Two judgements by the Supreme Court of India in July-August 2017 came under nationwide discussions and arguments.


The Judgement to close all the liquor shops that are situated within 500 metres from the highways to bring down the 'drunk and drive' accidents. This was widely welcomed by the people and many states closed their liquor shops within 500 metres from highways.

Many states cleverly converted their highways running into the important towns and cities as District Roads and escaped from closing the shops.

A case was filed in the Supreme Court against converting the highways as district roads.  The court permitted converting highways as district roads saying that the truck and other vehicle drivers drink only from the shops of highways that are outside the towns and cities and hence the shops within towns can be allowed.

The main question goes unanswered:

Do the drivers drink only on highways outside the towns and cities?  If the liquor shops are allowed within the towns and cities, won't the drivers stop their vehicles for a while purchase the liquor and drink the same from their vehicles?

How can we say that the drivers do not drink from the liquor shops within towns and cities?  If a person needs liquor he will rush for any spot where it is available near to him.

The Supreme Court should reconsider its verdict and again order against converting the highways into local roads.

This will invite wide appreciation from the people whose mindset is generally against abolishing liquor.


This judgement has invited wide protests in the state of Tamilnadu.

India has many states with many syllabi in the higher secondary school level.  90% of Indian students study only in the state board syllabus.  Particularly in Tamilnadu, only 3% of the students study in CBSE syllabus and 97% study in the state board syllabus.

If the exams are conducted based on state board syllabus, the students can answer because they had studies in that syllabus.

But this year's NEET exam was conducted in Tamilnadu in CBSE syllabus and the students were given repeeated assurance by the Tamilnadu govt that NEET will not be there in Tamilnadu.  Therefore the students did not prepare for NEET.

Unable to bear the failure to score high marks while scoring triple centum in the Plus two board, a girl ANITHA in ARIYALUR district of Tamilnadu committed suicide.  Such a bright student studied well the syllabus given to her.

Now, the NEET was conducted in CBSE syllabus. 

What can a village girl and boy do when the questions are out of syllabus?

How can a selection to such an important course like MBBS be done by conductimng an exam from out of syllabus recommended for the students of the state?

The logic is not understandable.  With no fault on their side the innocent students of Tamilnadu were affected and their dreams went black because of the forceful implementation of NEET for medical admissions.

The attemps to get exemption from NEET in Tamilnadu were also refused by the centre.  The education is in the concurrent list of the constitution.  Therefore, the centre should consider the difficulties of a state when the state represents its difficulty.  But, the NEET was forcefully implemented as if it is in the central list.

The Supreme court too is very form on its view on NEET without evaluating the above points.

Now, the students are in trouble in Tamilnadu and we have lost an innocent girl Anitha.
Many others are crying within considering their inability.

There are protests everywhere in Tamilnadu after the death of Anitha, but the government is stopping them from assembling even in the beginning.

The governments and courts should consider the genuine situation of the people and decide on any matter accordingly.

In the matter of NEET, the court should order the centre and state to first make the syllabus uniform all over India within a certain years and then order for a common exam all over India.

The last asylum for innocent people is the courts.  If the courts too do not show mercy on such innocent students, where can they go?

Will the Central government stop intervening in the rights of the state governments in the matters included in the state and concurrent lists?

Will the courts ensure that the governments follow such a discipline?