[NEET-UG 24] “Seriously Prejudicing Larger Public Interest”: CJI Rejects Plea For Retest By Candidate Suffering From Hyper Sweating Who Wasn’t Allowed Handkerchief In Exam

The Supreme Court on Sept 13th observed that Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a Public Examination as it delays the finalisation of the result, thereby, seriously prejudicing the larger public interest. CJI dismissed SLP filed by a student (petitioner) seeking re-examination of NEET-UG 2024 on the grounds of “inconvenience” caused due to the petitioner’s medical condition of hyperhidrosis during the examination.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court underscored the need for caution when addressing individual grievances related to public examinations, as such interventions can lead to delays in finalizing results, thereby impacting the broader public interest.

This observation was made while dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a student, who sought a re-examination of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2024. The petitioner had argued for a re-examination based on the “inconvenience” caused by his medical condition of hyperhidrosis, which he claimed affected his performance during the test.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra remarked,

“Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a Public Examination as it delays finalization of result thereby seriously prejudicing larger public interest.”

This statement emphasized the importance of balancing individual concerns with the greater good of the public.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that his medical condition hampered his ability to complete the exam under normal conditions. Representing the respondents was Advocate Pankhuri Srivastava.

The SLP sought to appeal the decision of the Telangana High Court, which had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s writ. The petitioner had asked the court to direct the National Testing Agency (NTA) to hold a re-examination for him, as it had done for other candidates.

However, the High Court found no merit in his request, observing that all candidates, including the petitioner, were given the full allotted time at the examination center. Therefore, his case was not comparable to the 1563 other candidates who were granted a fresh exam due to delays in distributing the correct question papers.

The High Court had further noted, even if it were assumed that the petitioner was unjustly denied the ability to carry a handkerchief during the exam, this would not have significantly impacted his performance. The court reasoned that the petitioner could have easily wiped the sweat from his palms using his clothes.

The petitioner, however, maintained that being allowed a handkerchief would have greatly improved his chances of performing better in the exam and subsequently securing admission to a college of his choice.

The Supreme Court took into account the petitioner’s claim regarding the negligence of the security personnel, who, despite the absence of any prohibition, did not allow him to bring a handkerchief into the examination hall.

Nevertheless, the Court observed,

“There is no case that allotted time for giving the examination was not provided to the petitioner at the examination center. Thus, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from those 1563 candidates for whom re-examination was conducted because of loss of examination time on account of delay in distribution of correct question paper.”

The Court also weighed in on the nature of the examination itself.

“In the examination, answers were to be rendered by darkening blank circles on the OMR sheet. In such a case, the use of a pen or a pencil is much less than where answers are to be written. Hence, the view taken by the High Court that denial of permission to take a handkerchief inside the examination hall would not have materially affected petitioner’s performance, as he could have rubbed his palms on his clothes, is a plausible view.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court’s reasoning was sound.

This ruling serves as a reminder that courts must carefully consider the wider implications of individual grievances in public examinations to prevent undue delays and safeguard the larger public interest.

CASE TITLE:
Talluri Srikar (Minor) Through His Father Talluri Srikrishna v. The Director, National Testing Agency & Ors., with the Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 694.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NEET

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES