Back
Can Scribe Be Denied to Persons Without ? Supreme Court Answers in Vikash Kumar
The has delivered a transformative judgment affirming that the right to under the is not contingent on possessing a . In , a three-judge bench allowed the appeal of an MBBS doctor with writer's cramp (dysgraphia) who was denied a scribe for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), holding that such denial contravenes both the and the of the RPwD Act.
The Battle for a Scribe: A Doctor’s Quest for Equal Opportunity
Vikash Kumar, a graduate of , suffers from dysgraphia—a chronic neurological condition commonly known as writer’s cramp. When he applied for the CSE conducted by the , he requested a scribe to write the examination on his behalf. UPSC rejected his request, citing the , which allowed scribes only for blind candidates or those with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy involving at least 40% impairment. Kumar did not meet the 40% threshold—the later assessed his disability at 6%.
The and the dismissed Kumar’s pleas, holding that without a certificate, he could not claim the facility. The High Court also deemed the challenge to the CSE Rules as moot after Kumar failed the preliminary exam. Undeterred, Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court.
From to : The Paradigm Shift in Disability Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment, authored by Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, marked a decisive break from the archaic “” of disability—which treated impairment as a personal tragedy measured in percentages—and embraced the “” codified in the RPwD Act 2016. The Court noted that the 2016 Act, which replaced the 1995 legislation, defines “person with disability” broadly under as someone with a long-term impairment that, in interaction with barriers, hinders . This definition, the Court stressed, cannot be constricted by the quantitative threshold of (40%) reserved for specific provisions like reservation.
“The concept of a under cannot be conflated with the notion of disability under ,” the Court held. “Conflating the rights and entitlements which inhere in persons with disabilities with the notion of benchmark disabilities does dis-service to the salutary purpose underlying the enactment of the RPwD Act 2016.”
: The Core of
At the heart of the judgment lies the principle of “,” defined under as necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy rights equally with others. The Court emphasized that failure to provide constitutes discrimination under the Act. For Kumar, the scribe was not a privilege but a statutory right to level the playing field.
“The provision for the facility of a scribe is in pursuance of the to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to live a life of equality and dignity,” the Court observed. It rejected the Union government’s argument that providing scribes to non-benchmark disabled candidates could lead to misuse, noting that no empirical evidence was furnished to support such apprehension. “Undue suspicion about the disabled engaging in wrongdoing is unwarranted,” the Court added, calling such reasoning “.”
The Court also criticized the “” between the and the . While MSJE acknowledged that examining bodies could consider scribe requests on a case-by-case basis, UPSC and DoPT rigidly adhered to the benchmark-only rule. “The left hand does not know what the right one is doing,” the Court remarked.
A Landmark Directive: New Guidelines for Scribe Access
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the ’s order and declared that Kumar is entitled to a scribe for the CSE and any other competitive government examination. More significantly, the Court directed the MSJE to formulate comprehensive guidelines within three months for granting scribe facilities to all persons with disabilities—not just those with benchmark disabilities—in consultation with disability rights organizations. The guidelines must adopt a , engaging in dialogue with the individual with disability.
The judgment also took note of used by the Tribunal, which referred to Kumar as “suffering with a disease.” The Court urged a linguistic shift: “ offends the of persons with disabilities.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “The imposition of the criterion of a to access a scribe – an arena in which it has no relevance as per the statutory framework – betrays a profound lack of awareness on the part of the authorities about the RPwD Act 2016.”
- “The principle of captures the of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their in society.”
- “When competent persons with disabilities are unable to realize their full potential due to the barriers posed in their path, our society suffers, as much, if not more, as do the disabled people involved.”
- “The language of our discourse must evince a clear desire to make the disabled feel empowered and included, not alienated and situated on a different footing from their able-bodied counterparts.”
The Road Ahead: Creating the RPwD Generation
The judgment echoes the hope of creating an “RPwD generation” in India—a generation of disabled people who regard their constitutional and statutory entitlements as a birthright. The principles laid down in Vikash Kumar have already influenced subsequent disability rights jurisprudence. In the recent Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (), the Supreme Court cited the reasoning on while examining practice requirements for judicial officers with disabilities, though that decision has sparked debate about the balance between accommodation and competence standards.
For now, Vikash Kumar stands as a powerful reaffirmation that disability rights are human rights, and that the State must actively dismantle barriers rather than hide behind arbitrary thresholds. The Court’s message is clear: equal opportunity demands not just , but affirmative steps to ensure that every person with disability can participate fully and equally in the life of the nation.
