Holding

The Court held that the benefits and accommodations granted to PwBD must be extended to all PwD candidates, and any restriction constitutes unlawful discrimination under the RPwD Act.

Summary

The petitioner, a 25% permanently disabled candidate with focal hand dystonia, sought a scribe, compensatory time and other accommodations for various recruitment examinations, arguing that the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 limited such facilities to only Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). The Court examined whether the distinction between PwBD and Persons with Disabilities (PwD) violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the principle of reasonable accommodation. Relying on earlier judgments in Vikas Kumar and Avni Prakash, the Court held that denying accommodations to PwD constitutes discrimination. It found the Office Memorandum defective for restricting benefits and failing to provide a grievance mechanism. The Court directed the nodal agency (Respondent No.5) to revise the memorandum, extend all benefits to PwD, and implement uniform guidelines, sensitisation drives, and a redressal portal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for compliance.

Issues considered

Whether the exclusion of Persons with Disabilities (PwD) from scribe and compensatory time facilities, limiting them to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 complies with the principle of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act.
Whether the examination bodies, including private entities like IBPS, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 for enforcement of disability rights.
Whether a uniform grievance redressal mechanism is required for PwD candidates seeking examination accommodations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 2(m), s. 2(r), s. 2(s), s. 2(y)

Subjects

Persons with Benchmark DisabilitiesPersons with DisabilitiesReasonable accommodationScribe facilityCompensatory timeRights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016EqualityNon-discriminationExamination guidelinesGrievance redressalArticle 32Public Interest Litigation

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 313 : 2025 INSC 142

Gulshan Kumar
v.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2022 )
03 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to extending the benefits for Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities-PwBD candidates to all persons with disabilities-PwD
candidates in writing their examinations.

Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Rights of
persons with disabilities – Persons with disabilities-PwD and
Persons with Benchmark Disabilities-PwBD – Discrimination –
Petitioner, diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, type of
Writer’s Cramp, classified as chronic neurological condition,
and assessed with 25% permanent disability – He applied
for various examinations conducted by different recruitment
bodies, however, not provided with any facilities available to
PwD, such facilities restricted only to the PwBD – Writ petition
by the petitioner seeking directions to respondents to provide
the petitioner with the facility of a scribe, compensatory time
and all other facilities, considering his disability status for
examinations – Clarification by the court that respondent
No.2-State Bank of India not to insist on the requirement of
a benchmark disability for the facility of a scribe – Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner provided with a scribe and compensatory
time during the examinations – Case of the petitioner that
though the Office Memorandum dt 10.08.2022 came to be
issued by Union of India in accordance with the directions of
this Court in Vikas Kumar’s case, it failed to incorporate the
essence of reasonable accommodation, the true meaning and
purpose of the Act, all benefits relating to PwBD candidates,
not extended to PwD candidates, only selective facilities were
extended, as such contains defects:
Held: Principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensure
equality for all the persons with disabilities; and denying the
* Author
314 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

facility of scribe or compensatory time, constitutes discrimination
under the Act – Artificial distinction and bifurcation drawn between
PwD and PwBD disabilities (40% disabled or more) is sought
to be diminished by extending various rights to candidates with
disabilities that were earlier limited only to those with benchmark
disabilities – Examination bodies are stressed upon to implement
accessibility measures, to prevent discrimination and provide
equal opportunities for the persons with disabilities – Rights of
disabled persons are less instructive and more general and that,
right to education, right to equality, and right against discrimination
accorded to them will only be truly realized, when State structures
form policies, laws, and rules to provide equal access and
reasonable accommodation to such persons – All the benefits given
to PwBD candidates must also be extended to PwD candidates,
and there can be no discrimination between the candidates in
granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time except for
reservation, in writing the examinations – Certain defects and
lacunas in the guidelines issued by respondent No. 5, as well as in
the implementation of this Court’s directions, resulting in different
authorities following disparate procedures – Thus, urgent need
for uniform memorandum for examinations applicable to all PwD
candidates, and responsibility of respondent no. 5 to ensure its
proper and just compliance – Guidelines issued by respondent
no.5 pursuant to the directions of this Court, to be enforced, by
extending the benefits for PwBD candidates to all PwD candidates
in writing their examinations – Direction to respondent no.5 to
revisit the guidelines, remove the restrictions and grant relaxations
in a reasonable manner and re-notify the same – Constitution of
India – Art.32. [Paras 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Persons with
disabilities – Guidelines by the nodal agency-Government
of India pursuant to the directions of this Court in Vikas
Kumar’s case – Enforcement – Benefits extended for PwBD
candidates to be extended to all PwD candidates in writing
their examinations – Directions to Government of India to
revisit the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, remove the
restrictions, grant relaxations in a reasonable manner and
re-notify the same:
Held: Directions to all authorities to uniformly follow guidelines
issued and ensure strict adherence – Periodic sensitization drive to
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 315

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

be carried out at educational institutions – Setting-up of grievance
redressal portal – Re-notification of the existing guidelines –
Extension of validity of scribe certificate – Setting up of incentive
programs for scribes – Allowing candidates time prior to examination
to familiarise with the scribe – Offer choice of examination modes
to PwD candidates – Penal action against authorities on failing to
follow the guidelines – Sensitisation of the authorities, to address
the reasonable accommodation needs of PwDs – Ensure strict
compliance with the Vikash Kumar’s case and Avni Prakash’s case
as well as the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, with a special
focus on ‘reasonable accommodation’. [Para 19]

Case Law Cited
Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others
[2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370 – relied on.
Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Others [2021] 11
SCR 891 : (2021) SCC Online SC 1112; Arnab Roy v. Consortium
of National Law Universities and Another [2023] 14 SCR 464 :
(2024) 5 SCC 793; Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 : [2023] 8 SCR
581 – referred to.
Moore v. British Columbia (Education) [2012] 3 SCR; Mental
Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No.
41/2007 dated 03.06.2008; International Association Autism
Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002; G.L. v. ITALY,
Application No. 59751/15 dated 10.12.2020; T.H. v. Bulgaria,
Application no. 46519/20 dated 11.07.2023; XXXX v. HR Rail
SA Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) dated 10.02.2022 in
Case C‐485/20 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

List of Keywords
Persons with Benchmark Disabilities-PwBD candidates; Persons
with disabilities-PwD candidates; Rights of persons with
disabilities; Focal Hand Dystonia, type of Writer’s Cramp; Chronic
neurological condition; 25% permanent disability; Facility of scribe;
316 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Compensatory time; Disability status for examinations; Benchmark
disability; Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 issued by Union
of India; Reasonable accommodation; Conditions/benefits relating
to PwBD candidates, not extended to PwD candidates; Principle of
reasonable accommodation; Periodic sensitization drive; Grievance
redressal portal for persons with disabilities; Re-notification of
existing guidelines; Extension of validity of scribe certificate; Setting
up of incentive programs for scribes; Compliance with Vikash
Kumar’s case and Avni Prakash’s case; Right to education; Right
to equality; Right against discrimination; Choice of examination
modes.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1018 of 2022
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Appearances for Parties
Rushabh Vidyarthi, Prannv Dhawan, Ms. Meenakshi Pahuja,
Vikas Jain, Aviral Saxena, Ms. Shrawani, Hardik Jayal, Advs. for
the Petitioner.
Vaibhav Dang, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Sanjay Kapur, Shreekant
Neelappa Terdal, Sharath Nambiar, Vatsal Joshi, Akshit Pradhan,
Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Gaurang Bhushan, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation invoking
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a
writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide the
petitioner with the facility of a scribe, compensatory time and all other
facilities, to which he may be entitled, under the law, considering his
disability status for the upcoming examinations, the details of which
are tabulated below:
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 317

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

Examinations Conducting Bodies Date(s)
Common Recruitment First Respondent 26/11/2022 or
Process of Recruitment any other date
of Probationary officers/
Management trainees
State Bank of India Second Respondent 12/11/2022 or
(Junior Associate & any other date
Sales)
State Bank of India Second Respondent 17/12/2022 to
Probationary officer (PO) 20/12/2022 or
any other date
Staff Selection Third Respondent 1/12/2022 to
Commission’s Combined 13/12/2022 or
Graduate Level (CGL) any other date
Bihar Staff Selection Fourth Respondent 26/11/2022 or
Commission’s Combined any other date
Graduate Level

The petitioner has also sought a direction to the Respondent No.5
to initiate suitable action against the examining bodies that have
failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5 /
Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)
vide Office Memorandum in F.No.29-6/2019-DD-III dated 10.08.2022.
2. Vide order dated 15.12.2022,1 this court clarified that the Respondent
No.2 shall not insist on the requirement of a benchmark disability
within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
20162 for the facility of a scribe, having due regard to the judgment

1 “1. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India (the second respondent)
states that a communication has been addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner requiring
the petitioner to produce necessary documents so as to allow him the facility of a scribe for the selection
test.
2. We clarify that the second respondent shall not insist on the requirement of a bench mark disability
within the meaning of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 for the facility of a scribe having
due regard to the judgment of this Court in Vikas Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission and Others
[(2021) 5 SCC 370].
3 Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, who shall take instructions insofar as the
fourth respondent is concerned.
4 List the Petition on 30 January 2023.
2 For short, “the RPwD Act, 2016”
318 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of this Court in Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission
and Others.3
2.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was provided
with a scribe and compensatory time during the examinations
conducted by the Respondent No.2 / State Bank of India, on
12.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 respectively, for the posts of Clerk
and Probationary Officer.
3. Though at the first blush, the reliefs sought in this writ petition
may appear to have become infructuous due to the efflux of time,
considering the nature of the issue involved herein, we deem it fit and
appropriate to delve into the same and arrive at a possible solution,
so as to streamline the legal position which has been settled to an
extent, and to ameliorate the plight of the persons with disabilities.4
The pleadings raised by the parties are restricted to this specific scope.

BRIEF FACTS
4. It is stated by the petitioner herein that he 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. Under 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 12.07.2021, after evaluation,
the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre
(NIMHANS), Bangalore, issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner
recognising his need for a scribe in written examinations. Pursuant 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.5 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is
before us.

3 (2021) 5 SCC 370
4 For short, “the PwD”
5 For short, the “PwBD”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 319

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

CONTENTIONS
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
a PwD as defined under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016. In the
application forms issued by the respondents for recruitment, there
was no clause for PwD candidates to seek the facilities of scribe,
compensatory time, etc. Such clause was made available only for PwBD
candidates. As a result, the petitioner was unable to apply for these
facilities and consequently, could not write the examination effectively.
5.1. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents
have acted in derogation to the principles enshrined by this Court
in Vikash Kumar (supra), wherein, it was held that it would be
discriminatory to restrict the facilities of a scribe for only PwBD
candidates. That apart, in Avni Prakash v. National Testing
Agency (NTA) & Others,6 this Court has emphatically clarified
that Benchmark Disability is not a precondition to obtain a scribe
or compensatory time in examinations. Despite the same, the
respondents continue to remain oblivious to the actual legal
position and ignorant towards their obligations. Therefore, the
petitioner has come to this court with the present writ petition
for the above stated relief.
6. Denying the averments made by the petitioner, the Respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed separate replies in the form of counter affidavits,
which were reiterated by their respective learned counsel, during
the course of arguments before us. The learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.3 also made his submissions. The sum and
substance of the contentions raised on the side of the respondents
are as follows:
6.1.1. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 / Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection, Mumbai, is not a ‘State’ as defined under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, instead, a Public
Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and
also a Society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. According to the Respondent No.1, it is not a
statutory body established under any specific statute, but
an autonomous body, that provides services to participating

6 2021 SCC Online SC 1112
320 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

banks and other organizations in conducting tests to fill up
the actual reported vacancies. The activity of the Respondent
No.1 in conducting the examination / selection is voluntary in
nature and no public function is discharged by them. Further,
it does not receive any financial aid from the Government
or its entity and is not controlled in any manner either by
the Government of India or its Departments. Moreover, in
the judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No.4455 of 2019 in Rajbir Surajbhan Singh vs. The
Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai,
it was specifically held that the Respondent No.1 is not
amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ petition is not
maintainable against the Respondent No.1 and the same is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6.1.2. However, it is submitted that the Respondent No.1 has been
acting in accordance with the judgments of this Court in Vikas
Kumar (supra) and Avni Praksh (supra) as well as the Office
Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 issued by the Respondent
No.5 and the option to seek a scribe and compensatory time
for the candidates mentioned in the said Office Memorandum
will be duly incorporated into the application forms for all
future examinations conducted by them.
6.1.3. Additionally, it is submitted that the Respondent No.1 is
merely a Service Provider to Respondent No.2 (SBI) and
conducts online examination as per its mandate. It extends
the facility of IBPS-Candidate Grievance Lodging and
Redressal Mechanism to the aggrieved candidates. Thus,
according to the Respondent No.1, it has neither violated
the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14,19
(I) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India nor has it remained
ignorant towards its obligation.
6.2. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 is a statutory body
incorporated and constituted under the State Bank of India Act,
1955. While submitting the application forms, the petitioner
did not opt/ apply for the facility of a scribe. However, in
accordance with the order of this court dated 15.12.2022,
the Respondent No.2 permitted the petitioner to appear for
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 321

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

the examination, and the petitioner subsequently, wrote the
examination with the assistance of a scribe and applicable
compensatory time. Thus, according to the Respondent No.2,
they have complied with the directions issued by this Court
as well as the guidelines framed in the Official Memorandum
dated 10.08.2022.
6.3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.4 / Bihar Staff Selection
Commission is governed by section 8 of the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission Act, 2002, which requires it to formulate
procedure for selection for different services/posts with prior
approval from the State Government. The State Government
of Bihar vide Letter No. 3433 dated 09.10.2007 approved the
procedure for selection for different services / posts, which
included providing facilities of a scribe and extra time to blind
or low vision candidates. Subsequently, vide Letter No. 9529
dated 01.07.2015 the State Government extended the said
facilities to candidates who are unable to write due to the
permanent absence of hand/hands or those suffering from
cerebral palsy. Finally, in view of the Office Memorandum
dated 29.08.2018 issued by the Respondent No.5, the State
Government issued Letter No. 11 / AA.-Nyay-30 /2021 Sa/Pra.
10668 dated 29.06.2022 extending the benefits of providing
facilities of a scribe and extra time to all the candidates with
‘Benchmark Disabilities’. It is further submitted that as per
clause 7(vi) of the advertisement published on 14.04.2022,
the Respondent No.4 provided the benefits of scribe to PwBD
i.e., Blind or low vision candidates, whose disability was 40%
or more and who opted for such facilities. It is also submitted
that the petitioner did not approach the Respondent No. 4 with
a request to provide a scribe, and hence, he is not entitled
to claim any relief in this writ petition.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available
on record.

LEGAL POSITION
8. Before proceeding further, we may take note of the legal framework
and judicial precedents rendered by this Court as well as by other
322 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

countries, connected to the issue involved herein. The RPwD Act,
2016 emphasizes the rights of disabled persons to participate
in examinations with necessary accommodations. The relevant
provisions read as under:

Section 2(m)
“Inclusive education” means a system of education wherein
students with and without disability learn together and
the system of teaching and learning is suitably adapted
to meet the learning needs of different types of students
with disabilities.

Section 2(y)
“Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and
appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing
a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case,
to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or
exercise of rights equally with others.

Section 2(h)
“discrimination” in relation to disability, means any
distinction, exclusion, restriction on the basis of disability
which is the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with
others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other
field and includes all forms of discrimination and denial
of reasonable accommodation.

Section 2(s)
“Person with disability” means a person with long term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which,
in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective
participation in society equally with others.

Section 2(r)
“Person with benchmark disability” means a person with
not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 323

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

specified disability has not been defined in measurable
terms and includes a person with disability where specified
disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified
by the certifying authority.

Section 16
Duty of educational institutions. — The appropriate
Government and the local authorities shall endeavour that
all educational institutions funded or recognised by them
provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities
and towards that end shall—
(i)…
(ii)…
(iii) provide reasonable accommodation according to the
individual’s requirements;
(iv) ….. (viii)

Section 17
Specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive
education. — The appropriate Government and the local
authorities shall take the following measures for the
purpose of section 16, namely: —
(a) .... (h)
(i) to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and
examination system to meet the needs of students with
disabilities such as extra time for completion of examination
paper, facility of scribe or amanuensis, exemption from
second and third language courses;
(j)….(k)…

Section 18
Adult education. — The appropriate Government and the
local authorities shall take measures to promote, protect
and ensure participation of persons with disabilities in
adult education and continuing education programmers
equally with others.
324 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Indian decisions
9. This Court has reinforced the rights of PwD through several landmark
judgments, a few of which and the relevant observations therein are
extracted below, for better appreciation:

(i) Vikash Kumar (supra):
“52. The principle of reasonable accommodation has
found a more expansive manifestation in the 2016
RPwD Act. Section 3 of the 2016 RPwD Act goes
beyond a formal guarantee of non-discrimination
by casting affirmative duties and obligations on
the Government to protect the rights recognized in
Section 3 by taking steps to utilize the capacity of
persons with disabilities “by providing appropriate
environment”. Among the obligations which are cast
on the Government is the duty to take necessary
steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities. The concept of reasonable
accommodation in Section 2(y) incorporates making
“necessary and appropriate modification and
adjustments” so long as they do not impose a
disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case
to ensure to persons with disability the enjoyment
or exercise of rights equally with others. Equality,
non- discrimination and dignity are the essence of
the protective ambit of the 2016 RPwD Act.
56. Section 17(i) requires suitable modifications in
the curriculum and examination system to meet
the needs of students with disabilities such as: (i)
extra time for completion of examination (ii) the
facility of scribe or amanuensis (iii) exemption from
second and third language courses. The guarantee
under Section 17(i) is not confined to persons with
benchmark disabilities but extends to students with
disabilities. It is thus evident that the legislature
has made a clear distinction between disability and
benchmark disability. Section 20 provides a mandate
of non-discrimination in employment. Under Section
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 325

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

21, every establishment is under a mandate to notify
equal opportunity policies setting out the measures
which will be adopted in pursuance of the provisions
of Chapter IV. Chapter V provides guarantees for
social security, health, rehabilitation and recreation
to persons with disabilities.
57. When the Government in recognition of its
affirmative duties and obligations under the 2016
RPwD Act makes provisions for facilitating a scribe
during the course of the Civil Services Examination,
it cannot be construed to confer a largesse. Nor
does it by allowing a scribe confer a privilege on a
candidate. The provision for the facility of a scribe
is in pursuance of the statutory mandate to ensure
that persons with disabilities are able to live a life
of equality and dignity based on respect in society
for their bodily and mental integrity. There is a
fundamental fallacy on the part of the UPSE/DoPT
in proceeding on the basis that the facility of a
scribe shall be made available only to persons with
benchmark disabilities. This is occasioned by the
failure of the MSJE to clarify their guidelines. The
whole concept of a benchmark disability within the
meaning of Section 2(r) is primarily in the context
of special provisions including reservation that
are embodied in Chapter VI of the 2016 RPwD
Act. Conceivably, Parliament while mandating the
reservation of posts in government establishments
and of seats in institutions of higher learning was of
the view that this entitlement should be recognized
for persons with benchmark disabilities.
63. In the specific context of disability, the principle
of reasonable accommodation postulates that the
conditions which exclude the disabled from full and
effective participation as equal members of society
have to give way to an accommodative society which
accepts difference, respects their needs and facilitates
the creation of an environment in which the societal
barriers to disability are progressively answered.
326 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Accommodation implies a positive obligation to create
conditions conducive to the growth and fulfilment of the
disabled in every aspect of their existence — whether
as students, members of the workplace, participants
in governance or, on a personal plane, in realising the
fulfilling privacies of family life. The accommodation
which the law mandates is “reasonable” because
it has to be tailored to the requirements of each
condition of disability. The expectations which every
disabled person has are unique to the nature of the
disability and the character of the impediments which
are encountered as its consequence.
92. Before concluding, we also intend to issue a
broader direction to the Union Government in the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to
ensure the framing of proper guidelines which would
regulate and facilitate the grant of a facility of a
scribe to persons with disability within the meaning
of Section 2(s) where the nature of the disability
operates to impose a barrier to the candidate writing
an examination. In formulating the procedures, the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment may lay
down appropriate norms to ensure that the condition
of the candidate is duly certified by such competent
medical authority as may be prescribed so as to
ensure that only genuine candidates in need of the
facility are able to avail of it.

(ii) Avni Prakash (supra):

“Right to inclusive education
40. Education plays a key role in social and economic
inclusion and effective participation in society.
Inclusive education is indispensable for ensuring
universal and non-discriminatory access to education.
The Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
recognises that inclusive education systems must be
put in place for a meaningful realisation of the right
to education for PwD. Thus, a right to education is
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 327

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

essentially a right to inclusive education. In India, the
RPwD Act, 2016 provides statutory backing to the
principle of inclusive education. Section 2(m) defines
“inclusive education” as:
“2. (m) “inclusive education” means a system of
educationwherein students with and without disability
learn together and the system of teaching and learning
is suitably adapted to meet the learning needs of
different types of students with disabilities;”
41. The RPwD Act, 2016 contains salutary provisions
on the rights of PwD to inclusive education in
Chapter III. Section 17, which forms a part of
Chapter III, entails specific measures to promote
and facilitate inclusive education for students with
disabilities. Among other inclusive measures in
Section 17, is sub-section (i) which prescribes a duty
to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and
examination system to meet the needs of students
with disabilities. This duty can be fulfilled by providing
extra time for the completion of examination papers
and/or the facility of a scribe. The provision of inclusive
education is not limited to children with disabilities
but extends to adults with disabilities. Section 18
provides that the Government and local authorities
are duty-bound to take measures to promote, protect
and ensure participation of PwD in adult education and
continuing education programmes on an equal footing
with others. Chapter VI prescribes special provisions
for persons with benchmark disabilities, including
reservations in higher educational institutions of not
less than 5% seats under Section 32.
42. The provisions for reservation in Chapter VI
specifically for PwBD are distinct from the provisions
in Chapter III for PwD. PwD encompasses a wider
group of which PwBD is a sub-set. This distinction
extends to efforts under Section 17 to promote
inclusive education.
328 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Above all, the RPwD Act, 2016 contains provisions
mandating reasonable accommodation. The
expression “reasonable accommodation” is defined
in Section 2(y), which reads as under:
“2. (y) “reasonable accommodation” means
necessary and appropriate modification and
adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate
or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to
persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise
of rights equally with others;”
The right to inclusive education is realised through
the provision of reasonable accommodation. In Vikash
Kumar [Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370
: (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] , this Court emphasised
that reasonable accommodation is at the heart
of the principle of equality and non-discrimination
espoused under the RPwD Act, 2016. The denial
of reasonable accommodation to a PwD amounts
to discrimination. It is the positive obligation of the
State to create the necessary conditions to facilitate
the equal participation of disabled persons in society.
This Court observed thus : (SCC p. 399, para 44)
“44. The principle of reasonable accommodation
captures the positive obligation of the State and
private parties to provide additional support to persons
with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective
participation in society. The concept of reasonable
accommodation is developed in Section (H) below.
For the present, suffice it to say that, for a person with
disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental
rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to
life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not
given this additional support that helps make these
rights real and meaningful for them. Reasonable
accommodation is the instrumentality—are an
obligation as a society—to enable the disabled to
enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality and
non- discrimination.”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 329

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

(iii) Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities and
Another7
“24. In a situation such as the present, the Court
must have due regard, undoubtedly to the need
for reasonable accommodation consistent with the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, as interpreted in the decision in Vikash Kumar.
Equally, it would not be appropriate to ignore the
genuine concerns which have been set up on behalf
of the Consortium bearing on the need to maintain
the integrity of the entrance test.
25. It is from this perspective that the Consortium has,
in its Guidelines required that the candidate should not
be above the 11th standard and in addition should not
be affiliated with any test-preparatory or examination
coaching centre. At the highest, a candidate could
have a grievance if no such scribe meeting the said
description is available. But as already noted above,
the Consortium has taken upon itself the obligation
to provide a scribe who meets with the stipulations
which are contained in the Guidelines.
26. In other words, candidates appearing for the CLAT
can either bring their own scribe or if it not possible
to do so, request the Consortium to provide a scribe
who is then made available to the candidate. During
the course of the hearing, it has been agreed that
where the Consortium provides a scribe, at least two
days’ time should be provided so as to enable the
candidate to interact with the scribe. We are of the
view that this is fair and proper. …”
10. Thus, it can be easily deduced from the above decisions that 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 Act,
2016. This Court also wishes to diminish the artificial distinction and

7 (2024) 5 SCC 793
330 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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. Further, 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.

Foreign decisions
11. The rights of the PwD have been recognized by the courts functioning
in other countries. In this regard, a few of the decisions rendered
by the foreign courts and the relevant paragraphs can be referred
to as under:

(i) MOORE v. BRITISH COLUMBIA (EDUCATION)8
“28.....It is accepted that students with disabilities
require accommodation of their differences in order
to benefit from educational services.
39. Notably, however, the 1985 Manual said that
“special education shares the basic purpose of all
education: the optimal development of individuals
as skillful, free, and purposeful persons, able to
plan and manage life and to realize highest potential
as individuals and as members of society” (s. 3.1
(emphasis added)). It added that “[a]ll children should
be afforded opportunities to develop their full potential”
62. Meiorin and Grismer also directed that practices
that are neutral on their face but have an unjustifiable
adverse impact based on prohibited grounds will
be subject to a requirement to “accommodate
the characteristics of affected groups within their
standards, rather than maintaining discriminatory
standards supplemented by accommodation for those
who cannot meet them” (Grismer, at para. 19).

8 [2012] 3 SCR
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 331

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

(ii) Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria 9
[European Committee of Social Rights]
“37. The Committee considers that all education
provided by states must fulfil the criteria of availability,
accessibility, acceptability and adaptability. It notes
in this respect General Comment No. 13 of the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights of the United Nations International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the
right to education. In the present case, the criteria
of accessibility and adaptability are at stake, i.e.
educational institutions and curricula have to be
accessible to everyone, without discrimination and
teaching has to be designed to respond to children
with special speeds.”

(iii) International Association Autism Europe v. France10 [European
Committee of Social Rights]
“48. As emphasised in the General Introduction
to its Conclusions of 2003 (p. 10), the Committee
views Article 15 of the Revised Charter as both
reflecting and advancing a profound shift of values
in all European countries over the past decade away
from treating them as objects of pity and towards
respecting them as equal citizens – an approach
that the Council of Europe contributed to promote,
with the adoption by the Committee of Ministers of
Recommendation (92) 6 of 1992 on a coherent policy
for people with disabilities. The underlying vision of
Article 15 is one of equal citizenship for persons with
disabilities and, fittingly, the primary rights are those
of “independence, social integration and participation
in the life of the community”. Securing a right to
education for children and others with disabilities
plays an obviously important role in advancing these
citizenship rights. This explains why education is now

9 Decision in Complaint No. 41/2007 dated 03.06.2008
10 Complaint No. 13/2002
332 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

specifically mentioned in the revised Article 15 and
why such an emphasis is placed on achieving that
education “in the framework of general schemes,
wherever possible”. It should be noted that Article 15
applies to all persons with disabilities regardless of
the nature and origin of their disability and irrespective
of their age.
49. Article 17 is predicated on the need to ensure
that children and young persons grow up in an
environment which encourages the “full development
of their personality and of their physical and mental
capacities”. This approach is just as important for
children with disabilities as it is for others and arguably
more in circumstances where the effects of ineffective
or untimely intervention are ever likely to be undone.
The Committee views Article 17, which deals more
generally, inter alia, with the right to education for
all, as also embodying the modern approach of
mainstreaming. Article 17(1), in particular, requires
the establishment and maintenance of sufficient and
adequate institutions and services for the purpose
of education. Since Article 17(1) deals only with
children and young persons it is important to read it
in conjunction with Article 15(1) as far as adults are
concerned.”

(iv) G.L. v. ITALY11 [European Court of Human Rights]
“52. As regards the prohibition set forth in Article 14 of
the Convention, the Court reiterates that discrimination
means treating differently, without an objective and
reasonable justification, persons in similar situations,
and that “no objective and reasonable justification”
means that the distinction in issue does not pursue
a “legitimate aim” or that there is not a “reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the means
employed and the aim sought to be realised”.

11 Judgment in Application no. 59751/15 dated 10.12.2020
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 333

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

53. When examining a case under Article 14 of
the Convention, the Court must have regard to
developments in international and European law and
respond, for example, to any emerging consensus
as to the standards to be achieved. To that effect,
the Court notes the importance of the fundamental
principles of universality and non-discrimination in
the exercise of the right to education, which are
enshrined in many international. It further emphasises
that those instruments have recognised inclusive
education, aimed at promoting equal opportunities
for all, particularly for persons with disabilities.
Inclusive education therefore forms part of the States’
international responsibility in this sphere.”

(v) T.H. v. BULGARIA12 [European Court of Human Rights]
“109. In that context the Court considers it sufficient
to emphasise that:
(a) Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination
on grounds of disability, which falls under the rubric
“other status”;
(b) Such discrimination can consist not only in less
favourable treatment on grounds of a disability without
a reasonable and objective justification but also in
a failure to provide “reasonable accommodation” for
someone with a disability;
(c) The notion of “reasonable accommodation”
in this context must be understood in the sense
ascribed to it by Article 2 of the 2006 United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2515 UNTS 3) 1, in whose light Article 14 of the
Convention must be read when being applied in this
domain: “necessary and appropriate modification
and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or
undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to

12 Judgment in Application no. 46519/20 dated 11.07.2023
334 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or
exercise on an equal basis with others of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms;
(d) “Reasonable accommodation” in the field of
education can take different material or non-material
forms – for instance, teacher training, curricular
adaptation or appropriate facilities, depending in
particular on the disability in question – and it is not
for the Court to define its modalities in a given case,
the national authorities being much better placed
to do so, it being emphasised however that those
authorities must take great care with the choices that
they make in this respect.”

(vi) XXXX v HR Rail SA13
“38. In that regard, it should be recalled that Directive
2000/78 must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a
manner that is consistent with the UN Convention.
Article 2, third indent of the UN Convention provides
that discrimination on the grounds of disability
includes all forms of discrimination, including denial
of reasonable accommodation.”
12. Thus, it is clear from the above that the rights of disabled persons
are less instructive and more general and that, right to education,
right to equality, and right against discrimination accorded to them
will only be truly realized, when State structures form policies, laws,
and rules to provide equal access and reasonable accommodation
to such persons.

DISCUSSION
13. The law is settled that all the benefits given to PwBD candidates
must also be extended to PwD candidates, and there can be no
discrimination between the candidates in granting facilities such as
scribes, compensatory time, etc., except for reservation, in writing

13 Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) dated 10.02.2022 in Case C‐485/20
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 335

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

the examinations. Earlier, the office memorandum dated 29.08.201814
came to be issued, dealing with the entitlements and benefits for
PwBD candidates for all examinations irrespective of its nature and
irrespective of the authority conducting the examination.
14. Notably, the Respondent No.5 issued Office Memorandum dated
10.08.2022, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court
in Vikash Kumar (Supra). In the said Office Memorandum, based
on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, certain guidelines
were issued for conducting written examination for persons with
specified disabilities covered under the definition of Section 2(s)
of the RPwD Act, 2016, but not covered under the definition of
Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e. persons having less than 40%
disability and having difficulty in writing. For better appreciation,
the relevant paragraphs of the said Office Memorandum read as
under:
“2. Keeping in view the above order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, an Expert Committee was constituted to
consider the issue and suggest guidelines accordingly. The
Committee noted that there are various types of clinical
problems that can affect the writing capacity. After careful
consideration of the matter, the Committee recommended
that sole criteria for grant of scribe and compensatory
time should be based on assessment of the capability of
a person to write.
3. The Committee accordingly recommended the following
guidelines for conducting written examination for persons
with specified disabilities covered under the definition of
Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016 but not covered under
the definition of Section 2(r) of the said Act, i.e. persons
having less than 40% disability and having difficulty in
writing.
(a)………
(b) The facility of scribe and/or compensatory time shall be
granted solely to those having difficulty in writing subject
to production of a certificate to the effect that person

14 For short, “the 2018 OM”
336 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

concerned has limitation to write and that scribe is essential
to write examination on his/her behalf from the competent
medical authority of a Government healthcare institution
as per proforma at Appendix-1.
(c) The medical authority for the purpose of certification as
mentioned in point (b) above should be a multi-member
authority comprising the following:-
i. Chief Medical officer/Civil Surgeon/Chief District Medical
Officer..... Chairperson
ii. Orthopaedic/PMR specialist
iii. Neurologist, if available*
iv. Clinical Psychologist/Rehabilitation Psychologist/
Psychiatrist/Special Educator
v. Occupational therapist, if available*
vi. Any other expert based on the condition of the candidate
as may be nominated by the Chairperson.
(* the Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Chief District
Medical Officer may make full efforts for inclusion of
neurologists, occupational therapist from the nearest
District or the Medical College/Institute, if the same is not
available in the District)”
(d) The candidate should have the discretion of opting for
his own scribe or request the Examination Body for the
same. The examination body may also identify the scribe
to make panels at the District/Division/State level as per
the requirements of the examination. In later instances
the candidates should be allowed to meet the scribe
two days before the examination so that the candidates
get a chance to check and verify whether the scribe is
suitable or not.
(e) In case the examination body provides the scribe, it
shall be ensured that qualification of the scribe should
not be more than the minimum qualification criteria of
the examination. However, the qualification of the scribe
should always be matriculate or above.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 337

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

In case the candidate is allowed to bring his own scribe,
the qualification of the scribe should be one step below
the qualification of the candidate taking examination. The
person opting for own scribe should submit details of the
own scribe as per proforma at Appendix-II.

(f) There should also be flexibility in accommodating any
change in scribe in case of emergency. The candidates
should also be allowed to take different scribe for writing
different papers especially for languages. However, there
can be only one scribe per subject.’

(g) The candidate should be allowed to use aids and
assistive devices such as prosthetics & orthotics, hearing
aid as mentioned in para 2 of the certificate issued by
medical authority as per Appendix I.

(h) Compensatory time not less than 20 minutes per hour
of the examination should be allowed for persons who
are eligible for getting scribe. In case the duration of the
examination is less than an hour, then the duration of the
compensatory time should be allowed on pro-rata basis.
Compensatory time should not be less than 5 minutes
and should be in the multiple of 5.

(i) The examination bodies shall modify their application
forms to incorporate specific needs of this category of
persons. In case, any incident has been reported after
filling up the form, the examination bodies shall inform
the candidates to obtain medical certificate as per
these guidelines for facilitating grant of scribe and/or
compensatory time.

(j) As far as possible the examination for such persons may
be held at ground floor. The examination centres should
be accessible for persons with disabilities.

(k) These guidelines are applicable to written examinations
conducted by central recruitment agencies as well
as academic institutions. The States/UTs may adopt
these guidelines or issue similar guidelines to maintain
uniformity.
338 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(l) These guidelines are independent of the Guidelines for
conducting written examination for persons with benchmark
disabilities issued by the Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities on 29.08.2018.
(m) The examining bodies shall ensure strict vigilance to
check misuse of facility of scribe.
4. All the recruitment agencies, Academics/Examination
Bodies etc. under the administrative control of each
Ministry/Department may be advised appropriately to
ensure compliance of implementing these guidelines.
5. The above guidelines are issued with the approval of
Hon’ble Minister (Social Justice & Empowerment).
14.1. The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 was
forwarded by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services, vide communication No.FZ-
3/3/2022-SCT dated 10.11.2022 to all recruitment agencies /
examination bodies, for strict compliance.
15. It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that though the aforesaid
Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 came to be issued by the
Respondent No.5 in accordance with the directions of this Court, it
fails to incorporate the essence of reasonable accommodation and
underscores the true meaning and purpose of the RPwD Act, 2016.
According to the petitioner, the said Office Memorandum contains
the following defects:
(i) As per the directions of this Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) and
Avni Prakash (supra), all conditions/benefits found in Paras I to
XVII of the 2018 OM relating to PwBD candidates, were required
to be extended to PwD candidates. However, the Respondent
No.5 came up with a separate Office Memorandum granting
selective facilities, without any justification for restricting the
facilities for PwD candidates.
(ii) The Judgment in Vikash Kumar (supra) mandates that any
disability imposing a barrier to a candidate writing an examination
should be remedied by extending the necessary facilities. In
the case of blind or low vision candidates, the disability does
not prevent them from “writing” per se, but it certainly imposes
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 339

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

a barrier to writing the examination. However, clause (3) of the
Office Memorandum only extends facilities to candidates who
have “difficulty in writing”. Furthermore, Clause 3(b) of the Office
Memorandum creates confusion and a problematic situation,
where the rights of PwD candidates to receive facilities in
examinations can be denied simply because their disability is
not related to “writing”. This contradicts the entire purpose of
the Act. Therefore, this court may direct the Respondent No.5
to strike down the restrictions in clause (3) and 3(b) and extend
examination relaxations to all PwD candidates, regardless of
the nature, type, or form of disability.
(iii) The Office Memorandum does not provide for any facilities
other than a scribe and compensatory time. For instance, the
2018 OM includes provisions that as far as possible, PwBD
candidates should have the option to choose the mode of taking
the examination, such as in Braille, on a computer, in large print,
or even by recording their answers. These are also feasible as
examining bodies can easily use technology to convert question
papers into large prints, e-text or Braille, and can also convert
Braille text into English or regional languages. However, the same
does not find any mention in the said Office Memorandum. The
Office Memorandum also sets specific criteria (both educational
and otherwise) for a scribe. Quite often, candidates face
significant challenges in finding a suitable scribe and ensuring
their presence on the day of the examination. At the same time,
while the 2018 OM allowed candidates to use a computer or
other technological means for taking the exam, this option was
not extended to PwD candidates in the present OM. Therefore,
the petitioner states that if candidates are permitted to type their
answers on computers, it would eliminate the need for a scribe
and also address the concerns of the examining body regarding
malpratice by reducing human interaction.
(iv) The Office Memorandum fails to prescribe a grievance redressal
mechanism to address instances where any relaxations are
denied to PwD candidates. As a result, the only remedy
available to such candidates who are denied the benefit of
such relaxations, is to approach a writ court and seek redress
for the grievance.
340 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

15.1. The petitioner further highlighted the problems and
inconveniences faced by him during the examination
process, which are as follows: (i) The application forms for
recruitment did not include provisions for PwD candidates,
and the requisite facilities were only provided upon specific
requests from applicants; (ii) Compensatory time was
not displayed on the screen, leading to a failure by the
invigilators to provide the facility to PwD candidates; (iii)
Some recruitment agencies refused to provide the facilities
of a scribe and extra time to PwD candidates, citing that
such provisions were contrary to the policy decisions of
their respective departments; (iv) In certain cases, the
facilities of a scribe and extra time were denied because
the invigilators were not informed about the court orders
mandating strict compliance with such provisions; (v) In
various examinations, the benefits were provided only to
PwBD candidates, due to a lack of coordination and proper
implementation. Thus, according to the petitioner, these
issues have a serious detrimental effect on the candidates,
and as a result, the guidelines framed by Respondent No.
5 should be reconsidered and amended.
16. On the other hand, the respondents categorically stated in their
replies and submissions that they have been following the directions
of this Court as well as the guidelines issued by Respondent No. 5
in the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022.
17. However, 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. Further, the petitioner demonstrated
that there are certain defects and lacunas in the guidelines issued
by Respondent No. 5, 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. Therefore, in our opinion, there is an urgent need for
a uniform memorandum for examinations applicable to all PwD
candidates, and it is the responsibility of Respondent No. 5 to ensure
its proper and just compliance.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 341

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors.

18. It is also to be pointed out that the constitution bench of this Court
in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others15 considered
the question as to whether fundamental rights under Articles 19 and
21 of the Constitution can be claimed against anyone who is not a
state instrumentality, and answered the same in the affirmative with
a majority of 4:1. It was clarified that rights under Articles 19 and
21 can be enforced even against private entities and it overrides
the principle laid down in Rajbir (supra). Hence, the contention of
the Respondent No.1 that they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction
cannot be countenanced by us. It is noteworthy mentioning that the
Office Memorandum clearly stated that the guidelines are applicable
to all the authorities. As such, the benefits conferred by the statute
should be provided for all the PwD candidates and they cannot be
denied on the ground of absence of accountability and/or lack of
duty on enforceability.
19. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered view that the
guidelines issued by the Respondent No.5 pursuant to the directions
of this Court, have to be enforced, by extending the benefits for PwBD
candidates to all PwD candidates in writing their examinations, without
any hindrance. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent No.5 to revisit
the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, remove the restrictions
and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner and incorporate the
following aspects and thereby, re-notify the same afresh, within a
period of two months:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) set up a grievance redressal portal to register complaints,
which would permit the candidates to approach it first before
approaching the court of law;
(iv) inspect the guidelines framed by different authorities and re-
notify the existing guidelines with an aim to ensure compliance;

15 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016
342 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(v) extend the validity of the scribe certificate (currently being valid
only for 6 months) to prevent the long wait time after applying,
especially, in rural areas;
(vi) set up Incentive programs for scribes to ensure their availability
and provide necessary training;
(vii) provide some time prior to the examination to allow the
candidates to familiarize themselves with the scribe to ensure
that there is a sense of comfort while communicating with the
scribe during the examination;
(viii) offer PwD candidates a choice of examination modes, such
as scribe, braille, large print, audio recording of answers, etc.;
(ix) take penal action against authorities / officials in charge of
decision- making process, who fail to follow the guidelines set
out by the Respondent No.5 and formulate guidelines which
exclude PwD;
(x) sensitise the persons working for the respondent authorities,
and train them on a regular basis, to address the reasonable
accommodation needs of PwDs; and
(xi) ensure strict compliance of the letter and spirit of the judgments
in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash as well as the provisions
of the RPwD Act, 2016, with a special focus on ‘reasonable
accommodation’.
20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs. Connected Miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Post the matter after two months “for reporting compliance”.

Result of the case: Writ petition disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain