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:
Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.
Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.
Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.
Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.
Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.
Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.
Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.
Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.
Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.
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