Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief for Screen Reader Use in UGC-NET Exam; Directs Provision of Scribe While Highlighting Accessibility Rights and Practical Constraints

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court denied the petitioner’s request for interim relief to use a screen reader for the UGC-NET examination scheduled on January 7, 2025. The court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to provide the petitioner with a scribe, as initially chosen during the application process. It emphasized that the refusal of the interim relief does not prejudge the merits of the case, which remains to be adjudicated by the appropriate roster bench.

Facts

• The petitioner, a visually impaired final-year postgraduate student, intended to appear for the UGC-NET exam to qualify for a Ph.D. program or the position of Assistant Professor.
• The petitioner requested accommodations, including the use of screen reader software (JAWS or NVDA), in line with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) guidelines.
• These guidelines mandate accessible examination systems for persons with benchmark disabilities, including the option to use computers with assistive technologies.
• The petitioner had communicated with the NTA in June and July 2024, requesting the use of screen readers, but no response was received.
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 75 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and sought intervention from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan).

Issues

1. Whether the NTA’s inability to provide a screen reader violates the DEPwD guidelines and the petitioner’s rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief permitting the use of a screen reader during the upcoming UGC-NET examination.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Fundamental Rights:
   The petitioner argued that accessibility is an integral aspect of the rights to equality (Article 14) and life (Article 21) under the Constitution of India.
2. DEPwD Guidelines:
   Clauses 8, 9, and 15 of the DEPwD guidelines were cited to assert the NTA’s obligation to provide screen readers or similar assistive technologies.
   • Clause 8: Allows persons with disabilities to choose their mode of examination, including computer-based tests.
   • Clause 9: Permits pre-checking of systems for compatibility issues.
   • Clause 15: Requires online examinations to be in accessible formats.
3. Judicial Precedent:
   The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Yash Dodani v. Union of India, where visually impaired candidates were permitted to use screen readers for the All India Bar Examination.
4. Practical Feasibility:
   The petitioner argued that implementing screen readers is not an unreasonable demand, as it has been done for other exams like the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Technical Constraints:
   The NTA contended that the exam platform operates on a Linux-based system incompatible with screen reader software like JAWS or NVDA. Integrating these tools would require significant reconfiguration, which was infeasible within the limited time available.
2. Logistical Challenges:
   • The UGC-NET exam caters to over 8 lakh candidates across various subjects, some involving diagrams, charts, and tables that are not screen reader-friendly.
   • Altering the examination system could disrupt the schedule and fairness for all candidates.
3. Prior Selection of Scribe:
   The NTA noted that the petitioner had initially opted for a scribe during registration. This indicated an acceptance of the accommodation.
4. Precedent Distinction:
   The respondents differentiated the UGC-NET from the All India Bar Examination, arguing that the latter is a text-based exam, whereas UGC-NET involves complex interfaces and graphics unsuitable for screen readers.

Analysis of the Law

1. DEPwD Guidelines:
   The guidelines mandate equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in examinations, explicitly requiring accessibility measures like screen readers. However, the guidelines also acknowledge practical constraints, emphasizing “as far as possible.”
2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:
   The Act enshrines the right to reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, ensuring their equality in accessing public services, including education and examinations.
3. Balancing Rights and Practicality:
   The court acknowledged the petitioner’s fundamental right to accessibility but noted the practical and logistical barriers posed by the NTA’s existing infrastructure.

Precedent Analysis

• Yash Dodani v. Union of India:
  The Supreme Court’s directions to enable screen reader access were applicable to the All India Bar Examination, which has a simpler structure. The court distinguished this precedent, noting the complexity of the UGC-NET exam and its reliance on graphical interfaces.
• Previous accessibility measures in other exams (e.g., Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination) were cited, but the court found these examples irrelevant due to the differing technical platforms used.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Technical Infeasibility:
   • The Linux-based platform used for the UGC-NET exam is incompatible with JAWS and NVDA software. Customizing the system to accommodate screen readers would require extensive modifications, which were not feasible within three days.
2. Logistical Constraints:
   • The UGC-NET examination involves complex question types, including charts and diagrams, making it unsuitable for a simple integration of screen readers.
   • Implementing such changes for one candidate would necessitate broader adjustments for all candidates with benchmark disabilities, creating significant logistical challenges.
3. Fairness to All Candidates:
   The court emphasized the need for equitable treatment across all candidates and found that granting the requested relief would compromise the integrity of the examination process.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petitioner’s plea for interim relief but directed the NTA to provide a scribe for the exam, as selected by the petitioner during registration. It clarified that the decision does not reflect the merits of the case, which remains open for adjudication.

Implications

1. Future Preparedness:
   The case underscores the importance of integrating accessibility measures into examination systems well in advance. It highlights the need for proactive planning to avoid similar disputes.
2. Legal Precedents on Accessibility:
   While the petitioner’s plea was denied, the judgment reinforces the judiciary’s awareness of accessibility rights and the obligation to balance these with practical considerations.
3. Policy Reforms:
   Examination bodies may need to revisit their systems to ensure compatibility with assistive technologies, especially for large-scale exams involving diverse candidates.

This decision serves as a critical reminder of the challenges in implementing accessibility while maintaining the integrity and feasibility of large-scale examinations.

Also Read – Orissa High Court Invalidates Screening Committee Decision: “No Recovery of Excess Payment Without Reasoned Justification,” Emphasizes Compliance with Natural Justice and Protection of Group-C Employees from Arbitrary Recoveries