Supreme Court Upholds CLAT Scribe Restrictions for Exam Integrity (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2023

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J.

Can a test conducting body impose restrictions on who can act as a scribe for candidates with disabilities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). The court considered the balance between ensuring reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and maintaining the integrity of the examination process. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The petitioner, a lawyer and disability rights activist, filed a writ petition challenging certain conditions imposed for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023. The core issue revolved around the facilities provided to candidates who required a scribe to assist them during the exam. The petitioner specifically highlighted that the Consortium of National Law Universities (the “Consortium”) had denied the right to a scribe to candidates who did not have a benchmark disability, despite having genuine difficulty in writing. The petitioner also contested the restrictions imposed on the qualifications of scribes, arguing that they were overly restrictive and not in line with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE). The CLAT was scheduled for December 18, 2022.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court entertained the proceedings on 15 December 2022, just two days before the scheduled CLAT exam. The Court directed the Consortium to address the issues raised by the petitioner. The Consortium submitted a formulation to the Court, outlining reasonable accommodations for candidates appearing for CLAT 2023. The Court directed that this formulation would guide the conduct of the exam. The Court also directed the Consortium to file a status report including the number of disabled candidates who applied and the facilities extended to them. Subsequently, affidavits were filed by both the Consortium and the Union of India.

Legal Framework

The Court considered the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, specifically Section 2(s) which defines “person with disability” and Section 2(r) which defines “person with benchmark disability”. The court also considered the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) on 29 August 2018 and 10 August 2022. The guidelines of 10 August 2022 were formulated following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors [(2021) 5 SCC 370], which clarified the entitlements of persons with disabilities under the Act. The guidelines of 10 August 2022 specify that the facility of a scribe should be granted to those having difficulty in writing, subject to a medical certificate. It also specifies that if a candidate brings their own scribe, the qualification of the scribe should be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination.

The relevant extract from the Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2022, as provided in the source, is as follows:

“3.The Committee accordingly recommended the following guidelines
for conducting written examination for persons with specified
disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s) of the RPwD
Act, 2016 but not covered under the definition of Section 2(r) of the
said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40% disability and having
difficulty in writing:-
(e) In case the examination body provides the scribe, it shall
be ensured that qualification of the scribe should not be
more than the minimum qualification criteria of the
examination. However, the qualification of the scribe
should always be matriculate or above. In case the
candidate is allowed to bring his own scribe, the
qualification of the scribe should be one step below the
qualification of the candidate taking examination.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The Consortium denied the right to a scribe to candidates who do not have a benchmark disability, despite having genuine difficulty in writing. This is contrary to the decision in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors [(2021) 5 SCC 370], which held that the facility of a scribe should not be confined only to those with benchmark disabilities.
• The restrictions imposed by the Consortium on the qualifications of scribes were overly restrictive. Specifically, the Consortium prohibited scribes who were (a) above the 11th grade in educational attainment; or (b) affiliated to any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre. This is not in line with the MSJE guidelines of 29 August 2018, which specify that the scribe’s qualification should be one step below the candidate’s qualification.
• The Consortium has a positive obligation to provide scribes for those candidates who are unable to engage or find a scribe due to financial and other accessibility constraints.
• The guidelines were issued over three months after the initial advertisement notifying CLAT, causing uncertainty for PwD candidates.

Consortium’s Arguments:

• The restrictions on scribes were imposed to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the examination. Since the exam consists of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), it is necessary to ensure that the scribe does not provide independent answers based on their knowledge or experience.
• The Consortium is ready and willing to provide a scribe to any candidate who has difficulty in engaging one, ensuring that no candidate is prevented from appearing for the entrance test.
• The Consortium’s guidelines were formulated to prevent any unfair advantage to candidates.

The innovativeness in the argument of the petitioner was that the guidelines were issued three months after the advertisement, causing uncertainty for PwD candidates. The Consortium’s argument was that the restrictions were necessary to maintain the integrity of the examination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the Consortium was justified in denying scribes to candidates who did not have a benchmark disability but had difficulty in writing.
2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Consortium on the qualifications of scribes were reasonable and in line with the guidelines issued by the MSJE.
3. Whether the Consortium has a positive obligation to provide scribes to candidates who are unable to arrange one on their own.
4. Whether the guidelines for PwD candidates should be issued along with the advertisement for the CLAT exam.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

The Court disposed of the writ petition and miscellaneous application, upholding the Consortium’s restrictions on scribe qualifications while emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation for PwD candidates. The Court directed that guidelines for PwD candidates should be issued along with the advertisement for the CLAT exam in the future. The Court also noted that the Consortium had taken on the obligation to provide scribes to candidates who could not arrange their own.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance two competing interests: ensuring reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and maintaining the integrity of the examination process. The Court recognized that candidates with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation, including the provision of scribes, as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the judgment in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors [(2021) 5 SCC 370]. However, the Court also acknowledged the genuine concerns raised by the Consortium regarding the potential for malpractice if scribes were not subject to certain restrictions, especially given the MCQ format of the exam. The Court’s reasoning reflects a pragmatic approach, seeking to ensure that the rights of PwD candidates are protected without compromising the fairness and integrity of the CLAT exam.

Key Takeaways

• Scribes for CLAT can be restricted to those not above 11th standard and not affiliated with coaching centers.
• The Consortium is obligated to provide scribes to candidates who cannot arrange their own.
• Guidelines for PwD candidates should be issued along with the CLAT advertisement.
• The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of PwD candidates with the need to maintain the integrity of the examination process.

Directions

The Court directed that in the future, the guidelines applicable for facilities extended to PwD candidates should be notified sufficiently in advance, along with the advertisement for CLAT. The Consortium was also directed to ensure that its guidelines are consistent with the Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2022 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The court also directed that at least two days’ time should be provided to the candidate to interact with the scribe, where the Consortium provides the scribe.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while reasonable accommodation must be provided to persons with disabilities, restrictions can be imposed on scribes to maintain the integrity of examinations. This case clarifies the application of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 in the context of competitive examinations, balancing the rights of PwD candidates with the practical concerns of examination bodies. There was no change in the previous position of the law but rather a clarification of the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Arnab Roy vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr. upholds the restrictions imposed by the Consortium on the qualifications of scribes for the CLAT exam. While recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation, the Court also acknowledged the need to maintain the integrity of the examination process. The judgment provides clarity on the obligations of examination bodies towards PwD candidates and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Category

Parent Category: Disability Rights Law

Child Category: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

Child Category: Reasonable Accommodation

Child Category: Scribe Restrictions

Parent Category: Education Law

Child Category: Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)

Child Category: Examination Guidelines

Parent Category: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

Child Category: Section 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

Child Category: Section 2(r), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

FAQ

Q: Can a candidate with a disability get a scribe for the CLAT exam?
A: Yes, candidates with disabilities who have difficulty in writing can get a scribe for the CLAT exam. This includes candidates who do not have a benchmark disability.

Q: Can a candidate bring their own scribe?
A: Yes, candidates can bring their own scribe, but the scribe must meet certain criteria. The scribe should not be qualified above the 11th standard and should not be affiliated with any test-preparatory organization or examination coaching center.

Q: What if a candidate cannot find a scribe?
A: The Consortium is obligated to provide a scribe to candidates who cannot arrange their own. The Consortium will ensure that the scribe meets the necessary qualifications.

Q: When should the guidelines for PwD candidates be issued?
A: The guidelines for PwD candidates should be issued along with the advertisement for the CLAT exam, ensuring that candidates are aware of the facilities and accommodations available to them well in advance.

Q: Why are there restrictions on who can be a scribe?
A: The restrictions are in place to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the examination. Since the CLAT exam consists of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), it is necessary to ensure that the scribe does not provide independent answers based on their own knowledge or experience.