Court’s Decision
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji quashed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) order recommending payment of ₹1,000 each to 290 physically challenged candidates who faced hardship during a Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) recruitment test.
While setting aside the NHRC’s compensation order, the Court emphatically declared that the matter “cannot end there” and directed the KPSC to institutionalize permanent measures to ensure full accessibility for persons with disabilities in all future examinations.
The Court took note of the KPSC’s Circular No. 33/2022, which mandates allotting ground-floor examination halls and ensuring ramp facilities for differently-abled candidates, and converted those provisions into enforceable judicial directions, binding on the KPSC.
Facts
The case arose after a Malayalam daily published a report on 8 August 2014 showing photographs of physically challenged candidates struggling to reach upper floors of the Manacaud Teachers Training Institute, where the KPSC had conducted a Special Recruitment Test for physically disabled applicants to the post of Lower Division Clerk.
Out of 400 registered candidates, 175 appeared for the test. Among them, 123 were allotted halls on the first floor, while only 52 were on the ground floor. The visually disturbing images of candidates crawling or being carried upstairs triggered public outrage.
Taking suo motu cognizance of the report, the NHRC initiated proceedings against the KPSC. After hearing the KPSC’s explanation, the NHRC held that the failure to provide barrier-free access amounted to a violation of human rights and recommended payment of ₹1,000 each as token compensation to all 290 affected candidates.
The KPSC, aggrieved by the recommendation, approached the High Court, arguing that the NHRC had acted beyond its jurisdiction and without considering practical feasibility or specific disabilities of individual candidates.
Issues
- Whether the NHRC’s order recommending blanket compensation to all candidates was legally sustainable.
- Whether the KPSC had violated the rights of physically challenged candidates by not providing accessible examination facilities.
- What remedial and preventive measures should be directed to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities in future examinations.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The KPSC argued that the NHRC exceeded its mandate under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by awarding compensation without individualized assessment of hardship. It pointed out that the order lacked reasoning or factual distinction between the candidates and failed to quantify any actual injury suffered.
Further, the KPSC contended that the recommendation was unworkable, as nearly a decade had passed since the incident, and tracing 290 candidates for token compensation was practically impossible. The petitioner stressed that the NHRC’s finding of “human rights violation” was based solely on newspaper photographs without a formal inquiry into the factual position.
The KPSC also emphasized that the inconvenience caused was inadvertent, not deliberate or discriminatory, and that significant reforms have since been implemented to ensure full accessibility for future recruitment tests.
Respondent’s Arguments
The NHRC, through counsel, defended its order by asserting that the Commission acted within its powers under Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It argued that dignity and accessibility are intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21, and any systemic failure that deprives disabled candidates of equal access to examinations constitutes a human rights violation.
The NHRC maintained that compensation was symbolic — a token gesture recognizing collective hardship suffered by candidates with disabilities, not a punitive measure against the KPSC.
The Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court, supported the NHRC’s moral concern but submitted that judicial supervision and systemic compliance mechanisms would serve the cause better than token compensation after a long delay.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the interplay between the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that denial of accessibility itself constitutes a human rights violation under Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act.
Referring to Article 320 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that the Public Service Commission, while discharging its statutory function of conducting examinations, must also respect fundamental rights under Part III and Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV.
The judgment further invoked Section 40 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, which obligates appropriate governments to ensure accessibility in all public buildings and facilities, including educational and examination venues. The Court emphasized that “accessibility is not a concession but a constitutional duty flowing from Articles 14, 19, and 21.”
Precedent Analysis
- Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 209 – The Supreme Court held that reasonable accommodation is integral to substantive equality, requiring institutions to make necessary adjustments based on individual capacities. The Kerala High Court cited this to underline the duty to create inclusive examination environments.
- Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 662) – The Bombay High Court, addressing facilities for visually impaired examinees, held that fairness requires affirmative support, not just non-discrimination. This case was referenced to reinforce that public bodies must go beyond formal equality.
- Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 383) – The Supreme Court criticized government inaction in implementing disability laws and called for a proactive, liberal approach. The Kerala High Court quoted this extensively to stress that “a welfare state must accord its best attention to the differently abled — this is true equality.”
These precedents collectively reinforced the Court’s view that the state’s obligation extends beyond mere avoidance of discrimination to active facilitation of accessibility.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found merit in the KPSC’s contention that the NHRC’s compensation order was unimplementable and procedurally flawed, noting that no beneficiary was represented before either the NHRC or the Court.
However, the Bench held that the failure to provide accessible facilities in 2014 did constitute a human rights lapse, even if unintentional. The Court underscored that the issue was not of individual blame but of systemic deficiency.
While setting aside the compensation order, the Court pivoted to prospective institutional reform, emphasizing that “the concern of the NHRC regarding accessibility must translate into concrete administrative action.”
The judges acknowledged KPSC’s new Circular No. 33/2022, which lays down detailed accessibility guidelines:
- Maximum number of centres must be provided within the candidate’s taluk or nearby locality.
- Ground-floor rooms must be allotted to physically disabled candidates if no lift exists.
- Ramps and other accessibility features must be ensured in all centres.
Treating the Circular as a binding assurance, the Court directed KPSC to ensure strict and verifiable compliance and ordered that contact numbers of KPSC officials be prominently displayed at examination centres to assist candidates encountering accessibility barriers.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court quashed the NHRC’s order dated 30 January 2019 recommending payment of ₹1,000 to 290 candidates but reaffirmed the constitutional and statutory duty of accessibility. The Court made KPSC’s Circular No. 33/2022 judicially enforceable, requiring:
- Ground-floor seating for disabled candidates where lifts are unavailable.
- Mandatory ramp access at all examination venues.
- Display of helpline numbers for assistance.
- Supervision by Chief and Assistant Superintendents to ensure compliance.
The Court commended the NHRC’s intent but transformed its moral concern into a legally binding administrative standard. It disposed of the petition with appreciation to the Amicus Curiae for valuable assistance.
Implications
This landmark ruling strengthens the legal framework for exam accessibility and inclusion in Kerala’s recruitment system. It signifies a paradigm shift from symbolic gestures like token compensation toward systemic accountability and enforcement of rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
By judicially endorsing the KPSC’s 2022 Circular, the judgment ensures that every future examination conducted by the Commission must be physically and procedurally accessible, setting a precedent for other public authorities nationwide. It transforms accessibility from a moral appeal into a constitutional mandate.
FAQs
1. What did the Kerala High Court decide regarding NHRC’s compensation order?
The Court quashed the NHRC’s recommendation for payment of ₹1,000 each to 290 candidates, finding it unimplementable but upheld the larger principle of accessibility for persons with disabilities.
2. What directions were issued to the Kerala Public Service Commission?
The KPSC must ensure ground-floor exam halls, ramp facilities, and helpline displays for differently-abled candidates and verify compliance through supervising officers.
3. Why is this judgment significant?
It converts accessibility obligations into enforceable judicial directions, ensuring lasting structural change rather than symbolic compensation, advancing disability rights jurisprudence in India.