Supreme Court Allows All Disabled Candidates To Take Scribe In Exams Without Meeting Benchmark Disabilities

The Supreme Court today(February 3) allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate suffering from Focal Hand Dystonia(a type of a writ's camp), seeking to avail the benefit of the scribe by relying on landmark Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) in which it held that benchmark disability is not the precondition to obtaining a scribe.

The Court has held that the facility of scribe and other necessary facilities should be extended to all disabilities thereby upholding the right of inclusive education of persons with disability to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations. 

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the judgment by reiterating the Vikas Kumar judgment in which a UPSC candidate, who suffered from Writer's camp, was allowed to avail scribe as against the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018, in which it was stated that a scribe could be provided only to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with an impairment of at least 40%.

Allowing Vikas's plea for scribe, a bench headed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna (present CJI) directed the Union Government to frame proper guidelines which would regulate and facilitate the grant of a facility of a scribe to persons with disability within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 after consultation with the public, specifically with persons with disabilities and organizations representing them.

In accordance with this judgment, Justice R. Mahadevan reading the operating part of today's judgment said: 

"Following Vikas Kumar, we have given certain directions. We are of the considerate view that the guidelines issued by Respondent 5 [Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment], the nodal agency, have to be enforced by extending the benefits of persons with benchmark disabilities to all disability candidates in writing their examination without any hindrance."

The judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan significantly observes that the principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for all persons with disabilities. 

"Thus, it can be easily deduced from the above decisions that the principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensure equality for all the persons with disabilities; and denying the facility of scribe or compensatory time, constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016. This Court also wishes to diminish the artificial distinction and bifurcation drawn between candidates with disabilities and those with benchmark disabilities (40% disabled or more) by extending various rights to candidates with disabilities that were earlier limited only to those with benchmark disabilities. Further, the examination bodies are stressed upon to implement accessibility measures, ensure that the examination centres are physically accessible and equipped to accommodate disabled candidates and ensure strict compliance of the RPwD Act, 2016 to prevent discrimination and provide equal opportunities for the persons with disabilities."

Notably, the judgment refers to various foreign judgments upholding the rights of persons with disabilities. 

It further holds:

"Thus, it is clear from the above that the rights of disabled persons are less instructive and more general and that, right to education, right to equality, and right against discrimination accorded to them will only be truly realized, when State structures form policies, laws, and rules to provide equal access and reasonable accommodation to such persons."

Directions

1. Nodal Agency to revisit the Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2022, and remove the restriction and grant relaxation in a reasonable manner and incorporate the following aspects, and thereby, re-notify the same afresh, within 2 months:

The matter has been posted for reporting compliance after 2 months.

 i. Direct all authorities/ examination authorities to uniformly follow the Guidelines issued by Respondent 5 which the Nodal Agency and strictly adhere to the periodic surveys, verifications etc;

 ii. Carry out periodic sensitisation in educational institutions to raise awareness amongst the examination conducting bodies so that the OMs are effectively implemented;

  iii. Set up a grievance redressal portal to register compliance which will permit the candidates to approach [them] before approaching the Court of law;

  iv. Inspect the guidelines framed by different authorities and renotify the existing guidelines to ensure compliance;

  v. Extend the validity of scribe certificate (currently being valid only for 6 months) to prevent the long wait time for applying, especially in rural areas;

  vi. Set up incentives programs for scribe to ensure their availability and provide necessary training;

  vii.provide some time prior to the examination to allow the candidates to familiarize themselves with the scribe to ensure that there is a sense of comfort while communicating with the scribe during the examination; 

  viii.offer PwD candidates a choice of examination modes, such as scribe braille, large print, audio recording of answers, etc; 

  ix.take penal action against authorities/officials in charge of decisionmaking process, who fail to follow the guidelines set out by the Respondent No.5 and formulate guidelines which exclude PwD;

  x. sensitise the persons working for the respondent authorities, and train them on a regular basis, to address the reasonable accommodation needs of PwDs; and

  xi. ensure strict compliance of the letter and spirit of the judgments in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash as well as the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, with a special focus on 'reasonable accommodation'.

In the present case, the candidate's condition is categorised as a Chronic Neurological Condition as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and has been assessed with 25% permanent disability. The petitioner's grievance is that he was refused the benefit of the scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner candidate has filed a writ petition against various examination authorities such as the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, State Bank of India, Staff Selection Commission, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the Union of India via the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities where he was denied the facility of scribe and compensatory time on grounds that these were only available for persons with benchmark disability. It is his case that the application forms do not contain inclusive provisions for persons with disabilities. 

It is stated: "The grievance of the Petitioner emanated since despite the rulings of this Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC & Ors as reiterated in Avni Prakash v. NTA & Ors. scribes were regularly being denied to candidates inter alia on the ground that they were not persons with “benchmark” disability or on account of some ignorance and lack of awareness by the examining authorities."

He challenged the Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as a consequence of the Vikas Kumar judgment as being restrictive. 

One such provision challenged in the writ petition is:

"(b) The facility of scribe and/or compensatory time shall be granted solely to those having difficulty in writing subject to production of a certificate to the effect that person concerned has limitation to write and that scribe is essential to write examination on his/her behalf from the competent medical authority of a Government healthcare institution as per proforma at Appendix-I.” 

Case Details:  GULSHAN KUMAR Vs INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION|W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Appearances: Advocates Rushabh Vidyarthi, Prannv Dhawan, Meenakshi Pahuja, AOR Vikas Jain, Shrawani, Hardik Jayal, Aviral Saxena and Shivansh Pandya

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Click Here To Read Order