Supreme Court Upholds NEET Exam Validity Despite Handkerchief Denial: Talluri Srikar vs. NTA (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 13, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 694

Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a minor be granted a re-examination for not being allowed to carry a handkerchief into the examination hall, despite having a medical condition that causes excessive sweating? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a candidate who was not permitted to bring a handkerchief to the NEET (UG) 2024 exam. The court considered whether this denial warranted a re-examination, especially given that a re-examination was conducted for other candidates due to a delay in the distribution of the correct question paper. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, with the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The petitioner, Talluri Srikar, a minor, suffers from a medical condition called ‘Hyperhidrosis,’ which causes excessive sweating of the palms and soles. To manage this, he usually needs a cloth, like a handkerchief, to keep his palms dry. During the NEET-2024 examination, while he was allowed to appear, he was not permitted to take his handkerchief inside the examination hall. This caused him significant inconvenience, impacting his ability to effectively use the allotted time. He claims he could not attempt many questions and even bubbled a wrong digit on the OMR sheet due to the discomfort.

The petitioner sought a re-examination, similar to what was granted to 1563 candidates who experienced a loss of examination time due to a delay in receiving the correct question papers. The petitioner’s representation to the authorities was rejected on 21.06.2024, which led to the filing of a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Telangana.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Telangana dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition, noting that the petitioner was provided the full allotted time for the examination. The High Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from the 1563 candidates who were granted a re-examination due to a delay in the distribution of the correct question paper. The High Court also opined that even if the petitioner was wrongly denied permission to carry a handkerchief, it would not have materially affected his performance, as he could have wiped his palms on his clothes.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific legal provisions or statutes. However, it implicitly deals with the principles of fairness and equal opportunity in the context of public examinations. The court’s reasoning is centered on the premise that all candidates were given the allotted time for the examination, and that the denial of a handkerchief did not materially affect the petitioner’s ability to take the exam.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the security personnel at the examination center were negligent in not allowing him to carry a handkerchief, which was not a prohibited item.
• The petitioner contended that had he been allowed to use a handkerchief, his performance would have been better, improving his chances for admission to a college of his choice.
• The petitioner’s main submission was that not allowing him to carry a handkerchief was a disadvantage which was not faced by other candidates, and thus, he should be given a re-examination.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that all candidates, including the petitioner, were given the full allotted time for the examination.
• The respondents contended that the denial of a handkerchief did not materially affect the petitioner’s performance, as he could have wiped his palms on his clothes.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument was innovative in the sense that it sought a re-examination on the grounds of denial of a basic necessity (handkerchief) due to a medical condition, which was not a prohibited item, and therefore, was a disadvantage not faced by other candidates.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the denial of permission to carry a handkerchief inside the examination hall warrants a re-examination for the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was based on the facts of the case and the court’s reasoning.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court did not cite any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The petitioner was given the full allotted time for the examination.
• The denial of a handkerchief would not have materially affected the petitioner’s performance, as he could have wiped his palms on his clothes.
• The Court was circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a public examination as it delays finalization of results thereby seriously prejudicing larger public interest.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the denial of a handkerchief was a disadvantage but rejected it on the grounds that the petitioner could have managed by wiping his palms on his clothes. The Court also considered the public interest in the timely finalization of results.

The court stated, “There is no case that allotted time for giving the examination was not provided to the petitioner at the examination center.”

The court further stated, “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.”

The court also stated, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Denial of a personal item (handkerchief) due to a medical condition does not automatically warrant a re-examination if the candidate is provided the full allotted time.
• Courts are circumspect in entertaining individual grievances related to public examinations to avoid delays in the finalization of results.
• Candidates are expected to adapt to examination conditions and use available resources (such as clothes) to manage personal needs.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate is not entitled to a re-examination solely on the grounds of denial of a personal item (handkerchief) due to a medical condition if the candidate is provided the full allotted time and can manage the situation with available resources. This case reinforces the principle that courts must be cautious in entertaining individual grievances related to public examinations to avoid delays in the finalization of results. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has given its interpretation of the facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the denial of a handkerchief to the petitioner, who suffers from Hyperhidrosis, did not warrant a re-examination, as he was provided the full allotted time and could have managed by wiping his palms on his clothes. This decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of public examinations and the need for candidates to adapt to the given conditions.