The judgment emphasizes the statutory entitlements of Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the need for reasonable accommodation for PwD candidates in conducting examinations.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.

1. The petitioner who is a lawyer and disability rights activist moved these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for challenging certain conditions which were imposed for the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test 2023¹[“CLAT”]. CLAT was scheduled on 18 December 2022. The issue specifically addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe.

2. The petitioner avers that he was personally aware that at least 13 visually impaired candidates would be denied the assistance of a scribe because of the conditions belatedly imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities²[“Consortium”] less than four weeks before the date of the examination.

3. The petitioner has highlighted certain specific concerns, based on the decision of this Court in Vikash Kumar Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370. The first among these concerns is that the Consortium has denied the right to a scribe to candidates who do not have a benchmark disability though they have a genuine difficulty in writing. In this context, reliance has been placed on the following principle which was laid down in the decision in Vikash Kumar, while elaborating on the statutory entitlement of Persons with Disabilities⁴[“PwDs” ] under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 :

“To confine the facility of a scribe only to those who have benchmark disabilities would be to deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements. To do so would be contrary to the plain terms as well as the object of the statute.”

4. Apart from the above grievance, the petitioner submitted that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Union of India had, in its guidelines of 29 August 2018, prescribed that in case a candidate is allowed to bring his own scribe, the qualification should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination. On the other hand, in the present case, the Consortium had sought to prohibit scribes if they are (a) above the 11th grade in educational attainment; or (b) affiliated to any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre.

5. As a consequence of the above restriction, it was urged that a PwD candidate cannot appoint a scribe who is currently enrolled in the 12th grade. Moreover, the exclusion of students enrolled in any examination coaching centre, it was urged, would eliminate nearly every 10th and 11th grade student since all students are likely to be enrolled in coaching centres for preparation of competitive entrance examinations.

6. The third and final grievance is that the Consortium has abdicated its positive obligation to provide scribes for those candidates who are unable to engage or find a scribe because of financial and other accessibility constraints.

7. Bearing in mind the fact that the CLAT is a nationwide examination and the issues which were raised by the petitioner would affect PwD candidates in general, this Court entertained the proceedings on 15 December 2022. At that stage, the CLAT was scheduled two days thereafter, on 18 December 2022. In response to a suggestion of the Court, requesting the Consortium to resolve the issues which were raised before the Court, the following formulation was submitted on its behalf before the Court :

“1 Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission and Others (2021) 5 SCC 370, the Consortium of National Law Universities (the “Consortium”) make the following reasonable accommodation for candidates appearing for the CLAT 2023 :

(i) with a specified disability covered under the definition in Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the “Act”) but not covered under the definition under Section 2(r) of the Act, i.e., persons having less than 40% specified disability, and

(ii) who have difficulty in writing.

2. Such candidates