Chennai: The day after the Tamil Majelis Nadu issued a bill to avoid neet for reception to a medical course, Madras High Court wondered whether the transfer of the Emergency-Era of the Education as a subject of the consultation list of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The court also commented that the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 had not yet taken education from PurView the country fully, because it was still on the list together and not below the list of trade unions.
“Even though the problem was taken from one list to another list, there was no complete takeover like that,” the first bench from the chairman of Judge Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P D Audikesavalu on Tuesday.
The court made observations while hearing the public interest petition submitted by Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust, represented by DMK Legislators Dr.
Ezhilan Naganathan, questioned the constitutionality of the 42nd amendment.
“Based on transferring the subject of education from the list II to register III, the executive / legislative autonomy of the state in terms of education has become subject to union’s executive / legislative strength,” said Pill.
Recognizing the petition, the first bench was observed: “Many places do not have medical institutions.
Why does MBBS have dream students in certain countries, where no medical colleges are still not fulfilled just because the country does not have medical colleges?” Batting for ‘Just distribution of education resources, the court said: “One can respect the Petitioner’s sentiment but at the same time, please remember we have a wide part of this country where they continue to survive without resources.
That other places have other places have …
therefore, there must be a large amount for the distribution of fair educational resources or make it available for students from places where it may not be available.
“Even now, unfortunately, we do not consider the people from the Northeast as The main Indian, which is a tragedy because of their appearance, we call it Nepal or China.
But they are also as much as India like you and me, “said the court.” They come from places where such infrastructure is not available, so we must consider all of them, “the court added, and directed the United States to respond to the application in eight weeks .
The court then Suo Motu applied the Tamil Nadu government as party respondent and directed the country to report his view.
HC asks whether moving the edu list to concurrent is legal
