Kerala High Court Rules Scribe Facility Cannot Be Denied Solely To Non Benchmark Disabled

In a landmark decision impacting the inclusivity of public recruitment, the High Court of Kerala has ruled that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to a candidate purely on the basis that their disability falls below the 40% "benchmark" threshold. The ruling delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Harisankar V. Menon underscores that statutory benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be interpreted to ensure equality and dignity rather than restricted by administrative thresholds.

A Fight for Reasonable Accommodation

The matter involved 21-year-old Anju Mary Francis, who suffers from a 25% certified intellectual disability. Despite needing assistance due to certified writing limitations, Ms. Francis was repeatedly denied a scribe by the KPSC, which insisted that such aid is reserved strictly for those with "benchmark disabilities" (40% or more) as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Aggrieved by the exclusion, the petitioner challenged the KPSC's exclusionary practice as a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Arguments and Administrative Barriers

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the denial failed to recognize the spirit of the law. Citing the Supreme Court of India precedents in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection , the petitioner contended that the right to a scribe extends to all persons with disabilities under Section 2(s) whose functional impairment necessitates such support.

Conversely, the KPSC Standing Counsel defended the refusal by pointing to Government of India Office Memoranda and their own Circular No. 33 of 2022. They argued that current administrative guidelines explicitly restrict scribe facilities to benchmark cases, suggesting that the Commission was bound by these internal regulations rather than the broader judicial interpretation of the Act.

Judicial Interpretation of Disability Rights

The High Court rejected the rigid interpretation maintained by the KPSC. Justice Harisankar V. Menon noted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is a piece of beneficial legislation intended to facilitate, not hinder, participation in public life. The court held that the classification between benchmark and non-benchmark disability should not be used as an instrument to exclude disabled citizens from equal opportunities in employment exams.

Key Observations

  • "The facility of providing a scribe is a statutory mandate so as to ensure persons with disabilities are able to live a life of equality and dignity."
  • "To confine the facility only to those having benchmark disabilities alone would be against the spirit of the statute."
  • "In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and in the light of the office memorandum... the respondent KPSC is not justified in contending that merely on the basis of the contents of Circular No. 33 of 2022, an otherwise eligible claim for a scribe is not to be denied."

A New Standard for Recruitment

The Court ultimately quashed the restrictive practice of the KPSC, directing the commission to extend scribe privileges to the petitioner for all future examinations. This decision serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the legal obligation of public authorities to provide reasonable accommodations to all individuals with certified physical or intellectual limitations, regardless of whether they meet the specific percentage threshold for benchmark disability. The ruling ensures that the path to public service remains accessible to all, prioritizing equity in accordance with constitutional mandates.