Summary
The Supreme Court held that a candidate with writer’s cramp was entitled to a scribe despite not having a benchmark disability. The reservation-related benchmark could not restrict the broader right of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation. Accommodation requires an individualized assessment, and speculative misuse cannot justify denying it to an entire class. The Court allowed the appeal and directed consultative guidelines for providing scribes to candidates whose disabilities create writing barriers.
Issues
- Whether access to a scribe could be confined to candidates with benchmark disabilities.
- How reasonable accommodation and safeguards should govern access to scribes for persons with other disabling writing limitations.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(r) and 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The distinct statutory definitions could not be conflated. The benchmark applicable to special statutory benefits did not delimit the general rights of persons with disabilities. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 41, 42)
- Sections 2(y) and 3, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Reasonable accommodation gives effect to substantive equality through necessary adjustments without disproportionate or undue burden. The duty extends to persons with disabilities beyond the benchmark category and requires individual consideration. (¶¶ 33, 35, 37, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 61, 76)
Held
- A benchmark disability is not a precondition to obtaining a scribe where a person’s disability creates a genuine barrier to writing. Importing the reservation threshold into that entitlement contradicts the statute. (¶¶ 28, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42)
- Reasonable accommodation is an enforceable equality obligation, rather than a concession. It requires dialogue and a case-specific response; a party asserting disproportionate or undue burden must establish it on objective grounds. (¶¶ 35, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 61, 76)
- The possibility of misuse, unsupported by empirical material, did not justify excluding the entire class. Examining bodies may prescribe appropriate safeguards and act against actual abuse. (¶¶ 62, 63, 65, 66)
- The appellant’s repeatedly confirmed chronic neurological condition warranted a scribe for the Civil Services Examination and other competitive selection conducted under governmental authority. Further repetitive assessment was unwarranted on this record. (¶¶ 60, 73, 74)
- The Ministry was directed to frame guidelines within three months of receiving the certified judgment, in consultation with persons with disabilities, their organisations and the public. Appropriate medical certification could safeguard genuine need; accommodation should be individualized and its cost not imposed on the person requiring it. (¶¶ 75, 76, 77, 78)
- V. Surendra Mohan, decided under the earlier disability legislation without a reasonable-accommodation analysis, was held not binding after enforcement of the 2016 Act. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
Result
Appeal allowed and the High Court judgment set aside; entitlement to a scribe declared and directions issued for consultative guidelines, without costs.