Supreme Court Directs Uniform Guidelines for Exam Accommodations to PwD Candidates, Orders Removal of Discriminatory Restrictions on Scribe and Compensatory Time

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that all Persons with Disabilities (PwD), irrespective of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria (40% or more disability), must be provided with necessary accommodations such as scribes, compensatory time, and other required facilities in all competitive examinations. The Court directed the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Respondent No.5) to amend and reissue the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 to remove restrictive conditions and extend all necessary accommodations to all PwD candidates.

The Court also dismissed the claim of the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) that it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, stating that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution can be enforced against private entities performing public functions. The Court ordered that a revised notification be issued within two months, ensuring uniform and strict compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) and the principle of reasonable accommodation.

Facts

• The petitioner, diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp), was assessed with a 25% permanent disability and issued a Unique Disability ID under the RPwD Act, 2016.
• He applied for various competitive recruitment examinations, including:
  1. Common Recruitment Process for Probationary Officers/Management Trainees (IBPS)
  2. State Bank of India (SBI) Clerk & Probationary Officer (PO) Examinations
  3. Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level (CGL) Examination
  4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level (BSSC) Examination
• However, he was denied a scribe and compensatory time because the examining authorities restricted these facilities only to “Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” (PwBD), i.e., those with 40% or more disability.
• Although he had previously been granted a scribe during his postgraduate exams, the same facility was denied in recruitment exams, leading to discrimination against PwD candidates.
• The petitioner challenged the legality of this restriction, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life with Dignity).

Issues

1. Whether examining bodies can lawfully restrict scribe and compensatory time facilities only to PwBD candidates (40% or more disability).
2. Whether the Government’s Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 violates the RPwD Act, 2016 by imposing unreasonable restrictions on PwD candidates.
3. Whether IBPS is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
4. Whether there is a need for a uniform framework to ensure equal accessibility and examination accommodations for PwD candidates.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Violates RPwD Act, 2016:
   • Section 17(i) of the Act mandates that the examination system must provide reasonable accommodations such as extra time, scribes, and assistive devices for PwD candidates.
   • Examining bodies failed to extend these benefits uniformly.
2. Violation of Supreme Court Precedents:
   • In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370, the Court ruled that restricting scribes to only PwBD candidates is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
   • In Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1112), the Court explicitly clarified that “Benchmark Disability” is not a precondition to obtain a scribe or compensatory time.
3. Defects in Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022:
   • Selectively grants facilities only to candidates with “difficulty in writing”, excluding those whose disabilities create barriers in writing exams.
   • Fails to include alternative exam modes such as Braille, large print, or computer-based answering.
   • No grievance redressal mechanism to handle cases where accommodations are denied.
4. Challenges Faced by PwD Candidates:
   • Recruitment application forms did not include an option for PwD candidates to request a scribe.
   • Compensatory time was not displayed on exam screens, and invigilators often failed to provide it.
   • Some recruitment agencies refused to provide scribes and extra time, claiming it violated their policies.
   • No uniformity in implementation, leading to discrimination against PwD candidates.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. IBPS is Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction:
   • IBPS contended that it is a public trust, not a ‘State’ under Article 12, and does not perform public functions.
   • It argued that it is not liable under writ jurisdiction (Article 32).
2. Compliance with Office Memorandum:
   • The respondents, including SBI and SSC, argued that they followed the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 and granted accommodations only to PwBD candidates.
3. Lack of Opt-In by Petitioner:
   • SBI argued that the petitioner did not apply for a scribe initially. However, after the Supreme Court’s interim order, he was granted a scribe.
4. Exams Governed by State-Specific Policies:
   • BSSC claimed that its rules allowed accommodations only for PwBD candidates (40% or more disability), in accordance with Bihar government regulations.

Analysis of the Law

• RPwD Act, 2016 Provisions:
  • Section 2(y): “Reasonable accommodation” means modifications that do not impose an undue burden.
  • Section 17(i): Mandates that examinations provide modifications such as scribes and extra time.
  • Section 2(s) & 2(r): Distinguishes PwD from PwBD, but does not intend to restrict fundamental rights.
• Judicial Precedents:
  • Vikash Kumar (2021): Scribes cannot be limited to PwBD candidates; all PwD candidates are entitled.
  • Avni Prakash (2021): Benchmark disability is not a precondition for receiving accommodations.
  • Arnab Roy v. CLAT Consortium (2024) 5 SCC 793: Emphasized the necessity of reasonable accommodations.
• International Jurisprudence: The Court cited:
  • Moore v. British Columbia (2012) (Canada): Inclusive education is a fundamental right.
  • G.L. v. Italy (2020) (European Court of Human Rights): Denying accommodations is discrimination.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Denial of Accommodations is Unconstitutional: Restricting accommodations only to PwBD candidates is arbitrary and discriminatory.
2. IBPS is Subject to Writ Jurisdiction: Relying on Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023), the Court ruled that private entities performing public functions are subject to writ jurisdiction.
3. Lack of Uniformity in Implementation: Different examining bodies followed inconsistent policies, leading to discrimination.
4. Immediate Need for Revised Guidelines: The Government must amend the Office Memorandum to ensure equal access.

Conclusion & Directions

The Supreme Court directed Respondent No.5 to reissue uniform guidelines within two months, incorporating:

• Uniform application forms allowing PwD candidates to request accommodations.
• Expansion of facilities to include Braille, large print, and computer-based answering.
• Strict penal action against non-compliant authorities.
• A grievance redressal mechanism for denied accommodations.

The matter will be listed after two months for compliance reporting.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: Liquidated Damages Cannot Be Automatically Enforced—Award of ₹6,01,000 Reduced to ₹3,00,000 as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Actual Loss, Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act Applied to Limit Compensation