1. Writ petition seeking scribe and compensatory time for recruitment examinations for a person with disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 263
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Gulshan Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2025
Important Points
The court established that all persons with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations during examinations, ensuring no discrimination based on the nature of disability.
Subject
Disability Rights - Examination Accommodations
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus for providing facilities to a person with disability during examinations - The court emphasized that the benefits available to persons with benchmark disabilities must also be extended to all persons with disabilities, ensuring no discrimination in providing facilities such as scribes and compensatory time. (Paras 1, 19)
(B) Reasonable Accommodation - The court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is essential for ensuring equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, and denying such accommodations constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, sought facilities for examinations conducted by various bodies, claiming discrimination as he was not provided accommodations available to persons with benchmark disabilities. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Respondent No.5 to revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, ensuring that all persons with disabilities receive necessary accommodations during examinations. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the facilities for persons with benchmark disabilities should also apply to all persons with disabilities and the adequacy of the guidelines issued for examination accommodations. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of reasonable accommodation must be applied uniformly to all persons with disabilities, and the existing guidelines must be amended to reflect this principle. (Paras 10, 19)
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 20)
(B) Reasonable Accommodation - The court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is essential for ensuring equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, and denying such accommodations constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, sought facilities for examinations conducted by various bodies, claiming discrimination as he was not provided accommodations available to persons with benchmark disabilities. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Respondent No.5 to revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, ensuring that all persons with disabilities receive necessary accommodations during examinations. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the facilities for persons with benchmark disabilities should also apply to all persons with disabilities and the adequacy of the guidelines issued for examination accommodations. (Paras 10, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of reasonable accommodation must be applied uniformly to all persons with disabilities, and the existing guidelines must be amended to reflect this principle. (Paras 10, 19)
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 20)
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The RPwD Act, 2016 mandates reasonable accommodation to ensure equal participation in education and examinations (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that facilities such as scribes and compensatory time must extend to all persons with disabilities, not only those with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) (!) (!) (!) . - Office Memorandum 10.08.2022 provides guidelines for PwBD; the Court directed uniform application to PwD and to revisit and renotify guidelines for consistent compliance (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes uniform guidelines, grievance redressal mechanisms, and periodic compliance verifications to ensure non-discrimination (!) (!) (!) . - The decision cites Vikash Kumar (Supreme Court) and Avni Prakash (SC) to support extending accommodations beyond benchmark disabilities (!) (!) . - The matter directs action to standardize practices across SBI, IBPS, and state agencies, including accessibility and center facilities (!) (!) . - The judgment interprets Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 as applying to PwD/ PwBD in the examination context and ensures non-discrimination via reasonable accommodation (!) (!) . - The Court’s directive includes creating grievance portals and ensuring scribe/alternative modes (Braille, large print, etc.) are available (!) (!) . - The final order disposes the petition with directions to re-notify guidelines within two months and report compliance (!) (!) .
What is the scope of "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities in examinations under RPwD Act, 2016?
What is the applicable equality standard for extending facilities (scribes, compensatory time) from PwBD to all PwD candidates in examinations?
What guidelines and compliance measures should be implemented to ensure uniform application of examination accommodations for PwD/PwBD candidates?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- social welfare law
Advocates aapeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rushabh Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Pahuja, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Ms. Shrawani, Adv. Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pandya, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Mr. Annu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Akshit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Rajput, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rushabh Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Pahuja, Adv. Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR Ms. Shrawani, Adv. Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv. Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pandya, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Mr. Annu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Akshit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anjali Rajput, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether facilities like scribes and compensatory time should be restricted to persons with benchmark disabilities or extended to all persons with disabilities to ensure reasonable accommodation. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Reasonable accommodation is essential for equality; restricting examination aids to benchmark disabilities is discriminatory and fails to address the actual barriers faced by persons with disabilities. (Para 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
4. All examination benefits provided to persons with benchmark disabilities must be extended to all persons with disabilities to fulfill the mandate of reasonable accommodation. (Para 10 , 13 , 19 )
5. Direction to the nodal agency to revise guidelines, remove restrictions on examination aids for persons with disabilities, and establish a grievance redressal mechanism. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Does the requirement of a benchmark disability limit the entitlement to a scribe or compensatory time in examinations?
No. The court held that the guarantee of reasonable accommodation extends to all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disabilities. Restricting these facilities to persons with benchmark disabilities is discriminatory and contrary to the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 10 , 13 )
7. What is the legal principle of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, 2016?
Reasonable accommodation involves making necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy rights equally with others, without imposing a disproportionate burden. It is a positive obligation of the State to remove societal barriers to full participation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
8. Can fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 be enforced against entities that are not state instrumentalities?
Yes. Based on the precedent in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court clarified that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against private entities, overriding previous narrower interpretations of state amenability. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
(R. Mahadevan, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide the petitioner with the facility of a scribe, compensatory time and all other facilities, to which he may be entitled, under the law, considering his disability status for the upcoming examinations, the details of which are tabulated below:
| Examinations | Conducting Bodies | Date(s) |
| Common Recruitment Process of Recruitment of Probationary officers/ Management trainees | First Respondent | 26/11/2022 or any other date |
| State Bank of India (Junior Associate & Sales) | Second Respondent | 12/11/2022 or any other date |
| State Bank of India Probationary officer (PO) | Second Respondent | 17/12/2022 to 20/12/2022 or any other date |
| Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level (CGL) | Third Respondent | 1/12/2022 to 13/12/2022 or any other date |
| Bihar Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level | Fourth Respondent | 26/11/2022 or any other date |
The petitioner has also sought a direction to the Respondent No.5 to initiate suitable action against the examining bodies that have failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5/Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) vide Office Memorandum in F.No.29-6/2019-DD-III dated 10.08.2022.
2. Vide order dated 15.12.20221["1. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India (the second respondent) states that a communication has been addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to produce necessary documents so as to allow him the facility of a scribe for the selection test.
2. We clarify that the second respondent shall not insist on the requirement of a bench mark disability within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 for the facility of a scribe having due regard to the judgment of this Court in Vikas Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission and Others [(2021) 5 SCC 370].
3 Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, who shall take instructions insofar as the fourth respondent is concerned.
4 List the Petition on 30 January 2023], this court clarified that the Respondent No.2 shall not insist on the requirement of a benchmark disability within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20162[For short, “the RPwD Act, 2016”], for the facility of a scribe, having due regard to the judgment of this Court in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370.
2.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was provided with a scribe and compensatory time during the examinations conducted by the Respondent No.2/State Bank of India, on 12.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 respectively, for the posts of Clerk and Probationary Officer.
3. Though at the first blush, the reliefs sought in this writ petition may appear to have become infructuous due to the efflux of time, considering the nature of the issue involved herein, we deem it fit and appropriate to delve into the same and arrive at a possible solution, so as to streamline the legal position which has been settled to an extent, and to ameliorate the plight of the persons with disabilities4[For short, “the PwD”]. The pleadings raised by the parties are restricted to this specific scope.
BRIEF FACTS
4. It is stated by the petitioner herein that he belongs to 'Teli' Caste which falls under the category of Other Backward Class in the State of Bihar. In 2017, soon after completing his degree, the petitioner was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a type of Writer's Cramp, classified as a chronic neurological condition. Under the RPwD Act, 2016, he was assessed with 25% permanent disability
