Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Avni Prakash - Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.18591 of 2021)
Decided on : 23-11-2021
Constitution of India,1950 –Article 226, 136 – Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 – Section 2(r), 17(i), 32 – Equality and non-discrimination – Reservation in higher educational institutions – Specified Disability – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Appellant suffers from Dysgraphia, which is a specified disability listed in Entry 2(a) of Schedule to Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 – Appellant has been diagnosed with a 40 per cent permanent disability, falling within the statutory definition of a ‘person with benchmark disability’2 under Section 2(r) of RPwD Act 2016 – Appellant claims that as a person with disability3, she is entitled to reasonable accommodation and certain relaxations – Among them is benefit of “inclusive education” by a suitable modification to examination system, as mandated by Section 17(i) of the RPwD Act, 2016 – Held, Accordingly, in view of above discussion, Court conclude and direct – Relief sought by appellant for holding a re-examination for NEET (UG) is denied – Appellant was wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while appearing for NEET without any fault of her own, despite her entitlements as a PwD and a PwBD – Accordingly, first respondent is directed to consider what steps could be taken to rectify injustice within a period of one week – Further, it shall take necessary consequential measures under intimation to DGHS – In future, first respondent shall ensure that provisions which are made at NEET in terms of rights and entitlements available under RPwD Act 2016 are clarified in NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity, as noticed in present case – Having due regard to decision of this Court in (supra) and statutory provisions contained in RPwD Act 2016, facilities which are provided by law to PwD shall not be constricted by reading in higher threshold prescribed for PwBD – By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that for purpose of availing of reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016 or an upper age relaxation as contemplated in provisions, concept of benchmark disability continues to apply – It was brought to our notice that second respondent was ignorant about facilities to which appellant was entitled – There was an evident confusion between authorities working at first respondent as well – Persons working for first respondent and exam centres like that of second respondent should be sensitised and trained, on a regular basis, to deal with requirements of reasonable accommodation raised by PwDs – Steps taken by first respondent in furtherance of direction (ii) above in Paragraph 57 must be communicated to Registry of this Court by filing a status report within a period of two weeks from date of judgment – Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
| A Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 | ||
| B Applicable laws and guidelines ........................................................................……9 | ||
| B.1 Guidelines for Written Examination ........................................................ 9 | ||
| B.2 NEET Bulletin 2021 ................................................................................... 10 | ||
| C Submissions ..................................................................................................... ……14 | ||
| D Analysis .................................................................................................................... 19 | ||
| D.1 Obligations under the NEET Bulletin 2021 .............................................. 20 | ||
| D.2 Applicability of the RPwD Act 2016 .......................................................... 28 | ||
| D.2.1 Distinction between PwD and PwBD ................................................. 28 | ||
| D.2.2. Right to Inclusive Education ............................................................... 32 | ||
| E Redressing the injustice .......................................................................................... 37 | ||
| F Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 45 | ||
A Introduction
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 29 October 2021. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The appellant suffers from Dysgraphia, which is a specified disability listed in Entry 2(a) of the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 20161[ “RPwD Act 2016”]. The appellant has been diagnosed with a 40 per cent permanent disability, falling within the statutory definition of a ‘person with benchmark disability’2[ “PwBD”] under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act 2016. The appellant claims that as a person with disability3[“PwD”], she is entitled to reasonable accommodation and certain relaxations. Among them is the benefit of “inclusive education” by a suitable modification to the examination system, as mandated by Section 17(i) of the RPwD Act, 2016. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued guidelines for conducting “Written Examination for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities” on 29 August 20184 [“Guidelines on Written Examinations”]. These guidelines govern the examinations of all students covered by the RPwD Act 2016. They are to be followed by all examining authorities and educational institutions conducting regular or competitive examinations. The National Testing Agency – the first respondent, is responsible for conducting the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test5[“NEET”] for admission to under-graduate medical courses. The appellant urges that the Guidelines on Written Examinations are referenced in clauses 5.3 and 5.4 of the Information Bulletin of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)-20216[“NEET Bulletin 2021”] issued by the first respondent, and are hence binding on them.
4. The appellant appeared for the NEET on 12 September 2021. Given her PwD status, she claimed a relaxation in terms of an additional hour of compensatory time, as against the total time of three hours prescribed for regular candidates. The appellant was allotted the second respondent (Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Kandivali [East], Mumbai) as her centre for undertaking the NEET. The appellant averred that the second respondent was ignorant of the grant of special facilities that had to be provided to PwD candidates. The grievance of the appellant is that the secon
The court established that all persons with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations during examinations, ensuring no discrimination based on the nature of disability.
Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify candidates from educational opportunities; individual assessments must determine eligibility based on the ability to pursue the course.
Exclusion from admission despite valid disability certification violates rights and mandates of reasonable accommodation under disability laws.
(1) For a person with disability, provision for facility of a scribe is in pursuance of statutory mandate to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to live a life of equality and dignity base....
The court emphasized the need for literal interpretation of statutory provisions and the limited scope of judicial interference in policy decisions made by expert bodies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
