The Kerala High Court Dismissed PIL Seeking Compensation for female candidates who were forced to remove bras before appearing for NEET.
The division bench of the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly stated that as regards prayer, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to conduct a common protocol to conduct examinations across the country as procedure and protocol depends upon the nature of subjects and selection of candidates.
The court said that it is purely the domain of respondents (Union of India and National Testing Agency). It is imperative that the staff engaged at the centres to be sensitized about the dress and examination code.
Female candidates who were to appear in the NEET qualifying exam were asked to remove their inner wears before appearing for the qualifying test. This instruction was allegedly implemented on account of beep sound emanated from the metal detector while the frisking process was carried out. The scan using a metal detector was intended to detect the presence of any unwanted electronic gadgets, metallic equipment, large buttons etc. during the course of examination. Subsequently in the wake of such emanating beep sound the female candidates, who were subjected to such scanning, were insisted upon to remove their inner wears with metallic buttons, hooks and fasteners.
The public interest litigation is filed seeking issuance of directions to the respondent – National Testing Agency to reconduct the NEET exam and for a direction to the first respondent to publish the common protocol to conduct examinations.
Advocate S. Nirmal, appearing for respondent the National Testing Agency contended that the writ petition does not satisfy the requirements of a public interest litigation and hence the same is not maintainable.
He submitted that the petitioner has made inappropriate averments against the agency, which has conducted NEET examination for nearly three lakhs students across the country.
The court that viewed that the investigation is going on and the matter is pending consideration before the criminal court. In such circumstances, the interference of the court is not required.
Case title: Asif Azad v/s Union of India and Ors.
Citation: WP(C) NO. 24410 OF 2022