A student who says he flunked the NEET because he was prevented from taking into the exam hall a handkerchief, an accessory apparently necessitated by a medical condition, will not be allowed to re-sit the examination, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a public examination as it delays finalisation of result thereby seriously prejudicing (the) larger public interest,” the bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said in a judgment.

Candidate Talluri Srikar had said he suffers from hyperhidrosis, a condition that causes excessive sweating and requires him to always carry a handkerchief, whose absence caused him acute inconvenience while writing the NEET-UG 2024.

But the bench declined to entertain Srikar’s appeal against a Telangana High Court order that had refused his plea for a re-examination.

The high court had observed that even if it was assumed that the candidate was wrongly denied permission to carry a handkerchief, it would not have materially affected his performance as he could have easily wiped the sweat off his palm against his clothes.

Srikar had first pleaded with the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts the undergraduate medical entrance exam, to be allowed to take the re-examination conducted for 1,563 candidates who had lost time because of a delay in the distribution of the correct question paper to them.

When the agency rejected his request, he approached the high court, which dismissed his plea on August 8.

According to Srikar, his palms and soles sweat constantly. However, on the day of the exam last May, security personnel refused to let him carry his handkerchief into the hall. This proved a severe handicap, preventing him from attempting all the questions within the stipulated time, he says.

“We have heard the father of the minor petitioner along with the petitioner, who appeared in person, and perused the materials on record,” Justice Misra, who wrote the judgment, said.

“Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for interference for the following reasons:

*There is no case that allotted time for giving the examination was not provided to the petitioner at the examination centre. Thus, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from those 1,563 candidates for whom re-examination was conducted because of loss of examination time on account of delay in distribution of correct question paper.

*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.

The court also cited the “larger public interest”.

The section on “dress code” in the NEET 2024 brochure makes no mention of handkerchiefs but several coaching centres’ websites say that handkerchiefs, electronic items and certain other things are disallowed.

While banning “heavy clothes and/ or long sleeves” and shoes, the NEET brochure allows “any deviation required due to unavoidable (medical, etc) circumstances” provided the NTA’s approval has been “taken before the admit cards are issued”.