Supreme Court clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to scribes in the Civil Services Examination: Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) INSC 75 (11 February 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 75
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indira Banerjee, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J
Can a person with a disability, not classified as having a “benchmark disability,” be denied a scribe for the Civil Services Examination? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, highlighting the need for reasonable accommodation for all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disabilities. This judgment clarifies the scope of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and its implications for competitive examinations. The bench comprised of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, who authored the majority opinion, along with Indira Banerjee, J, and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Case Background

The case involves Vikash Kumar, a medical graduate with dysgraphia, commonly known as Writer’s Cramp. He sought a scribe for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). In 2017, he was provided a scribe. However, for the 2018 examination, his request was denied because he did not have a “benchmark disability” of 40% or more, as required by the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018. The UPSC’s decision was based on the premise that scribes were only allowed for blind candidates and those with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with a minimum of 40% impairment.

The appellant, Vikash Kumar, had applied for the Combined Medical Services Examination 2017 and was denied a disability certificate by the Medical Board of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. This denial led to a separate challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is still pending.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the UPSC to provide a scribe to the appellant for the preliminary examination as an interim measure. However, the Tribunal later dismissed the appellant’s application, stating that he did not meet the criteria for a scribe because he did not have a disability certificate and did not have a benchmark disability. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not claim the facility of a scribe in the CSE 2017 or during his MBBS graduation examinations.

The High Court of Delhi declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, stating that since the appellant had not qualified for the Preliminary Examination for CSE 2018, the relief sought was no longer relevant. The High Court granted the appellant the liberty to file another application before the Tribunal in the future.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) and its interplay with the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018. The RPwD Act, 2016 defines two key terms: “person with disability” under Section 2(s) and “person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(r).

According to Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, a “person with disability” is defined as “a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others”.

Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, 2016 defines “person with benchmark disability” as “a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority”.

The Civil Services Examination Rules 2018, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), initially allowed scribes only for blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with a minimum of 40% impairment. The rules stated:

“Candidates must write the papers in their own hand. In no circumstances will they be allowed the help of a scribe to write the answers for them. However, blind candidates and candidates with Locomotor Disability and Cerebral Palsy where dominant (writing) extremity is affected to the extent of slowing the performance of function (minimum of 40% impairment) will be allowed to write the examination with the help of a scribe in both the Civil Services (Preliminary) as well as in the Civil Services (Main) Examination.”

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) issued guidelines on 4 January 2018, under Section 56 of the RPwD Act, 2016, for assessing the extent of specified disabilities.

The MSJE also issued guidelines on 29 August 2018, for conducting written examinations for persons with benchmark disabilities, which allowed scribes for persons with benchmark disabilities having limitations in writing. These guidelines were revised from the previous guidelines issued on 26 February 2013.

The guidelines of 29 August 2018, state:

“The facility of Scribe/Reader/Lab Assistant should be allowed to any person with benchmark disability as defined under section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, 2016 and has limitation in writing including that of speed if so desired by him/her. In case of persons with benchmark disabilities in the category of blindness, locomotor disability (both arm affected-BA) and cerebral palsy, the facility of scribe/reader/lab assistant shall be given. If so desired by the person. In case of other category of persons with benchmark disabilities, the provision of scribe/reader/lab assistant can be allowed on production of a certificate to the effect that the person concerned has physical limitation to write, and scribe is essential to write examination on his behalf, from the Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/ Medical Superintendent of a Government health care institution as per proforma at Appendix -I.”

The guidelines also included a proforma for the medical certificate to be issued by a government healthcare institution.

The Civil Services Examination Rules were subsequently amended to align with the guidelines of 29 August 2018, and allow scribes for persons with benchmark disabilities in the categories of blindness, locomotor disability (both arm affected) and cerebral palsy, if desired by the person. Other persons with benchmark disability were allowed scribes upon production of a medical certificate confirming physical limitation to write.

Arguments

The appellant argued that he is a “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and is entitled to reasonable accommodation, including a scribe. He contended that Writer’s Cramp is a recognized disability and that the CSE Rules 2018 violate Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which mandates reasonable accommodation. He also argued that the rules violate Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution by limiting the provision of scribes to a few categories of disabilities.

The UPSC argued that the issue is governed by the rules framed by the DoPT, which provide scribes only for persons with benchmark disabilities. They contended that the appellant had incorrectly declared himself as having a benchmark disability and had not challenged the legality of the CSE Rules 2018.

The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that Writer’s Cramp is not specifically listed as a disability in the Schedule of the RPwD Act, 2016. They also expressed concerns about the potential misuse of the scribe facility in competitive examinations. They suggested a fresh medical examination for the appellant to determine if his disability necessitates a scribe.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key questions:

• Whether the appellant, suffering from Writer’s Cramp, is entitled to a scribe for the Civil Services Examination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Whether the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018 and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment are in violation of the RPwD Act, 2016, by limiting the provision of scribes to persons with benchmark disabilities.
• Whether a person with a disability, not classified as having a “benchmark disability,” can be denied a scribe for the Civil Services Examination.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the definitions of “person with disability” and “person with benchmark disability” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [CITATION] to distinguish between the two categories, emphasizing that the right to reasonable accommodation is not limited to those with benchmark disabilities.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [CITATION], highlighting the need for reasonable differentiation and specific measures for persons with disabilities.
• The Court endorsed the liberal and relief-oriented approach towards differently-abled persons as stated in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [CITATION].
• The Court emphasized the importance of employment opportunities in empowering persons with disabilities, as highlighted in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind [CITATION].
• The Court used the precedent of Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri v. Nazir Ahmed Shah [CITATION], to illustrate that external aids can be a reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
• The Court overruled the judgment in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu [CITATION], stating that it was rendered under the 1995 Act and did not consider the principle of reasonable accommodation.
• The Court aligned the interpretation of the RPwD Act, 2016 with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) [CITATION], and the guidelines of the CRPD Committee [CITATION].

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by several key considerations:

• Rights-based Approach: The Court emphasized a rights-based approach to disability, recognizing that persons with disabilities have inherent rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, which must be actively protected and facilitated.
• Reasonable Accommodation: The Court highlighted the principle of reasonable accommodation as a critical component of substantive equality, requiring the State to make necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally with others.
• Broad Definition of Disability: The Court interpreted the definition of “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, broadly, to include all persons with long-term impairments that hinder their full and effective participation in society, not just those with benchmark disabilities.
• Rejection of the Medical Model: The Court rejected the medical model of disability, which views disability as an individual pathology, and embraced a social model, which recognizes that disability is produced by social structures and barriers.
• Inclusivity and Participation: The Court underscored the importance of inclusivity and full participation of persons with disabilities in all aspects of society, including education and employment.
• Need for Sensitization: The Court recognized the need for greater sensitization and awareness about the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, highlighting the lack of awareness on the part of authorities about the RPwD Act, 2016.
• Individualized Approach: The Court emphasized that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is an individualized duty, requiring a case-by-case approach and a dialogue with the person with disability.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the legal framework of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. While the factual aspects of the appellant’s case were considered, the Court’s decision was predominantly based on the interpretation and application of the relevant laws and precedents.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the facility of a scribe should be limited to persons with benchmark disabilities to maintain the purity of the examination. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that it would be contrary to the plain terms and object of the RPwD Act, 2016, and would deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements. The Court also emphasized that the possibility of misuse cannot be a valid ground to deny the facility of a scribe to all persons with disabilities who need it.

The decision was reached by applying the broad definition of “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and by emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation. The Court held that the denial of a scribe to the appellant was a violation of his rights under the Act.

The Court’s reasoning is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:

“To confine the facility of a scribe only to those who have benchmark disabilities would be to deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements. To do so would be contrary to the plain terms as well as the object of the statute.”

“The provision for the facility of a scribe is in pursuance of the statutory mandate to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to live a life of equality and dignity based on respect in society for their bodily and mental integrity.”

“The concept of a benchmark disability under Section 2(r) is primarily relevant in the context of specific provisions such as reservations. The concept of a benchmark disability cannot be extended to deny other rights and entitlements which are recognized for persons with disabilities.”

“The denial of the rights and entitlements which are recognized for persons with disabilities on the ground that they do not fulfill a benchmark disability would be plainly ultra vires the RPwD Act 2016.”

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 recognizes a distinction between “persons with disability” and “persons with benchmark disability,” and the right to reasonable accommodation is not limited to persons with benchmark disabilities but extends to all persons with disabilities.
• The denial of a scribe to a person with a disability, solely on the ground that they do not have a benchmark disability, is a violation of the RPwD Act, 2016.
• The Civil Services Examination Rules 2018 and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to the extent they limit the provision of scribes to persons with benchmark disabilities, are inconsistent with the RPwD Act, 2016.
• The possibility of misuse of the scribe facility cannot be a valid ground to deny the facility of a scribe to all persons with disabilities who need it.

Obiter Dicta

While the primary focus of the judgment was on the entitlement of the appellant to a scribe, the Court also made certain observations that can be considered obiter dicta:

• The Court emphasized the need for a rights-based approach to disability, recognizing that persons with disabilities have inherent rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
• The Court highlighted the importance of reasonable accommodation as a critical component of substantive equality, requiring the State to make necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally with others.
• The Court rejected the medical model of disability, which views disability as an individual pathology, and embraced a social model, which recognizes that disability is produced by social structures and barriers.
• The Court underscored the importance of inclusivity and full participation of persons with disabilities in all aspects of society, including education and employment.
• The Court recognized the need for greater sensitization and awareness about the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, highlighting the lack of awareness on the part of authorities about the RPwD Act, 2016.
• The Court emphasized that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is an individualized duty, requiring a case-by-case approach and a dialogue with the person with disability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. is a landmark decision that clarifies the rights of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation, particularly the provision of scribes in competitive examinations. The Court held that the right to reasonable accommodation is not limited to persons with benchmark disabilities but extends to all persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized that the denial of a scribe based solely on the absence of a benchmark disability is a violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The judgment has significant implications for the conduct of competitive examinations and the implementation of disability rights in India.

The judgment has also been instrumental in promoting a more inclusive and accessible approach to disability rights in India, moving away from a medical model of disability towards a social model, which recognizes that disability is produced by social structures and barriers. The Court’s emphasis on the need for reasonable accommodation as a critical component of substantive equality is a significant step towards ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy their rights equally with others.

The case serves as a reminder that the rights of persons with disabilities must be actively protected and facilitated, and that the State has a duty to make necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities can fully participate in society. The judgment is a significant victory for disability rights and will have a lasting impact on the lives of persons with disabilities in India.