A single judge of the Madras High Court on Thursday refrained from passing an interim order permitting a 16-year-old girl to write the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) on September 12 without insisting upon her completing of 17 years of age as of December 2021.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh referred the matter to a Division Bench of the court for an authoritative pronouncement, since the test was being conducted at a national level and there had to be a uniform policy followed in all States with respect to age criterion.
In the interest of the student, SP. Shree Harini, the judge requested the Division Bench to take up her present writ petition along with a writ appeal, already pending before the Bench, on September 6 so that a decision on allowing her to write the test could be taken well before September 12.
Initially, Justice B. Pugalendhi had allowed a previous writ petition filed by the girl, and directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to permit her to write NEET if the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bengaluru tests her intelligence quotient and finds her fit to write the test.
“People should go to university and college when they are ready, not when they are old enough to go,” the judge had said and referred to child prodigies who had completed graduation at a young age across the globe.
Though NTA took the single judge’s order on appeal, it could not obtain an interim stay from the Division Bench which only ordered notice to the student. Subsequently, Ms. Harini filed the present petition since the date for NEET was approaching fast.
Opposing the petition, senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, representing NTA, pointed out that the Rajasthan High Court had upheld the minimum age criteria for medical courses long back. That decision was followed by many other High Courts.
Even recently, the Delhi High Court had followed that decision and rejected a similar plea of an under-age student, he said. It was also brought to the notice of Justice Venkatesh that even a Division Bench of Madras High Court had followed that decision in 2011. In such circumstances, a contrary view taken now by Justice Pugalendhi would open the floodgates and similar relief might be sought by students across the country, he said and insisted that all High Courts must take a consistent view on such issues since they have pan- India ramifications.
It was argued that experts had opined that students would attain the physical and mental maturity required for medical studies only after they complete 17 years of age.
After hearing him and the petitioner’s advocate AL. Ganthimathi, the judge directed the High Court Registry to tag the present writ petition with the writ appeal pending before the Division Bench.
