1. Challenge to scribe facilities and eligibility conditions for a competitive entrance examination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 725
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, JJ.
Arnab Roy – Petitioner
Versus
Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No 1109 of 2022 With Miscellaneous Application No. .... of 2023 (Diary No 8493 of 2023)
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Important Points
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.
Subject
Civil Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
DISABILITY RIGHTS - Common Law Admission Test - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Section 2(s), Section 2(r) - The court addressed the denial of scribe assistance to visually impaired candidates and the guidelines for scribe qualifications. The judgment discussed 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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR, Mr. Abhinav, Adv., By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Adv., Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR, Mr. Anirudh G., Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv., Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR,Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv., Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv., Mr. Manvinder Singh Rathore, Adv., Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv., Mr. Shaswat Parihar, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR, Mr. Abhinav, Adv., By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arun Sri Kumar, Adv., Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR, Mr. Anirudh G., Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Adv., Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR,Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv., Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv., Mr. Manvinder Singh Rathore, Adv., Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Adv., Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv., Mr. Shaswat Parihar, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over scribe eligibility for non-benchmark disabilities, restrictive scribe qualifications, failure to provide scribes, and delayed notification of guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 15 , 21 )
3. Reasonable accommodation must balance the rights of persons with disabilities with the need to maintain the integrity and sanctity of competitive examinations. (Para 24 , 25 )
4. Scribe qualification restrictions are permissible to prevent unfair advantage, provided the examining body ensures the availability of suitable scribes to eligible candidates. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 )
5. Petition disposed of with directions to notify guidelines in advance and upholding scribe qualification restrictions subject to the provision of scribes by the authority. (Para 17 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
6. Are persons with specified disabilities but without benchmark disabilities entitled to a scribe?
Yes, persons with specified disabilities who have difficulty in writing, even if they do not have a benchmark disability (less than 40% disability), are entitled to the assistance of a scribe. (Para 3 , 7 )
7. When should guidelines for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities be notified for competitive examinations?
Guidelines must be notified sufficiently in advance and, at the latest, together with the advertisement of the examination schedule to ensure certainty for candidates. (Para 17 )
8. Can an examining body impose restrictions on the educational qualifications or affiliations of a scribe?
Yes, restrictions may be imposed to maintain the integrity of the examination, such as limiting the scribe's qualification or prohibiting affiliation with coaching centers, provided the body provides a scribe if the candidate cannot. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 )
9. Is a candidate entitled to interact with a scribe provided by the examining body before the test?
Yes, candidates should be provided at least two days to interact with and familiarize themselves with the scribe provided by the examining body. (Para 26 )
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
