Supreme Court Permits All Disabled Candidates to Use Scribes in Exams Without Benchmark Disability Requirement
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), has ruled in favor of extending the scribe facility to all candidates with disabilities. The writ petition was filed by a candidate suffering from Focal Hand Dystonia (a chronic neurological condition), seeking the right to avail a scribe. The Court relied on its landmark judgment in Vikash Kumar vs. UPSC (2021), which held that benchmark disability (40% or more) is not a precondition for obtaining a scribe.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan upheld the principle of reasonable accommodation, ensuring equal examination opportunities for all disabled candidates.
The judgment emphasized that the denial of a scribe or compensatory time constitutes discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The ruling significantly expands the interpretation of disability rights by eliminating the distinction between benchmark disabilities and other disabilities in the context of exam accommodations.
The judgment references various international rulings affirming the rights of persons with disabilities to equal access and accommodations.
Directive for Policy Revisions
The Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Respondent 5) to revisit and revise the Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2022, within two months to ensure the implementation of inclusive policies. The key directives include:
1. Uniform Guidelines: Examination authorities must uniformly follow the Ministry’s guidelines, ensuring accessibility for all PwD candidates.
2. Sensitization Programs: Periodic training and awareness programs for examination bodies.
3. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A dedicated portal to handle complaints before approaching the courts.
4. Extension of Scribe Certificate Validity: Scribe certificates, currently valid for six months, to have an extended validity.
5. Scribe Incentives & Training: Structured programs to train and incentivize scribes.
6. Examination Mode Flexibility: PwD candidates to have multiple options, including braille, large print, and audio recordings.
7. Penal Action Against Non-Compliance: Authorities failing to implement guidelines will face legal consequences.
8. Strict Adherence to Vikash Kumar & Avni Prakash Judgments: All authorities must follow precedents ensuring reasonable accommodations.
Background & Petitioner's Grievance
The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, categorized under Chronic Neurological Conditions as per the RPwD Act, 2016, was assessed with 25% permanent disability. Despite this, he was denied a scribe by various examination bodies, including:
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
State Bank of India (SBI)
Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Bihar Staff Selection Commission
Union of India (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities)
The rejection was based on the argument that only candidates with benchmark disabilities (40% or more) were eligible for scribe assistance. The petitioner challenged this restrictive provision, asserting that the application forms failed to provide inclusive options for candidates with disabilities.
Legal Challenge to Office Memorandum (OM) 2022
The petitioner contested the restrictive clause in the OM dated August 10, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:
“The facility of scribe and/or compensatory time shall be granted solely to those having difficulty in writing, subject to production of a certificate from a Government healthcare institution, confirming the limitation to write and necessity of a scribe.”
The Supreme Court, while addressing the petition, reaffirmed that such restrictive provisions go against the spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016 and the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities.
Impact of the Judgment
Inclusive Examination Process: The ruling ensures universal access to scribes for all candidates with disabilities, regardless of benchmark classification.
Policy Framework Enhancement: The Union Government must draft clear, inclusive, and enforceable guidelines for examination authorities.
Precedent for Future Cases: The decision strengthens the foundation for non-discriminatory access to educational and employment opportunities for PwDs.
This judgment serves as a landmark step in disability rights, reinforcing the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and inclusive education. With strict monitoring and compliance measures, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that examination authorities prioritize accessibility and reasonable accommodation for all persons with disabilities.