In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Hyperhidrosis case, where a petitioner suffering from profuse sweating due to a medical condition sought permission to carry a handkerchief during the NEET(UG)-2024 examination. The court’s decision to dismiss the Special Leave Petition sheds light on the considerations regarding individual grievances in public examinations. This summary discusses the key points of the judgement without mentioning specific party names involved.
Facts
- The petitioner sought a re-examination of NEET(UG)-2024 due to delay in distribution of correct question paper, similar to 1563 candidates who had a re-examination.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking re-examination for the petitioner.
- The petitioner was permitted to appear for the exam but not allowed to take a handkerchief inside the examination hall.
- The petitioner’s representation regarding this issue was rejected on 21.06.2024.
- This rejection was challenged in the writ petition before the High Court.
- Petition was dismissed as full allotted time for the examination was given to all candidates including the petitioner
- Petitioner’s case not considered equal to the 1563 candidates who had a fresh examination
- No grounds for conducting a fresh examination for the petitioner
Also Read: Jurisdiction and Extension of Time in Contract Rescission Case
Analysis
- The petitioner claims to suffer from ‘Hyperhidrosis’ of palms and soles which causes profuse sweating.
- The High Court noted that even if the petitioner was not allowed to carry a handkerchief, it would not have significantly impacted his performance as sweat on palms could be wiped on clothes.
- The allotted time for the examination was provided to the petitioner, but he claims he could not attempt many questions and bubbled a wrong digit on the OMR sheet.
- The High Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from others where a re-examination was conducted due to a loss of examination time.
- It was argued that due to his medical condition, the petitioner needed a handkerchief to keep his palms dry as excessive sweating affected his ability to write with a pen or pencil.
- Courts must be cautious in addressing individual grievances regarding a Public Examination as it can delay result finalization, harming larger public interest.
- The High Court’s opinion that not allowing a handkerchief in the examination hall would not significantly impact the petitioner’s performance is reasonable.
- The petitioner could have used their clothes to rub their palms instead of a handkerchief to address any discomfort.
Also Read: Ownership Liability of Hindustan Motors and Vaibhav Motors in Vehicle Compensation Case
Decision
- The Special Leave Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 is dismissed.
- Relying on previous judgments, the court finds no merit in the Special Leave Petition.
- The court provides a detailed explanation for dismissing the petition based on lack of merit.
- No new evidence or compelling arguments were presented to sway the court’s decision.
- The judgement is clear and concise in its dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
Also Read: Analysis of Eyewitness Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence in a Murder Case
Case Title: TALLURI SRIKAR THROUGH HIS FATHER TALLURI SRIKRISHNA Vs. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (2024 INSC 694)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-020243 – 2024
