam on May 3rd.
Another important argument from the state government is that education and healthcare have historically been subjects of state jurisdiction. Consequently, the centralized system weakens state autonomy. Tamil Nadu asserts that it previously implemented a system for admitting students to medical institutions based on standardized 12th-grade certificate scores, which it considered transparent, accessible, and fair for local students.
To find an alternative to NEET, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly unanimously passed the 'Tamil Nadu Admission to Medical Institutions for Undergraduate' bill. However, this bill did not receive Presidential approval. Following this, the state government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, there was a demand to return education to the list of state competencies. Currently, education is on the concurrent list, allowing both the center and the states to enact laws, but in case of conflict, the federal law takes precedence.
Arguments supporting NEET include that a unified national exam ensures a uniform educational standard for admission to medical institutions. It is also argued that this helps control entrance exams in various private medical colleges and donation-funded seats, while relieving students of the burden of taking multiple exams. Currently, Tamil Nadu's position is clear: admission to medical institutions must be based on 12th-grade scores, NEET must be abolished, and the powers of the states in education must be strengthened.
During the presentation of the book 'Vaikoo in Parliament' in Lok Sabha, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He stated: 'Who are these forgiving people? Our prime ministers say they forgive them. I do not know who these forgiving people are.'
Rahul Gandhi noted that the country is going through an unusual period where students are on the streets, experiencing severe difficulties. They demand justice in exams and in an educational system that truly works. At the same time, according to him, the Prime Minister forgives them.
He added that he does not understand where the idea came from in the Prime Minister's mind that he has the right to forgive the future of India, but emphasized that he wishes this. Criticizing the RSS, Rahul Gandhi stated that there is a very dangerous idea present in the thinking of the Prime Minister, his colleagues, and especially the RSS.
The presentation of the book Vaikoo took place at the Constitutional Club of India in Delhi. During the event, Rahul Gandhi highly praised Vaikoo, offering congratulations for his speeches and book. Gandhi noted that when evaluating any politician, consistency is most important to him—whether a person says one thing one day and something else another day. He stressed that Vaikoo has always remained true to his ideology, and their friendship has lasted a long time.
Mentioning Vaikoo's age, Rahul Gandhi observed that although he was called a young man, it was not mentioned that he was elegant and handsome. He asked who this young man is: is it the one who asks questions. Despite Vaikoo being 82 years old, he continues to ask questions, unlike some people.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed Generation Z through a video on Instagram. In his address, he spoke about the desire to forgive the youth. PM Modi mentioned the incident at Jantar Mantar, which the entire country and world saw. He reported that some hooligans used indecent profanities that are unbecoming of a civilized society. He also mentioned that he and his late mother were pelted with garbage.
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, C. Joseph Vijay, addressed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, expressing disagreement with Karnataka's plans to build the Mekedatu dam on the Kaveri River. He also challenged the Central assertion that the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling does not require the explicit consent of downstream states.
Vijay's letter followed a day after the Minister of State for Water Resources, Raj Bhushan Choudhary, stated in the Rajya Sabha that the verdict of February 16, 2018, did not contain provisions obligating Karnataka to obtain approval from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, or Puducherry before constructing the structure on the Kaveri. This response was given in reply to a question by PMK MP Anbumani Ramadoss.
In his letter, Vijay noted that 'this disappointing statement by the respected Minister of State for Water Resources was made without considering the prevailing legal position and established law regarding the consent of downstream states.' The Chief Minister referred to the Supreme Court's judgment on the Alamatti dam dispute between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to substantiate the necessity of downstream state consent for projects capable of affecting river flow.
Citing this ruling, Vijay stated that 'Karnataka cannot receive permission to construct at such a height without the consent of all other riparian states, as well as the approval of the central government.' Furthermore, he referenced Article XVIII of the final decision of the Kaveri Water Disputes Tribunal, which preserves the right of the state to regulate water use within its territory, provided such actions do not contradict the tribunal's order.
Vijay argued that any project that could affect the established flow regime, regulated under this decision, must be checked for compliance with this regime. The Centre, in its Rajya Sabha response, relied on the same article, asserting that the 2018 judicial decision did not require Karnataka to seek consent from other Kaveri basin states. It was stated that states retain the right to use water within their boundaries as long as their actions do not contravene the tribunal's directives.
Nevertheless, Tamil Nadu insisted that this issue cannot be resolved merely by searching for an explicit consent clause in the 2018 verdict. In his letter, Vijay pointed to the tribunal's directives concerning the Pambur hydroelectric project in Kerala, which stipulated a consumption of only 0.1 cusecs. The Tribunal mandated that Kerala and Tamil Nadu jointly coordinate the water release schedule to prevent negative impacts on downstream irrigation.
According to Vijay, this directive demonstrates that the tribunal valued not only annual water allocation volumes but also coordinated releases affecting downstream states. He also cited Article XI of the decision, which prohibits the upstream riparian state from taking actions that affect planned supplies to downstream states, except through mutual agreement and consultation with the regulatory body. Article XX, he said, recognizes that changes to the decision can only be made by agreement between the state parties.
Vijay concluded that 'Tamil Nadu has concluded that the proposed Mekedatu project cannot be assessed simply as an engineering proposal.' He emphasized that the legal permissibility of the project must first be verified against the final decision of the Kaveri Tribunal, the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling, and the rights of the downstream states. The Chief Minister also mentioned that the Detailed Project Report submitted by Karnataka in 2019 was returned by the Central Water Commission for review to ensure compliance with the tribunal's decision and applicable guidelines. Tamil Nadu consistently opposes Karnataka's proposal for building a balancing reservoir, arguing that it could affect the quantity and timing of Kaveri water reaching the downstream state. Karnataka, however, insists that the project is primarily intended to meet Bengaluru's drinking water needs and generate hydroelectric power.
