GULSHAN KUMAR [PETITIONER] Vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION & ORS. [RESPONDENTS]
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1018 OF 2022
(2JB, J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ., delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that there can be no discrimination between Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, and other accommodations for examinations. The ruling came in response to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a PwD candidate seeking equal treatment in examination accommodations.
The petitioner was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp) and assessed with a 25% permanent disability. He alleged that despite having a certified disability, he was denied accommodations such as a scribe and extra time, which were only provided to candidates with 40% or more disability (PwBD). The Supreme Court had previously, in an interim order in 2022, directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to grant the petitioner a scribe and compensatory time, following the precedent set in Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021).
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that all benefits granted to PwBD candidates must also be extended to PwD candidates. The court clarified that the only distinction permissible under the law is regarding reservations and not in the provision of examination facilities.
The bench observed that several examination bodies continued to deny such accommodations due to a lack of clear grievance redressal mechanisms. This failure, according to the court, led to significant inconvenience and injustice for many candidates, including the petitioner. The court emphasized that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), all persons with disabilities are entitled to “reasonable accommodation,” and the failure to implement this principle violates statutory rights.
The Supreme Court also criticized an existing Office Memorandum that failed to align with the principle of reasonable accommodation. It noted that the memorandum imposed unjustified restrictions, which needed to be addressed.
To ensure fair implementation of the RPwD Act and prevent future discrimination, the court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to Direct all recruitment agencies and examination bodies to follow the guidelines issued by the nodal agency and conduct periodic surveys for compliance; Conduct sensitization programs at educational institutions to educate authorities about the rights of PwD candidates; Set up a platform where candidates can report discrimination before approaching the court; Re-evaluate and re-notify existing guidelines to ensure compliance across different authorities; Increase the validity period of the scribe certificate beyond six months to reduce delays, especially in rural areas; Introduce incentive programs and provide training for scribes; Offer PwD candidates multiple modes of examination, such as Braille, large print, and audio recordings; Impose penalties on officials who fail to follow established guidelines; Conduct training programs for officials to improve their understanding of reasonable accommodation; Enforce previous Supreme Court rulings, including Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash, to uphold the principles of reasonable accommodation.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal protection of PwD candidates under the RPwD Act, ensuring they receive the same examination facilities as PwBD candidates. By directing the government to implement stronger guidelines and oversight mechanisms, the ruling aims to prevent future discrimination and ensure inclusivity in examination processes.
