Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission:

Subject: Disability Rights - Reasonable Accommodation

Act Referred: * CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16(1) * RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: S.2(r), S.2(z)(c), S.2(s), S.20, S.56, S.57

Key Holdings and Observations:

• (A) Distinction between Disability and Benchmark Disability: The definition of "benchmark disability" in Section 2(r) applies only where a specified disability is defined in measurable terms. Conflating the rights of "persons with disabilities" with the notion of "benchmark disabilities" disservices the purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Denying rights on the ground that a person does not meet the benchmark threshold is ultra vires the Act.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (B) Additional Support and Reasonable Accommodation: There is a critical qualitative difference between barriers faced by persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups. Mere non-discrimination is insufficient; society must provide additional support to offset the impact of disability. Constitutional rights (equality, freedoms, right to life) ring hollow without such support.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (C) Right to a Scribe: The provision for a scribe is a statutory mandate to ensure equality and dignity, not a privilege or largesse. It is a fallacy to restrict scribe facilities only to persons with benchmark disabilities. The appellant, suffering from Writer's Cramp (a chronic neurological condition), is entitled to a scribe for Civil Services Examinations and other competitive selections.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (D) Principle of Reasonable Accommodation: This principle requires measures to be proportionate to needs, inclusive, and respectful of differences. It demands flexibility to meet individual needs, not just the needs of a class. Failure to accommodate individual needs breaches the norm. Disability discrimination is intersectional and cannot be viewed unidimensionally.

  • References: (!) (!) (!)

• (E) Policy Formulation and Consultation: The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) is directed to formulate proper guidelines within three months to regulate the grant of scribes for persons with disabilities under Section 2(s). These guidelines must ensure certification by competent medical authorities. Crucially, policy must be formulated with the consultation and involvement of persons with disabilities ("nothing about us without us").

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (F) Divergence in Government Ministries: A policy disconnect was noted between the UPSC/DoPT (which strictly followed rules limiting scribes to benchmark disabilities) and the MSJE (which acknowledged the need for case-by-case consideration for conditions not specifically listed as disabilities). The Court criticized this lack of alignment.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (G) Misuse Arguments Rejected: The argument that scribes could be misused to cheat in competitive exams was rejected. The burden of proof for misuse lies with the objector, and conjecture is not objective criteria. Punishing a whole class of disabled people based on the actions of "bad apples" is unjust.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

• (H) Language and Discourse: The Court emphasized the need to shift from a medical model of disability (viewing it as suffering/disease) to a human rights/social model. Language used in discourse must empower and include persons with disabilities rather than alienate them.

  • References: (!) (!) (!) (!)