Bombay High Court Disposes of PIL on Exam Accommodations for Students with Dysgraphia Following State Policy Confirmation - 2026-06-02

Ensuring Equity in Education: Bombay HC Declines Intervention in Dysgraphia Exam Protocols

In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has disposed of a long-standing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the academic rights of students living with Dysgraphia. The petition, filed by the Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust and a teacher, sought to mandate more robust examination arrangements for students struggling with the learning disability. However, after reviewing the state’s existing framework, the bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre concluded that current government policy already addresses these concerns, rendering the plea unnecessary.

Background of the Dispute

The petition originated from a, according to the petitioners, lack of sufficient support for students taking school and college-level examinations while suffering from Dysgraphia. The petitioners, representing a charitable trust and an educator with experience in exam administration, argued that these students required specific accommodations, including oral testing options and modified settings to ensure fairness and equity in the evaluation process.

The matter, which traversed several years of hearings, saw little movement from the petitioners' side. Court records indicate that the petitioners failed to appear for multiple scheduled hearings throughout 2020, 2023, and in the final sitting, leaving the court to rely on the submissions of the State respondents.

Arguments from the State

The State of Maharashtra, during the proceedings, presented a comprehensive defense by highlighting the framework already in place. The Additional Government Pleader pointed to a series of Government Resolutions issued between 2016 and 2018, promulgated under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 .

The State clarified that the existing policy framework provides significant concessions for exam candidates with learning disabilities: * Time Extensions: Students are granted an additional 30 minutes for SSC exams and one hour for HSC exams. * Instructional Exemptions: Candidates are exempted from the second and third languages (Hindi and Marathi for HSC/SSC respectively). * Support Staff: Students are fully permitted to utilize a writer (scribe) during their assessments in accordance with the board's established regulations.

Key Observations

The Court expressed satisfaction with the existing measures, emphasizing that the state’s response effectively mitigates the grievances raised in the petition. Highlighting their reliance on the established resolutions, the court noted:

> "The State Government has framed a policy to provide extra time of 30 minutes for SSC students and one hour for HSC students who suffer from the aforesaid disability."

Furthermore, acknowledging the implementation of these rights, the bench stated:

> "It is further pointed out that such students are permitted to use writer as per the rules of the Board and additional one hour has been provided for each paper."

Addressing the welfare of the students, the Court added a note of expectation:

> "We hope and trust that the students suffering from such disabilities are provided the necessary facilities in terms of the policy of the Board."

The Final Verdict: A Closing Chapter

Finding that the State had already proactively established the necessary mechanisms to accommodate students with Dysgraphia, the Bombay High Court saw no legal grounds to intervene with a new order.

The disposal of this PIL serves as a reminder of the importance of existing statutory frameworks for disability rights. By validating the State's current policies, the Court has affirmed that the focus should remain on the effective execution of current mandates rather than the initiation of redundant litigation. For schools and exam boards, the message is clear: adherence to these established government resolutions is essential to ensuring that no student is left behind due to a lack of reasonable accommodation.