Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 04 August 2022 at 18:58 IST
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking compensation for all female candidates who were required to remove their bras before appearing for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) that was recently held in the Kollam district, was filed with the Kerala High Court.
The National Testing Agency (NTA) was ordered by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly to provide a thorough statement and any relevant supporting documentation regarding how the exam was administered and the investigation that followed the occurrence.
One Asif Azad, who personally filed the PIL, asked the Central Government for guidance on how to publish a uniform methodology for holding exams throughout the nation.
The instance in question involves some female NEET applicants who were recently requested to take off their bras before entering the examination room because metal hooks were found on their undergarments during screening.
According to the argument made before the UP Court, the aspirants’ removed clothing was piled high in another room without consideration for Covid-19 standards.
Furthermore, it was stated that this was not a unique event and that some teachers had to be fired as early as 2017 for requesting a female applicant to take off her underwear before entering a NEET centre in Kerala.
The petitioner claims that future abuses of the rights protected by Article 21 can be prevented if a standard protocol is established and put into place.
It was also suggested that CCTV cameras be installed in exam rooms in order to catch any cheating or malpractice rather than relying solely on metal detectors for such thorough screening and frisking.
Advocate S. Nirmal, Standing Counsel for the NTA, stated at the hearing that the petitioner had brought unwarranted allegations against the organisation which has administered the NEET test to approximately 3 lakh students nationwide.
He further claimed that a crime had been reported in relation to the purported occurrence. KP Harish, the leader of the government, affirmed this.
Nirmal also objected to the argument on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria for a PIL.
The Court instructed the standing counsel to include in the statement to be submitted any concerns made regarding the PIL’s legitimacy and compliance with its requirements.