All persons with disabilities eligible for scribes in examinations, says Supreme Court
Denying reasonable accommodations to candidates based on the severity of their disability is against the law, the bench said.
The Supreme Court on Monday held that all persons with disabilities, regardless of the severity of their condition, must be given equal benefits in competitive exams, including provisions for scribes and compensatory time.
The court directed the Union government to revise a memorandum from 2022 to eliminate distinctions between persons with disabilities and persons with benchmark disabilities. Persons with benchmark disabilities are individuals with disabilities of 40% or more.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that denying candidates a scribe or extra time based on the severity of their disability violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The decision came in response to a petition filed by a man with focal hand dystonia, a form of writer’s cramp, who was denied these accommodations during an examination.
The court held that all benefits extended to persons with benchmark disabilities during examinations must also apply to all persons with disabilities.
“…The principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for all persons with disabilities; and denying the facility of a scribe or compensatory time constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016,” the bench ruled.
The petitioner had challenged the office memorandum from August 10, 2022, arguing that it extended benefits to disabled candidates with less than 40% disability but didn’t fully uphold reasonable accommodation principles.
The Supreme Court agreed with the contention, and said that inconsistency in applying these policies was leading to confusion and discrimination.
“There have been instances where examination bodies refused to extend benefits to PwD candidates due to the absence of a clear-cut grievance redressal mechanism, which continues to cause inconvenience and injustice to several candidates, including the petitioner herein,” the bench said.
The court rejected the claim that private recruitment bodies are exempt from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and held that fundamental rights apply to private entities.
