Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, a person with 25% permanent disability due to Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer's Cramp), filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent examination bodies to provide him with a scribe, compensatory time, and other facilities for various recruitment examinations. He had been issued a Unique Disability ID and a certificate from NIMHANS recognizing his need for a scribe. However, the application forms of the respondents only allowed such facilities for persons with benchmark disabilities (40% or more disability). The petitioner argued that this restriction was contrary to the Supreme Court's judgments in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, which held that benchmark disability is not a precondition for scribe facilities. The respondents, including the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), State Bank of India (SBI), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), and Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC), contended that the petitioner did not apply for the facility and that some of them were not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, while noting that the specific examinations had passed, considered the legal issue as one of public importance. The Court examined the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including definitions of 'person with disability' (Section 2(s)), 'person with benchmark disability' (Section 2(t)), 'reasonable accommodation' (Section 2(y)), and the duty to provide reasonable accommodation (Sections 3, 16, 17, 20). The Court held that the Act mandates reasonable accommodation for all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disabilities. Denying scribe facilities to non-benchmark disabled persons amounts to discrimination. The Court directed all examination conducting bodies to provide scribe and compensatory time to any person with disability who requires it, irrespective of benchmark disability status, and to incorporate such option in application forms. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - The Supreme Court entertained a PIL seeking scribe facilities for a person with disability, despite some respondents claiming non-amenability to writ jurisdiction, as the issue involved fundamental rights of persons with disabilities. (Paras 1, 6.1.1) B) Disability Law - Reasonable Accommodation - Sections 2(y), 2(s), 2(t), 3, 16, 17, 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Benchmark disability is not a precondition for providing scribe or compensatory time in examinations - The Court held that denying such facilities to persons with disabilities who are not benchmark disabled amounts to discrimination and violates the right to equality and reasonable accommodation. (Paras 8-12) C) Disability Law - Scribe Facility - Sections 2(s), 2(t), 3, 16, 17, 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Court directed all examination conducting bodies to provide scribe and compensatory time to any person with disability who requires it, irrespective of benchmark disability status, and to incorporate such option in application forms. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether persons with disabilities who do not have benchmark disability (40% or more) are entitled to the facility of a scribe and compensatory time in examinations conducted by recruitment bodies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with directions that all examination conducting bodies shall provide the facility of a scribe and compensatory time to any person with disability who requires it, irrespective of whether they have a benchmark disability, and shall incorporate such option in application forms for all future examinations.
Law Points
- Benchmark disability not a precondition for scribe facility
- Reasonable accommodation under RPwD Act
- 2016
- Discrimination on basis of disability prohibited
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 32
