Summary
A disability rights lawyer petitioned under Article 32 against conditions imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities for the Common Law Admission Test 2022 which denied scribes to candidates without benchmark disabilities and restricted scribes' qualifications. On the Court's interim direction the Consortium extended scribe facilities to candidates with specified disabilities in line with Vikash Kumar. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed that guidelines for disabled candidates be notified with the examination advertisement and conform to the Ministry's Office Memorandum of 10 August 2022, upheld the scribe qualification restrictions as protecting the integrity of a multiple-choice test given the Consortium's undertaking to supply scribes, and required two days for candidates to interact with a Consortium-provided scribe.
Issues
- Whether the Consortium of National Law Universities may confine the facility of a scribe in the Common Law Admission Test to candidates with benchmark disabilities, and whether its restrictions on the qualifications of scribes are permissible under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as interpreted in Vikash Kumar.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(r) and 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Following Vikash Kumar, the facility of a scribe cannot be confined to persons with benchmark disabilities; candidates with specified disabilities below 40 per cent who have difficulty in writing, certified by a government medical authority, are entitled to reasonable accommodation including a scribe. (¶¶ 3, 7, 8, 10)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe petition was entertained because the Common Law Admission Test is a nationwide examination and the issues affected disabled candidates generally. (¶¶ 1, 7)
Held
- Guidelines governing facilities for candidates with disabilities must be notified sufficiently in advance and in any event together with the advertisement announcing the examination schedule, so that candidates are not left in uncertainty; the Consortium fairly conceded that its guidelines, issued three months after the advertisement, could have been notified earlier. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Consortium shall in future formulate its modalities consistently with the formulation placed before the Court and with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's Office Memorandum dated 10 August 2022, and shall provide a scribe to any disabled candidate unable to secure one. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Balancing reasonable accommodation against the genuine concern to maintain the integrity of a multiple-choice examination, the stipulation that a scribe be not qualified above the eleventh standard and not affiliated to any coaching centre is permissible, since the Consortium has undertaken to provide a conforming scribe where a candidate cannot find one; where it does so, at least two days must be allowed for the candidate to interact with the scribe. The guidelines are not frozen and may be modified in light of experience. (¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Writ petition and miscellaneous application disposed of with directions that guidelines for disabled candidates be notified along with the examination advertisement, that the Consortium's modalities conform to its formulation before the Court and the Ministry's Office Memorandum of 10 August 2022, that two days be given to interact with a Consortium-provided scribe, and upholding the restriction that scribes be not above the eleventh standard or affiliated to coaching centres; pending applications disposed of.