Supreme Court Directs Accommodation for Dysgraphia in NEET: Avni Prakash vs. NTA (23 November 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.18591 of 2021)
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a student with dysgraphia, a specific learning disability, be denied compensatory time during the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, highlighting the importance of reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for inclusive education and the rights of persons with disabilities, ensuring they are not disadvantaged in competitive examinations. The bench comprised of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

Avni Prakash, the appellant, suffers from Dysgraphia, a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 (RPwD Act 2016). She has a 40% permanent disability, classifying her as a ‘person with benchmark disability’. She is entitled to reasonable accommodation, including modifications to the examination system. The National Testing Agency (NTA), the first respondent, conducts the NEET for admissions to undergraduate medical courses. The appellant claimed an additional hour of compensatory time due to her disability during the NEET exam held on 12 September 2021. However, at her allotted center, Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, her answer sheet was collected after the standard three hours, denying her the additional time.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking a direction for a fresh examination with all entitled relaxations. The High Court initially directed the NTA not to declare the appellant’s results. The NTA contended that the appellant did not have a disability certificate in the format prescribed in Appendix XIII-A and Appendix -B of the NEET Bulletin 2021. The High Court directed the NTA to take an appropriate decision on the application of the appellant for re-appearing in the test, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Services Commission & Others. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the appellant did not produce a certificate from an agency prescribed in Appendix VIII-B, despite being given an opportunity. The High Court also relied on an interim order of the Supreme Court in a related case, vacating its own interim order and dismissing the writ petition.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the following key legal provisions:

• Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 (RPwD Act 2016):
  • Section 2(r): Defines ‘person with benchmark disability’ as a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability.
  • Section 2(s): Defines ‘person with disability’ as a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment.
  • Section 3: Ensures that persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity, and respect for their integrity. It also mandates reasonable accommodation.
  • Section 17(i): Mandates suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
  • Section 32: Provides for reservation in higher educational institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities.
  • Section 2(y): Defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ as necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy their rights equally.
• Guidelines for Written Examination for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (2018): Issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, these guidelines mandate a uniform policy for written examinations for persons with benchmark disabilities, providing facilities such as scribes, alternative modes of examination, and compensatory time.
  • Paragraph 1, Clause II: Stipulates a uniform and comprehensive policy for persons with benchmark disabilities for written examination.
  • Paragraph 1, Clause XII: Provides for compensatory time of not less than 20 minutes per hour for those using a scribe and a minimum of one hour for a three-hour examination for those not using a scribe.
• NEET Bulletin 2021:
  • Clause 5.4: Specifies facilities for PwBD candidates, including a scribe and compensatory time of one hour for a three-hour examination.
  • Appendix VIII-A: Prescribes the format for a disability certificate, which includes the candidate’s rank and roll number, indicating that it is to be issued after the exam.
  • Appendix VIII-B: Lists authorized centers for issuing disability certificates.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant was diagnosed with Dysgraphia in 2017 and has been using accommodations since then, including a scribe in her Class X examination.
• She was denied compensatory time during the NEET exam on 12 September 2021, despite having a disability certificate.
• The High Court incorrectly dismissed her petition for not producing a certificate in Appendix VIII-A format, which is applicable only at the stage of counseling and admission, not during the examination.
• The denial of compensatory time is a violation of her right to inclusive education under Section 17(i) of the RPwD Act 2016.
• The Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment are binding on all examining bodies, including the NTA.

Respondent’s (NTA) Submissions:

• The appellant appeared for the NEET, attempted 84 questions, and scored 166 marks out of 720.
• She secured Rank 1721 in the PwD category and Rank 206003 in the General category.
• A total of 15,44,275 candidates appeared for the examination, and altering the result at this stage would cause prejudice to other candidates.
• The NTA is planning to issue guidelines for NEET 2022 to ensure better implementation of facilities for PwD candidates.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that the disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A is not required at the time of the examination but only during admission was a key point that exposed the flaws in the NTA’s understanding of the rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to an hour’s worth of compensatory time owing to her PwD status under the NEET Bulletin 2021 and the Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Ministry of Social Empowerment and Justice on 29 August 2018.
2. Whether the requirement of a disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A format is applicable at the time of the examination or only at the stage of admission.
3. Whether the rights and entitlements conferred upon PwD can be constricted by adopting the definition of benchmark disability as a condition precedent.
4. Whether the first respondent, as a testing agency, was duty-bound to comply with the Guidelines on Written Examination dated 29 August 2018.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was wrongfully deprived of compensatory time during the NEET exam. The court emphasized the importance of reasonable accommodation and inclusive education for persons with disabilities. The court also clarified that the disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A is not required at the time of the examination but only during admission. The court directed the NTA to rectify the injustice caused to the appellant.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission [CITATION]: The Court followed this precedent to emphasize the distinction between PwD and PwBD and the importance of reasonable accommodation.
• Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court used this authority to clarify that the certificate under Appendix VIII-A is applicable while seeking admission to medical courses.
• National Testing Agency v. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale [CITATION]: The Court followed this decision to deny the relief of re-examination.
• Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016: The Court extensively relied on the provisions of this Act to define the rights of persons with disabilities and the obligations of the state.
• Guidelines for Written Examination for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (2018): The Court emphasized that these guidelines are binding on all examining bodies, including the NTA.
• NEET Bulletin 2021: The Court examined the provisions of the bulletin to determine the rights of PwD candidates.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities and ensure inclusive education. The court was concerned about the injustice caused to the appellant due to the denial of compensatory time, which was a clear violation of the RPwD Act 2016 and the Guidelines for Written Examination. The court also emphasized the positive obligation of the state to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of legal interpretation and a deep concern for the practical implications of denying reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. The court emphasized the need for a fair and equitable examination process that does not discriminate against persons with disabilities.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered the argument that a re-examination was not feasible due to the large number of candidates and the potential disruption it would cause. However, the court also emphasized that the NTA could not ignore the injustice caused to the appellant and had to take steps to rectify it. The court considered various options for rectifying the injustice, including extrapolation of marks, granting compensatory marks, or adopting a ‘no negative marks’ scheme.

Majority Opinion: The majority opinion was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, with Justice A.S. Bopanna concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

“The appellant was wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while appearing for the NEET without any fault of her own, despite her entitlements as a PwD and a PwBD.”

“The first respondent, as an examining body, was bound to scrupulously enforce the Guidelines for Written Examinations dated 29 August 2018 which provides for specific relaxations.”

“The RwPD Act 2016 prescribing beneficial provisions for persons with specified disabilities would have no meaning unless it is scrupulously enforced.”

Key Takeaways

• Students with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation, including compensatory time, during examinations.
• The disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A of the NEET Bulletin 2021 is applicable only at the stage of admission, not during the examination.
• The rights of persons with disabilities cannot be restricted by the concept of benchmark disability.
• Examining bodies are bound to comply with the Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the positive obligation of the state to ensure inclusive education and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to:

• Consider steps to rectify the injustice caused to the appellant within one week, including extrapolation of marks, granting compensatory marks, or adopting a ‘no negative marks’ scheme.
• Clarify the provisions related to the rights and entitlements of PwD candidates in the NEET Bulletin, removing any ambiguity.
• Ensure that facilities provided by law to PwD are not constricted by the higher threshold prescribed for PwBD.
• Sensitize and train personnel working for the NTA and exam centers on a regular basis to deal with requirements of reasonable accommodation raised by PwDs.
• Communicate the steps taken to rectify the injustice to the Registry of the Supreme Court within two weeks.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that persons with disabilities, particularly those with specified learning disabilities like Dysgraphia, are entitled to reasonable accommodation, including compensatory time, during competitive examinations. The judgment clarifies that the requirement of a disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A is applicable only at the stage of admission and not during the examination. The judgment also emphasizes that the rights and entitlements of PwD cannot be restricted by the concept of benchmark disability, and that examining bodies are bound to comply with the Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Change in Law: This judgment reinforces and clarifies the existing legal framework under the RPwD Act 2016 and the Guidelines for Written Examination. It emphasizes the positive obligation of the state to ensure inclusive education and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. The judgment also clarifies the distinction between PwD and PwBD and ensures that the rights and entitlements of PwD are not unduly restricted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Avni Prakash vs. National Testing Agency (NTA) is a significant step towards ensuring the rights of students with disabilities in India. The court’s emphasis on reasonable accommodation and inclusive education is a crucial reminder of the positive obligations of the state and its agencies. The judgment clarifies the applicability of various provisions of the RPwD Act 2016 and the Guidelines for Written Examination, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not disadvantaged in competitive examinations. The court directed the NTA to rectify the injustice caused to the appellant, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.