Landmark Ruling: Ensuring Equal Access to Exams for Persons with Disabilities


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: GULSHAN KUMAR vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION.

Citation: 2025 INSC 142 (Reportable)

Introduction

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressed the issue of providing facilities like scribes and compensatory time to Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in competitive examinations. The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors., which highlighted discrepancies in the application of guidelines for PwD in examinations. The court’s judgment clarifies the legal position regarding reasonable accommodation for PwD and directs the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) to revise its existing Office Memorandum.

Background

Gulshan Kumar, the petitioner, has Focal Hand Dystonia, a neurological condition that results in a 25% disability. He was certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS) as needing a scribe for written examinations. He was denied a scribe and compensatory time in various competitive exams because these facilities were restricted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), those with a disability of 40% or more. The case hinges on the interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), particularly sections related to "inclusive education", "reasonable accommodation", "discrimination", and the definitions of "Person with Disability" and "Person with Benchmark Disability". This case also builds upon earlier judgments such as Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Others, which emphasized that scribe facilities should not be limited to PwBD.

Key Arguments

Discrimination against PwD

The core issue was the discrimination faced by PwD who do not have a benchmark disability. Examination bodies were only providing accommodations to PwBD, denying them to other PwD who needed them. The petitioner argued that this restriction violated equality and the principle of reasonable accommodation. Application forms also lacked specific clauses for PwD to request facilities.

Reasonable Accommodation

The court emphasized that reasonable accommodation is essential to ensure the equal participation of PwD in society. Denying a scribe or compensatory time is a form of discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016. The Act defines "reasonable accommodation" as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate burden, to ensure PwD enjoy or exercise their rights equally with others. The principle of reasonable accommodation ensures that systems are adapted to meet the needs of PwD, to facilitate equality.

Distinction Between PwD and PwBD

The judgment clarifies that all benefits for PwBD must also be extended to PwD candidates, with the exception of reservation. The definition of a PwD is broader than that of a PwBD. A Person with Disability (PwD) is defined as someone with a long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that hinders their full participation in society. A Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) is a subset of PwD, specifically those with a disability of 40% or more as certified by a competent authority.

Flaws in the 2022 Office Memorandum

The Court found fault with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2022 issued by the MSJE. This OM restricted scribe and compensatory time to those with difficulty "in writing," excluding those whose disabilities affected writing indirectly. It also did not mention aids beyond scribes and compensatory time or give an adequate grievance mechanism. The court noted that the guidelines were not uniformly followed, causing confusion and discrimination.

Judicial Review

The Court refuted the argument that the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), being a private trust, is not subject to writ jurisdiction. The Court cited the Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh ruling that fundamental rights can be claimed against private entities. It was clarified that rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against private entities.

Key Directives to the MSJE

The Supreme Court directed the MSJE to revise the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, and re-notify it within two months. The new guidelines must include:

  • Uniform Guidelines: All authorities/recruitment agencies/examining bodies must uniformly follow the MSJE guidelines.
  • Sensitization Drives: Periodic sensitization drives in educational institutions to ensure effective implementation of guidelines.
  • Grievance Redressal Portal: Establishment of an online grievance redressal portal for PwD candidates.
  • Inspection of Guidelines: Review of existing guidelines for compliance and re-notification.
  • Validity of Scribe Certificate: Extend the validity of scribe certificates beyond six months.
  • Incentive Programs for Scribes: Develop incentive programs and training for scribes.
  • Pre-Exam Interaction with Scribe: Provide time before the examination for candidates to familiarize themselves with their scribe.
  • Choice of Examination Modes: Offer PwD candidates a variety of examination modes (scribe, Braille, large print, audio recording, etc.).
  • Penal Action: Impose penalties on authorities who fail to follow the guidelines.
  • Training for Authorities: Provide regular training to staff on reasonable accommodation for PwD.
  • Compliance with Previous Judgments and Act: Ensure strict compliance with the judgments in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash, and with the RPwD Act, with emphasis on "reasonable accommodation".

Rationale and Reasoning

The court emphasized that the principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for all persons with disabilities. Denying facilities like scribes or compensatory time constitutes discrimination. The court highlighted that the rights of disabled persons are realized when state structures form policies, laws, and rules that provide equal access and reasonable accommodation. The distinction between PwD and PwBD was deemed artificial in the context of providing examination facilities. The court stressed the need for examination bodies to implement accessibility measures, ensuring centers are physically accessible and equipped to accommodate PwD.

Excerpt

  • "In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered view that the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5 pursuant to the directions of this Court, have to be enforced, by extending the benefits for PwBD candidates to all PwD candidates in writing their examinations, without any hindrance."
  • “Thus, it can be easily deduced from the above decisions that the principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensure equality for all the persons with disabilities; and denying the facility of scribe or compensatory time, constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016.”
  • "It was clarified that rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against private entities and it overrides the principle laid down in Rajbir (supra). Hence, the contention of the Respondent No.1 that they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction cannot be countenanced by us.”
  • "The law is settled that all the benefits given to PwBD candidates must also be extended to PwD candidates, and there can be no discrimination between the candidates in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, etc., except for reservation, in writing the examinations."
  • "However, clause (3) of the Office Memorandum only extends facilities to candidates who have 'difficulty in writing'. Furthermore, Clause 3(b) of the Office Memorandum creates confusion and a problematic situation, where the rights of PwD candidates to receive facilities in examinations can be denied simply because their disability is not related to “writing”. This contradicts the entire purpose of the Act.”

Points to Remember

  • All PwD are entitled to reasonable accommodations, such as scribes and compensatory time, in examinations, regardless of whether they have a benchmark disability.
  • Reasonable accommodation is a key principle that ensures equality for PwD.
  • The definition of PwD is broader than PwBD.
  • The MSJE must revise its Office Memorandum to ensure that all PwD receive necessary accommodations.
  • Examination bodies, including private entities, must comply with the guidelines.
  • The ruling mandates a uniform approach to providing accommodations for PwD across all examination bodies.
  • A grievance redressal mechanism must be established to address complaints.
  • The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with the RPwD Act, 2016 and previous judgements like Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash.
  • PwD candidates should be offered a variety of examination modes (scribe, Braille, large print, audio recording etc).
  • The court highlights the need for sensitization and training for authorities on the needs of PwD.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in the Gulshan Kumar case is a significant step towards creating a more equitable and accessible examination system for PwD. It mandates inclusivity, removes discriminatory barriers, and holds authorities accountable for providing reasonable accommodations. The judgement ensures that all PwD receive equal opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities in examinations. This ruling seeks to ensure better implementation of the RPwD Act, 2016, promoting equality and accessibility for PwD. The key takeaway is the emphasis on reasonable accommodation as a right, not a privilege, for all PwD. 

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more