Supreme Court Grants Relief To Disabled Candidates For AIBE; Express Surprise At NLU Consortium Having No Policy For CLAT

After the Supreme Court last week allowed a 100 percent blind law student to avail the assistance of a scribe, as appointed by the Consortium of the National Law Universities, to appear for the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT)- Postgraduate exam 2024-25, the Court today granted relief to the other two petitioners seeking the use of computers to write answers and soft copies of Bare Acts for the upcoming the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition filed by three law students with benchmark disabilities seeking reasonable accommodation to appear for CLAT-PG and AIBE respectively.

Petitioner no.1 is a 90 percent low-vision disabled law graduate from NALSAR University of Law, who requested accommodation from the Bar Council of India (Respondent no. 2) to appear for the AIBE-XIX examination to use a computer during the exam.

Petitioner no. 2 is a 100 percent blind law student at Government Law School, Mumbai, who requested that the CLAT conducting body allow the use of computer and clarify the scribe eligibility criteria for students with visual disabilities. Petitioner no. 3 is a 100 percent blind law graduate from Auro University, Surat, who has similarly been requesting for access to soft copies of Bare Acts and the use of a computer for the AIBE-XIX exam.

Today, the Counsel for Bar Council of India (BCI) submitted that they have agreed to the demands of two candidates who want to take the AIBE exam on the computer. To this, Advocate Rahul Bajaj (representing petitioners) clarified that the students wanted screen readers and also to give answers on the computer. He specifically stated that Job Access With Speech (JAWS) is much more accessible to specially-abled persons and comes at a minimal cost. 

To this, Justice Kant remarked that money should not be an issue for the BCI: "Money is overflowing for [BCI]. They are thinking of the excuse to spend money."

Further, Bajaj raised the issue that the BCI has stated that the specially-abled students are allowed only two hours before the exam to check the computer and the working of the software installed. 

On both issues, the Court has granted relief to the petitioners. In the order passed, it has stated that those students with benchmark disability who want to answer via the computer, are allowed. On this aspect, the BCI has sought some time for instructions and the Court will hear it now on next Wednesday on how to go forward with it.

They should be allowed to check their respective computers a day before the exam. As for those specially-abled students who want to avail themselves of the facility of scribe, they can do that as well. 

Further, JAWS software shall be provided by the BCI at their own cost. In this direction, when BCI sought some time and stated that if a lot of specially-abled students appear, some cost will be incurred since they will have to purchase the software, Justice Bhuyan said: "This is a welcome step.." 

Justice Kant also added: "You get money from lawyers only. So, this is something like a toll tax. Whatever you spend, you recover from other...increase some fee structures...or next time, we will highlight the source of your donation."

Moreover, specially-abled students can use their own keyboards. All this is in conformity with the Union's Office Memorandum dated August 29, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The Court also heard the counsel representing the CLAT Consortium regarding the facility to avail scribe. The Counsel stated that every year, a different National Law University conducts the CLAT exam and therefore, it really depends on their mechanism.

On this, the Court expressed surprise that the Consortium is yet to come up with a policy decision on the same despite the fact that this problem is witnessed every year. 

Justice Kant said: " So, the responsibility will shift? So, as a Vice-Chancellor, you say 'meri jaan chut gayi isss saal? Agali baar koi or dekhega. Is this the answer to us? You are a Consortium of Vice-Chancellors and not of the Law Universities only. It's not just the buildings which are together. It is the Head of the Institutions will sit together and resolve how to conduct the exam. Next time, A,B,C will change but Vice-Chancellor will remain there.You give loud speeches...what have they done so far on this?

Unfortunately, we are surprised this issue you have not addressed so far. More than a decade you have been conducting This problem must have arisen everytime. What call you have taken?...Something voluntary you should have addressed it!"

The Court directed the Consortium to deliberate on the issues raised in the petition and take a policy decision within 4 weeks.

Case Details: YASH DODANI AND ORS. v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.., W.P.(C) No. 785/2024

Appearances: Advocate Rahul Bajaj, AOR Sanchita Ain, Taha Bin Tasneem, and Habib.