Alka Verma-
Published On: November 24, 2021 at 13:18 IST
Supreme Court of India ordered the National Testing Agency (NTA) to rectify all the injustice meted out to a NEET aspirant who was disable and was denied an additional one hour at the NEET-UG 2021.
Adding to this, the Apex Court also ordered that in all the upcoming events and competitive exams, the Rights entitled to disabled students should be clearly mentioned in the information bulletin only.
The Court made these directions while hearing to a Petition filed by Avni Prakash, a patient of dysgraphia, commonly referred to as ‘Writer’s Cramp’.
In her Petition, Avni mentioned that she was denied an additional one hour at the NEET-UG 2021 and because of that she lost her chance to secure a seat in the any of colleges.
Ms. Prakash requested the Top Court to give her an opportunity to appear in the examination again.
However, the Court after observing this will set a wrong Precedent, denied the request of Ms. Prakash.
But a Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, ordered NTA to rectify the injustice done to the candidate within a week.
Adding to this, the Court also asked them to inform the same to the Registry of the Supreme Court within two weeks.
“In the future, the first Respondent (NTA) shall ensure that provisions which are made at the NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under the right to persons with disabilities (RPwD) Act 2016 are clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity, as noticed in the present case,” the Bench added.
The Bench emphasized on the August 2018 order of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment wherein, it was mentioned that every policy should have flexibility to accommodate the specific needs of PwD on a case-to-case basis.
“For effective participation of the students with disabilities in the society, which undoubtedly is the salutary object of the legislation, the safeguards which are provided by the law must be duly enforced and any breach of entitlement must be answerable at Law,” stated the Court at the end.
It should be noted here that the Petitioner first moved to the Bombay high court, where her Petition was dismissed.
After that, she approached the Apex Court on November 10 in Appeal against this order.