RPwD Act, 2016: Supreme Court Allows All Disabled Candidates To Take Scribes In Examinations



Share on:

On February 03, 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) of India pronounced a judgment allowing all disabled candidates, either meeting benchmark disability criteria of 40% or not, to take scribes in examinations. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the SC constituting Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan. The SC ruled, “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 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Act, 2016. This Court also wishes to diminish the artificial distinction and bifurcation drawn between candidates with disabilities and those with benchmark disabilities (40% disabled or more) by extending various rights to candidates with disabilities that were earlier limited only to those with benchmark disabilities.” Furthermore, the bench added “...the examination bodies are stressed upon to implement accessibility measures, ensure that the examination centres are physically accessible and equipped to accommodate disabled candidates and ensure strict compliance of the RPwD Act, 2016 to prevent discrimination and provide equal opportunities for the persons with disabilities.”

In this case, the petitioner challenged the August 10, 2022, Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. The petitioner belongs to 'Teli' Caste which falls under the category of Other Backward Class in the State of Bihar. In 2017, soon after completing his degree, the petitioner was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a type of Writer's Cramp, classified as a chronic neurological condition. As per the RPwD Act, 2016, he was assessed with 25% permanent disability and was issued with a Unique Disability ID by the Primary Health Care Centre, Rajgir, Nalanda, Bihar. On July 12, 2021, after evaluation, the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore, issued a certificate in favor of the petitioner recognizing his need for a scribe in written examinations. According to the same, he appeared for his post-graduate final year examination with the assistance of a scribe. Thereafter, he applied for various examinations conducted by different recruitment bodies, however, he was not provided with any facilities available to PwD candidates. According to him, such facilities were restricted only to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the petitioner also highlighted the problems and inconveniences faced by him during the examination process. After hearing the matter, the top Court opined, “There have been instances where examination bodies refused to extend the benefits available 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.” Also, the petitioner demonstrated that “there are certain defects and lacunas in the guidelines issued…as well as in the implementation of this Court’s directions, resulting in different authorities following disparate procedures. This lack of uniformity causes confusion, discrimination, and undermines the efficiency and effectiveness of the examination process.” Considering this, the SC said, that there is an urgent need for a uniform memorandum for examinations applicable to all PwD candidates. After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court was of the considered view that the guidelines issued by the Respondent pursuant to the directions of the Court, have to be enforced, by extending the benefits for PwBD candidates to all PwD candidates in writing their examinations, without any hindrance. Accordingly, the SC directed the Respondent to revisit the Office Memorandum, remove the restrictions, and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner. 

The bench also highlighted certain aspects to be incorporated and ordered to re-notify the same afresh within 2 months. Some of the aspects include:

  • “direct all the authorities / recruitment agencies / examining bodies to uniformly follow the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5, which is the nodal agency and ensure strict adherence through periodic surveys / verification;
  • carry out periodic sensitization drive at educational institutions to raise awareness among the examination conducting bodies so as to ensure that the OMs are effectively implemented;
  • set up a grievance redressal portal to register complaints, which would permit the candidates to approach it first before approaching the court of law;...”

To read the full Judgment with a headnote, Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors., Click Here.