Supreme Court mandates equal facilities for all persons with disabilities in examinations: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (2025) INSC 142 (03 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 142
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can a person with a disability be denied a scribe or extra time during an exam simply because their disability isn’t classified as a “benchmark disability”? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this crucial question in a Public Interest Litigation, clarifying the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) in examination settings. This judgment emphasizes the principle of “reasonable accommodation” and aims to ensure equal opportunities for all PwD candidates, regardless of the severity of their disability. The bench comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, with the majority opinion authored by Justice R. Mahadevan.

Case Background

The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, belongs to the ‘Teli’ caste, categorized as Other Backward Class in Bihar. In 2017, he was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a neurological condition affecting his writing ability. Despite having a 25% permanent disability certificate and a recommendation for a scribe from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore, he was denied scribe and compensatory time facilities in various recruitment exams. These facilities were restricted to candidates with “benchmark disabilities” (40% or more disability). Feeling discriminated against, he filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Supreme Court, on 15.12.2022, clarified that the State Bank of India (Respondent No. 2) should not insist on a benchmark disability for providing a scribe, referencing the judgment in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others. Following this order, the petitioner was provided with a scribe and compensatory time for the State Bank of India exams on 12.11.2022 and 17.12.2022. Although the immediate reliefs sought seemed to have become infructuous due to the passage of time, the Court decided to delve into the issue to streamline the legal position and address the larger issue of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Legal Framework

The judgment extensively refers to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), emphasizing the rights of disabled persons to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(m): Defines “inclusive education” as a system where students with and without disabilities learn together, with teaching adapted to meet diverse needs.
• Section 2(y): Defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary modifications and adjustments to ensure PwD enjoy rights equally with others, without undue burden.
• Section 2(h): Defines “discrimination” as any distinction, exclusion, or restriction based on disability that impairs or nullifies the enjoyment of rights on an equal basis, including denial of reasonable accommodation.
• Section 2(s): Defines “Person with disability” as someone with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that hinders their full participation in society.
• Section 2(r): Defines “Person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than 40% of a specified disability.
• Section 16: Mandates educational institutions to provide inclusive education and reasonable accommodation.
• Section 17: Specifies measures to promote inclusive education, including modifications in the curriculum and examination system, such as extra time and scribes.
• Section 18: Requires measures to ensure participation of PwD in adult and continuing education programs.

The Court also highlighted that the RPwD Act, 2016, goes beyond non-discrimination by imposing affirmative duties on the government to protect the rights of PwD by providing an appropriate environment and reasonable accommodation.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that he is a PwD under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and should be provided with facilities like a scribe and compensatory time.
• He contended that the application forms for recruitment only provided these facilities to PwBD candidates, thereby discriminating against PwD candidates.
• The petitioner relied on the judgments in Vikash Kumar (supra) and Avni Prakash (supra), which clarified that benchmark disability is not a precondition for obtaining a scribe or compensatory time.
• He argued that the respondents were acting in derogation of the principles laid down in these judgments.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• Respondent No. 1 (Institute of Banking Personnel Selection):
  • Argued that it is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not subject to writ jurisdiction.
  • Stated that it is an autonomous body providing services to banks and is not controlled by the government.
  • Claimed it has been acting in accordance with the judgments in Vikas Kumar (supra) and Avni Prakash (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022.
  • Mentioned it would incorporate the option to seek a scribe and compensatory time in future application forms.
• Respondent No. 2 (State Bank of India):
  • Submitted that the petitioner did not apply for a scribe initially.
  • Complied with the court order dated 15.12.2022 and allowed the petitioner to appear for the exam with a scribe and compensatory time.
  • Claimed to have followed the guidelines in the Official Memorandum dated 10.08.2022.
• Respondent No. 4 (Bihar Staff Selection Commission):
  • Stated that it is governed by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act, 2002.
  • Submitted that it provides scribe and extra time to blind or low vision candidates and those with absence of hand/hands or cerebral palsy.
  • Extended these facilities to candidates with benchmark disabilities as per the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2018.
  • Argued that the petitioner did not request a scribe and is not entitled to relief.

The innovativeness of the argument was on the side of the petitioner, who highlighted the discrepancy in the application of the law and the practical difficulties faced by PwD candidates, despite the existing legal framework.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

• Whether all persons with disabilities (PwD), not just those with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), are entitled to the same examination facilities, such as scribes and compensatory time, and whether the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, issued by Respondent No. 5, adequately addresses this issue.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court relied on several Indian and foreign authorities to reach its decision. These are categorized below:

Indian Decisions:

• Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others [(2021) 5 SCC 370] – The Supreme Court of India held that the principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for persons with disabilities. It emphasized that the provision for a scribe is not a privilege but a statutory mandate to ensure equality and dignity. The Court also clarified that the facility of a scribe should not be restricted only to persons with benchmark disabilities.
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Others [2021 SCC Online SC 1112] – The Supreme Court of India clarified that benchmark disability is not a precondition to obtain a scribe or compensatory time in examinations. The Court also emphasized that the right to inclusive education is realized through the provision of reasonable accommodation.
• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another [(2024) 5 SCC 793] – The Supreme Court of India reiterated the need for reasonable accommodation consistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
• Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016] – The Supreme Court of India clarified that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution can be claimed against anyone, including private entities.

Foreign Decisions:

• MOORE v. BRITISH COLUMBIA (EDUCATION) [2012] 3 S.C.R – The Supreme Court of Canada held that students with disabilities require accommodation to benefit from educational services.
• Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria [Decision in Complaint No. 41/2007 dated 03.06.2008] – The European Committee of Social Rights emphasized that education must be available, accessible, acceptable, and adaptable.
• International Association Autism Europe v. France [Complaint No. 13/2002] – The European Committee of Social Rights highlighted the importance of equal citizenship for persons with disabilities and the role of education in advancing these rights.
• G.L. v. ITALY [Judgment in Application no. 59751/15 dated 10.12.2020] – The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations.
• T.H. v. BULGARIA [Judgment in Application no. 46519/20 dated 11.07.2023] – The European Court of Human Rights held that discrimination can consist not only in less favorable treatment but also in a failure to provide “reasonable accommodation”.
• XXXX v HR Rail SA [Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) dated 10.02.2022 in Case C‐485/20] – The Court of Justice of the European Union stated that discrimination includes denial of reasonable accommodation.

Legal Provisions:

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016)
  • Section 2(m): Definition of “inclusive education.”
  • Section 2(y): Definition of “reasonable accommodation.”
  • Section 2(h): Definition of “discrimination.”
  • Section 2(s): Definition of “Person with disability.”
  • Section 2(r): Definition of “Person with benchmark disability.”
  • Section 16: Duty of educational institutions to provide inclusive education.
  • Section 17: Specific measures to promote inclusive education.
  • Section 18: Adult education measures.

How Authorities Were Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others [(2021) 5 SCC 370]*, emphasizing that reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for persons with disabilities and that the provision of a scribe is a statutory mandate, not a privilege.
• The Court followed Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Others [2021 SCC Online SC 1112]*, reiterating that benchmark disability is not a precondition for obtaining a scribe or compensatory time.
• The Court followed Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another [(2024) 5 SCC 793]*, underscoring the need for reasonable accommodation.
• The Court followed Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016]*, clarifying that fundamental rights can be enforced against private entities.
• The Court cited foreign decisions such as MOORE v. BRITISH COLUMBIA (EDUCATION) [2012] 3 S.C.R*, Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria [Decision in Complaint No. 41/2007 dated 03.06.2008]*, International Association Autism Europe v. France [Complaint No. 13/2002]*, G.L. v. ITALY [Judgment in Application no. 59751/15 dated 10.12.2020]*, T.H. v. BULGARIA [Judgment in Application no. 46519/20 dated 11.07.2023]*, and XXXX v HR Rail SA [Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) dated 10.02.2022 in Case C‐485/20]* to support its view that the rights of disabled persons are universal and that reasonable accommodation is essential for their full participation in society.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong commitment to ensuring equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Reasonable Accommodation: The Court highlighted that reasonable accommodation is central to ensuring equality for all PwD and that denying facilities like scribes and compensatory time constitutes discrimination.
• Inclusive Education: The Court emphasized the importance of inclusive education and the need to provide necessary accommodations to ensure equal opportunities for PwD.
• Statutory Mandate: The Court reiterated that providing facilities like scribes is not a privilege but a statutory mandate under the RPwD Act, 2016.
• Uniformity and Consistency: The Court stressed the need for a uniform approach in implementing the guidelines and ensuring that all PwD candidates receive the same benefits, regardless of the nature of their disability.
• Grievance Redressal: The Court recognized the lack of a proper grievance redressal mechanism and directed the establishment of a portal to address complaints.
• Sensitization and Training: The Court emphasized the need for sensitization and training of officials to address the reasonable accommodation needs of PwD.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in the RPwD Act, 2016, and reinforced by its previous judgments and international conventions.

Sentiment Analysis Table:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The court’s decision was more influenced by legal principles and precedents than the specific facts of the case, as indicated by the higher percentage for “Law” in the ratio table.

Logical Reasoning

The following flowchart explains the court’s logical reasoning for the core issue:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the guidelines issued by Respondent No. 5 must be enforced by extending the benefits for PwBD candidates to all PwD candidates in writing their examinations, without any hindrance. The Court directed Respondent No. 5 to revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, remove the restrictions, and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner. The Court also issued specific directions to ensure the proper implementation of the guidelines.

Key quotes from the judgment include:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan concurring in the judgment. The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have restricted the rights of PwD candidates. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the need for a uniform and inclusive approach to ensure that all PwD candidates have equal opportunities in examinations.

Key Takeaways

• All persons with disabilities (PwD), regardless of whether they have a benchmark disability, are entitled to the same examination facilities as persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), including scribes and compensatory time.
• The Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 issued by Respondent No. 5 needs to be revised to remove restrictions and ensure a uniform approach to providing facilities to all PwD candidates.
• Recruitment agencies and examination bodies must ensure strict adherence to the guidelines issued by Respondent No. 5 and conduct periodic surveys to verify compliance.
• Educational institutions must conduct sensitization drives to raise awareness among examination conducting bodies.
• A grievance redressal portal must be set up to register complaints and address issues faced by PwD candidates.
• The validity of scribe certificates should be extended to prevent long wait times.
• Incentive programs for scribes should be set up to ensure their availability and provide necessary training.
• PwD candidates should be given a choice of examination modes, such as scribe, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.
• Penal action should be taken against authorities who fail to follow the guidelines and exclude PwD.
• Persons working for the respondent authorities should be sensitized and trained regularly to address the needs of PwD.

The judgment has significant implications for the future, ensuring that all PwD candidates have equal opportunities in examinations. It also emphasizes the need for a more inclusive and accessible approach towards persons with disabilities in the education and employment sectors.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Respondent No. 5 is directed to revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, remove the restrictions, and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner.
2. All authorities/recruitment agencies/examining bodies are directed to uniformly follow the guidelines issued by Respondent No. 5 and ensure strict adherence through periodic surveys/verification.
3. Periodic sensitization drives at educational institutions to raise awareness among the examination conducting bodies.
4. A grievance redressal portal to register complaints must be set up.
5. The guidelines framed by differentauthorities to be harmonized and a uniform approach to be adopted.
6. The validity of scribe certificates to be extended to avoid long wait times.
7. Incentive programs for scribes to be set up to ensure their availability and provide necessary training.
8. PwD candidates should be given a choice of examination modes, such as scribe, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.
9. Penal action should be taken against authorities who fail to follow the guidelines and exclude PwD.
10. Persons working for the respondent authorities should be sensitized and trained regularly to address the needs of PwD.

These directions are aimed at ensuring the proper implementation of the guidelines and creating a more inclusive and accessible examination system for persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. is a landmark decision that reinforces the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of examinations. By clarifying that all PwD, not just those with benchmark disabilities, are entitled to the same facilities, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring equal opportunities for all. The judgment highlights the importance of reasonable accommodation, inclusive education, and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court’s emphasis on a uniform approach, grievance redressal, and sensitization programs will help create a more inclusive and accessible environment for PwD candidates in the future. This decision will have a far-reaching impact on the education and employment sectors, ensuring that no person with a disability is denied the opportunity to participate in examinations due to lack of reasonable accommodation.