Indian Supreme Court expands Access to Scribes in Examinations for All Persons with disabilities who need it, Benchmark threshold not a pre-requisite [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Date of Judgement: 03 February  2025

Background

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) by allowing all disabled candidates to use scribes for writing exams, regardless of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by a candidate diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a chronic neurological condition, who was denied the facility of a scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner had a 25% permanent disability, certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore. Despite this, recruitment bodies refused him the accommodations typically granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). He challenged the restrictive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which failed to ensure reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities below the 40% benchmark.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court emphasized that restricting scribe facilities to only those with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The ruling referenced several landmark judgments, including:

• Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) – Held that denying a scribe to candidates below the benchmark disability threshold was discriminatory.

• Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021) – Reinforced the importance of reasonable accommodation in examinations.

• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) – Strengthened the principle of equality in educational assessments.

The Court also considered international precedents, such as Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, which advocate for inclusive policies ensuring equal access to education and employment opportunities for disabled individuals.

Key Directives from the Supreme Court

To address inconsistencies in examination accommodations, the Court issued the following directives to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:

1. Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.

2. Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.

3. Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.

4. Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.

5. Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.

6. Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.

7. Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.

8. Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.

9. Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.

10. Penalize non-compliance – Take strict action against examination bodies that fail to implement the prescribed guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant victory for disability rights in India. By extending scribe accommodations to all disabled candidates, the ruling ensures greater inclusivity and fairer opportunities in competitive examinations. This judgment reinforces the core principles of the RPwD Act, 2016, and underscores the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation as a legal and ethical obligation.

Read the Judgement

Karnataka HC- During the exam, facility of Scribe and Option of objective type questions can be availed by other disabilities too, not just by candidates with hearing impairment.

Court: Karnataka High Court, India

Bench: The Hon'ble Mr. Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 722 OF 2023 

Case Title: Karnataka State Law University Vs.  Krishna

Date of Judgement: 10-07-2023

Brief:

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Karnataka State Law University challenging a single bench order directing it to conduct III Semester exam for a differently abled Law student, by providing objective type of questions instead of descriptive type of questions.

It said that the overall object of the MSJE Exam Guidelines for persons with disabilities  needs to be appreciated which is providing opportunity for all to participate in the mainstream education system and that there is no stringent distinction based on the nature of disability in Exam Guidelines for alternative objective exam for students with disabilities.

Krishna, having 46% overall impairment affecting both brain and eyes, is pursuing his five years integrated law degree at Vaikunta Baliga Law College. Since he was unable to write by hand as such for the I Semester exam he utilized the facility of scribe. He was, however, informed by the college that unless permission was granted by the University, it cannot permit him to take the help of a scribe for examinations in future.

Accordingly, he made a representation to the appellant-University requesting for objective questions instead of descriptive questions and to utilize the help of a scribe in view of his disability. However, no action was taken on the representation constraining him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The Court disposed of his petition while directing the University to consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders. Following which the University partly allowed the representation and rejected the request to provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions.

Thus the student again approached the Court which took note of the relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) making provision for providing objective questions instead of descriptive questions to the disabled students. Court declined to accept the contention of the appellant-University that the provision is applicable only to the students having hearing impairment.

It held, “Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 `persons with bench mark disability’ means person with not less than 40% of specified disability, where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms as certified by the certifying authority."

Further, it directed the University to subject the student to medical examination by Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent of the Government Health Care Institution and if it is certified that the respondent is suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% or more, provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions.

The University in appeal argued that as per the guidelines, alternative objective questions can be provided only for those students who are are person with hearing impairment and not to persons  from any other disabilities. In the instant case since the student is not a person with hearing impairment but with a visual impairment and mental retardation, it contended that the benefit of the aforesaid provision cannot be extended. It was also submitted that since the student is suffering from mental retardation, objective questions which requires reasoning and intellectual skill cannot be provided.

A division bench said, “The overall object of the guidelines needs to be appreciated which is providing opportunity for all to participate in the mainstream education system. There cannot be any strict and stringent distinction on the basis of the nature of ailment. The purpose is to facilitate the specially abled persons to participate in the examination within the limits provided under the guidelines subject to required compliance in the nature of obtaining certificates from the competent authorities"

It added “Viewed from the said object, learned Single Judge taking note of the provisions describing persons with disability as provided under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has directed the appellant-University to subject the respondent for medical examination by Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent of the Government Health Care Institution and only if it is certified that the respondent is suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% or more, to provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions to the respondent in the ensuing examination.”

Accordingly the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Law University. Read the Judgement below:

Supreme Court directs Consortium of National Law Universities to provide Scribe to those who are unable to find scribe, among other reliefs.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench:  Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice  and  J B Pardiwala, Justice

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1109 of 2022

Case Title: Arnab Roy Versus Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr.

Date of Judgement: 17 March 2023

Cases Reffered: 

 1. Vikash Kumar Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Brief:

The petitioner,  a lawyer and a disability rights activist, moved these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging certain conditions which were imposed for the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test 2023 scheduled on 18 December 2022. The issue specifically addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe as the restrictive conditons have been imposed belatedly just four weeks before the exams which in turn would mean that atleast 13 visually impaired candidates would not be able to avail the scribe. This included denial of the right to a scribe to candidates who do not have a benchmark disability though they have a genuine difficulty in writing.

The Supreme Court bench  in this matter has taken a progressive stance while dealing with the Examination Guidelines to ensure equal opportunities for candidates with disabilities in the LL.B admissions process particularly about provisions for necessary accommodations and support to participate in the CLAT examination . 

The bench clarified that candidates appearing for the CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) examination conducted by Consortium of National Law Universities can either bring their own scribe or if it is not possible to do so, request the Consortium to provide a scribe who is then made available to the candidate.  Where the candidates are unable to find their own scribe and the Consortium provides a scribe, at least two days’ time should be provided so as to enable the candidate to interact with the scribe, directed the court.

The bench, headed by the Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud  passed several directions to guarantee that candidates with disabilities receive all the facilities specified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,Govt. of India. The Court accepted the suggestion of the petitioner and emphasized the importance of issuing guidelines well in advance, ensuring clarity regarding the facilities available for candidates with disabilities.

Additionally, the bench also directed the consortium to align their guidelines with the official memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. While there were concerns that the condition of scribes not being involved in coaching for other competitive exams would limit the availability of scribes, the Court has allowed the consortium's request to ensure the sanctity of the CLAT exam. However, it also highlighted that the nature and contents of the Examination Guidelines cannot be frozen for the future. The Consortium would be at liberty to modify the Guidelines bearing in mind the exigencies of the situation and the constantly evolving nature of the knowledge and experience gained in conducting CLAT particularly in the context of the rights of PwD candidates.

This judgement is a significant step towards promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in legal education. The Consortium of NLUs was established to enhance the standards of legal education and coordination among National Law Schools, and this decision aligns with their objective.

This judgement will undoubtedly create a more inclusive and fair admission process for aspiring law students with disabilities in line with the intention of the legislature behind passing the RPWD Act 2016.