On February 3, the Supreme Court granted a writ petition filed by a candidate suffering from Focal Hand Dystonia (a type of writer’s cramp), seeking the assistance of a scribe. The Court relied on the landmark ruling in Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021), which established that a benchmark disability is not a prerequisite for availing the benefit of a scribe.
The Court ruled that the facility of a scribe and other necessary accommodations should be made available to all individuals with disabilities, thereby upholding their right to inclusive education and equal participation in examinations. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment, reaffirming the precedent set in Vikas Kumar v. UPSC, where a UPSC candidate with writer’s cramp was granted the assistance of a scribe. This ruling went against the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018, which had limited the provision of scribes to blind candidates and those with locomotor disabilities or cerebral palsy with a minimum impairment of 40%.
In granting Vikas's request for a scribe, a bench led by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna (the current CJI), directed the Union Government to establish clear guidelines for regulating and facilitating the provision of scribes for persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized that these guidelines should align with the definition under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and must be formulated in consultation with the public, particularly individuals 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”.
Finally it was decreed that:
“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”.
info@adhwaitha.com
