MISSION ACCESSIBILITYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                [2025] 12 S.C.R. 443 : 2025 INSC 1376

                           Mission Accessibility
                                     v.
                           Union of India & Ors.
                     (Writ Petition (C) No. 206 of 2025)
                              03 December 2025
               [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       In the instant petition, the petitioner sought for the modification of
       the timeline for scribe registration in the Civil Services Examination
       conducted by Union Public Service Commission and for permitting
       the use of laptops equipped with Screen Reader Software along
       with accessible digital question papers for eligible candidates.

                                   Headnotes†
       Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Constitution of
       India – Arts.14, 19, 21 – Enforcing the rights of persons with
       disabilities to equal opportunity – Measure of inclusivity –
       Modification of the timeline for scribe registration in the Civil
       Services Examination and for permitting the use of laptops
       equipped with Screen Reader Software along with accessible
       digital question papers for eligible candidates – Directions by
       the Supreme Court:
       Held: a) Respondent No.2-UPSC to ensure that in every
       notification for the examinations conducted by it, a clear provision
       is incorporated permitting candidates eligible for a scribe to request
       a change of scribe up to at least seven days prior to the date of
       the examination, and such requests to be objectively considered
       and disposed of by a reasoned order within three working days
       of receipt of the application; b) Respondent No.2 directed to file a
       comprehensive compliance affidavit clearly delineating the proposed
       plan of action, timeline, and modalities for the deployment and
       use of Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates
       in the examinations to be conducted by it – The affidavit shall
       also specify the steps proposed for testing, standardisation, and
       validation of the software and related infrastructure across all or
       designated examination centres, and shall further indicate the


* Author
444                                                               [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       feasibility of ensuring that the said facility is made operational
       and available to all eligible candidates from the next cycle of
       examinations; c) Respondent No.2 in coordination with the
       Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD)
       and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with
       Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), to formulate uniform guidelines and
       protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software and other assistive
       technologies to ensure standardisation, accessibility, and security
       of the examination process across all or identified examination
       centres, as deemed fit by it; d) Respondent No.1-Union of India,
       through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and
       the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to extend all
       necessary administrative and technical support to respondent
       No.2 for the expeditious implementation of the above measures
       and shall facilitate coordination with State Governments and
       examination authorities wherever required; e) The implementation
       of these measures shall be undertaken in a manner that ensures
       full accessibility to eligible candidates while maintaining the sanctity,
       confidentiality, and fairness of the examination process. [Para 11]

       Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Constitution
       of India – True measure of inclusivity:
       Held: The true measure of inclusivity in governance lies not merely
       in the formulation of progressive policies but in their faithful and
       effective implementation – The rights guaranteed to persons with
       disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the
       constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination
       enshrined in Arts.14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India – The
       Union Public Service Commission, being the premier constitutional
       body entrusted with upholding the values of merit and fairness in
       public recruitment, must ensure that its processes are accessible,
       transparent, and sensitive to the needs of every segment of society.
       [Para 13]

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

                                 List of Keywords
       Scribe registration; Civil Services Examination; Timeline for
       scribe registration; Permission for the use of laptops; Screen
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                          445

              Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors.


     Reader Software; Digital question papers; Rights of persons with
     disabilities; Equal opportunity; Inclusivity; Examination; Union
     Public Service Commission; Visually impaired candidates; Plan of
     action; Guidelines and protocols for the Screen Reader Software;
     Administrative and technical support; Accessibility; Sanctity;
     Confidentiality; Fairness of the examination process.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 206 of 2025
     Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
     Amar Jain, Ms. Sanchita Ain, Ms. Shehreen Gauri.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Udit Dedhiya, Sudhakar
     Kulwant, Yashraj Bundela, Amit Sharma B, Jagdish Chandra, Dr. N.
     Visakamurthy, Hrishikesh Baruah, Kumar Kshitij, Utkarsh Dwivedi,
     Yashaswy Ghosh, Ms. Pragya Agarwal.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Mehta, J.

1.   The measure of a just and inclusive society lies not merely in the
     freedoms it proclaims, but in the opportunities, it ensures for all its
     citizens to realize their fullest potential. Equality, in its truest sense,
     demands not uniformity but the removal of barriers that prevent
     individuals from standing on equal footing. The Constitution of India
     envisions a Republic where every person, regardless of physical or
     sensory limitation, can participate with dignity in the nation’s collective
     journey. The law, as an instrument of justice, must therefore move
     beyond formal equality to ensure substantive inclusion, transforming
     rights from written promises into lived realities. It is in this spirit
     that the present writ petition comes before this Court, seeking not
     privilege, but parity; not indulgence, but the rightful fulfilment of the
     constitutional vision of equal opportunity for all.
446                                                            [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


2.     The instant writ petition has been instituted by Mission Accessibility1,
       an organisation engaged in the advancement of the rights of persons
       with disabilities, for enforcing the rights of persons with disabilities to
       equal opportunity guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India
       and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The directions
       sought by way of this writ petition include, inter alia, the modification
       of the timeline for scribe registration in the Civil Services Examination
       conducted by Union Public Service Commission2 and for permitting
       the use of laptops equipped with Screen Reader Software along
       with accessible digital question papers for eligible candidates. For
       the sake of ready reference, the reliefs sought in the writ petition
       are reproduced hereinbelow: -
               “In light of the facts and submissions stated hereinabove,
               the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may
               graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
               other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the following
               terms:
               A. Declare and hold that the Impugned Requirement is
               arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16
               and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the Rights
               of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
               B. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to remove the mandatory
               requirement of furnishing scribe details at the time of
               application submission and instead permit visually impaired
               candidates to provide such details at a reasonable time
               closer to the examination date.
               C. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to modify the application
               process for the Civil Services Examination, 2025, which
               allows candidates with disabilities to modify their scribe
               details at any time before any given stage of the Civil
               Services Examination.
               D. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to allow the use of laptops
               with screen readers for visually impaired candidates at all
               stages of the Civil Services Examination.


1    Hereinafter, being referred to as “petitioner”.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent No. 2-UPSC”.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                          447

              Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors.


          E. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to provide question papers
          in accessible digital formats for candidates with disabilities
          opting for the same.
          F. Pass any other order/direction as may be deemed just
          and proper in the interests of justice, equity and good
          conscience.”
3.   This Court vide order dated 6th May, 2025 allowed the impleadment of
     Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) as respondent No. 3 and
     directed the counsel representing respondent No. 2-UPSC to have a
     dialogue with counsel representing respondent No. 3-DoPT regarding
     the apprehensions and concerns of the candidates appearing in Civil
     Services Examination. Learned counsel representing respondent
     No. 2-UPSC was also directed to file an appropriate affidavit of the
     competent officer with respect to the change of scribe. The said
     order is extracted hereinbelow: -
          “Application (I.A. No.95839 of 2025) seeking impleadment
          of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) as
          respondent no.3 is allowed.
          Issue notice.
          Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional Solicitor
          General, is requested to also appear on behalf of the
          DoPT and obtain necessary instructions in light of the
          deliberations that have taken place in Court today.
          Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the
          Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), shall obtain
          further instructions and have a dialogue with Ms. Archana
          Pathak Dave, learned ASG, regrading apprehensions and
          concerns of the candidates.
          Mr. Baruah shall also file an appropriate affidavit of the
          competent officer from the UPSC with respect to the change
          of scribe, to be permitted within one week.
          List the matter on 9th May, 2025.”
4.   In compliance of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2-UPSC
     filed an affidavit stating that it has till now received requests from
     approximately 27 candidates being Persons with Benchmark
     Disability/Persons with Disability (PwBD/PwD) for change of their
448                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       scribe details. Respondent No. 2-UPSC assured that it will examine
       each and every such request on merit and revert to the candidates.
       It was further stated that a press note with the said details has
       been uploaded on its website after due approval emphasizing that
       respondent No. 2-UPSC will consider each request for change of
       scribe received from PwBD/PwD candidates till 18th May, 2025 (04:00
       PM) on merit basis. A copy of the press note was annexed with the
       affidavit. However, the affidavit was completely silent in respect of
       the issue of providing the screen reader facility to such candidates.
5.     On 9th May, 2025, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court
       perused the aforesaid affidavit filed by respondent No. 2-UPSC and
       heard submissions advanced by the parties. This Court directed that
       all requests for change of scribe by eligible candidates under the
       CSE Rules, 2025 shall be entertained by respondent No. 2-UPSC till
       18th May, 2025, and each such prayer shall be objectively considered
       and decided by a reasoned order within three working days from its
       receipt. Respondent No. 2-UPSC was further directed to file a specific
       affidavit clarifying its position on the use of computers with screen
       readers by PwBD/PwD candidates in the forthcoming preliminary
       examination. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the said
       order is reproduced hereinbelow: -
            “6. Ms. Dave, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Union
            of India submitted that under the general instructions
            for preliminary and main examinations contained in the
            Civil Services Examinations Rules, 2025 (for short ‘CSE
            Rules, 2025’), certain categories of PwD candidates has
            been given permission to avail the facility of scribe. The
            candidates have the discretion of opting their own scribe
            or request the Commission for the same. The details of
            the scribe in case the candidates are bringing their own
            scribe or availing the same through the Commission, will
            be sought at the time of filling up of the online application
            form.
            7. Regarding the issue of use of laptops with screen readers
            for visually impaired candidates, Ms. Dave has submitted
            that the same could be examined and a suitable decision
            can be taken by the Commission in consultation with the
            Department for PwD in light of the extant instructions issued
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                          449

              Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors.


          by the Government of India on the subject. Any decision
          taken in the matter would not require an amendment to
          the CSE Rules, 2025.
          8. Shri Bajaj has raised certain concerns about the criterion
          for the change of scribe as set out in the affidavit on behalf
          of the Commission which are enumerated hereinbelow: -
                “Prescription of a timeline within which such
                requests must be disposed of. It is submitted
                that candidates will need to make suitable
                arrangements based on whether their request
                is allowed or disallowed. For instance, if the
                Commission disallows a candidate’s request for
                change of own scribe, the said candidate will
                have to take steps to request the Commission
                for a scribe or try and persuade the previously
                opted for scribe to remain available on the exam
                date. Therefore, clarity and finality on this front
                is important. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased
                to direct that all such requests will be disposed
                of within a period of 3 working days.
                No clarity is given on the grounds on which such
                requests will be allowed or disallowed, thereby
                leaving the candidates in the dark. It is therefore
                prayed that requests for change of scribe should
                be allowed: [i] due to personal unavailability of
                the scribe; [ii] due to medical emergencies; or
                [ii] if the candidate wishes to opt for own scribe
                rather than the Commission’s scribe. In no other
                circumstance should such requests be allowed.
                Required documentary evidence: as of now,
                the public notice is silent on the supporting
                document that needs to be submitted along
                with the request for change of scribe. It would
                be helpful if the said requirement is clearly spelt
                out, to avoid needless back and forth. E.g. any
                evidence of the scribe’s medical unfitness,
                when that is the ground on which change is
                being sought, could be asked for along with a
450                                                      [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


            detailing documents required for the induction
            of the new scribe.”
       9. In response, Shri Baruah, learned counsel appearing
       for the Commission submitted that the date, i.e., 18th
       May, 2025 as provided in the press note is the last date
       for submission of the applications for request of change
       of own scribe. He assured that such requests, if received
       within the stipulated time, would be disposed of within a
       period of three working days.
       10. Regarding the issue of screen readers, Shri Baruah
       submitted that the portrayal made by the writ petitioners
       that only two candidates in the blind/low vision category are
       aspiring to give the examination by screen reader, is not
       acceptable to the Commission because in case a decision
       is taken accepting the proposal for providing screen reader
       facility to PwBD/PwD candidates, such option would have
       to be given to all eligible candidates and for the present,
       the Commission does not have the necessary logistical
       facilities for the forthcoming preliminary examination which
       is scheduled for 25th May, 2025. However, he has prayed for
       a short opportunity to file a specific affidavit on this aspect.
       11. In view of the submissions noted above, we hereby
       provide that all the requests for change of scribe
       submitted by the concerned candidates who are
       entitled for a scribe in terms of the CSE Rules, 2025
       shall be entertained till 18th May, 2025. The Commission
       shall immediately, upon receipt of such application,
       consider the same objectively and communicate the
       decision thereof by a reasoned order to the candidate/s
       concerned within a period of three working days from
       the date of receipt of the application/s.
       12. The learned counsel for the Commission shall
       file a specific affidavit addressing the issue of the
       use of computers with screen readers by PwBD/PwD
       candidates in the forthcoming preliminary examination.
       13. List the matter on 16th May, 2025.”
                                              [Emphasis supplied]
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                        451

              Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors.


6.   During the course of hearing on 31st October, 2025, the attention of
     this Court was drawn to the additional affidavit dated 12th September,
     2025 filed by respondent No. 2-UPSC. In the said affidavit, respondent
     No. 2-UPSC stated that it has comprehensively reviewed the entire
     issue and has, in-principle, resolved to introduce the facility of
     Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates appearing
     in various examinations conducted under its aegis. The affidavit
     further recites that while the decision marks a significant policy
     advancement towards ensuring accessibility and inclusion, the
     necessary infrastructure for its effective implementation is presently
     not in place. It has been averred that respondent No. 2-UPSC does
     not maintain its own examination infrastructure, and is entirely
     dependent upon the infrastructure, logistical support, and manpower
     of the State Governments, District Authorities, Schools, and Colleges
     which are entrusted with the conduct of its examinations. Respondent
     No 2-UPSC has, however, assured this Court that upon ensuring the
     feasibility, readiness, and adequacy of the requisite infrastructure and
     software, and after conducting comprehensive testing to ensure the
     integrity and security of the examination process, it shall extend the
     facility of Screen Reader Software to visually impaired candidates
     in its examinations at the earliest possible juncture.
7.   The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
     the petitioner is satisfied with the in-principle decision taken by
     respondent No. 2-UPSC to introduce Screen Reader Software for
     the benefit of candidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark
     Disabilities/Persons with Disabilities (PwBD/PwD) category. However,
     it was contended that the said decision, though commendable
     in intent, lacks a concrete plan of implementation. Respondent
     No. 2-UPSC has not yet indicated any definitive roadmap, operational
     framework, or timeline for equipping the examination centres with
     the necessary technological and infrastructural facilities required for
     full implementation of its intent, thereby leaving the matter in a state
     of uncertainty as regards its execution.
8.   In response, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-UPSC
     submitted that the Commission is presently in active consultation and
     coordination with the State Authorities, the National Institute for the
     Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), and
     the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, with
     a view to finalising the technical standards, operational modalities,
452                                                          [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       and procedural safeguards necessary for the introduction of Screen
       Reader Software and for ensuring that question papers are made
       available in accessible digital formats for eligible candidates. It was
       further submitted that respondent No. 2-UPSC is fully conscious of
       the imperative to maintain the sanctity, confidentiality, and security
       of the examination process, and that all necessary precautions
       are being taken to ensure that the introduction of such assistive
       technology does not in any manner compromise the integrity of the
       examination system. The learned counsel concluded by submitting
       that the facility of Screen Reader Software shall be made operational
       and available to eligible candidates from the next examination cycle,
       after due testing and standardisation of the required infrastructure.
9.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
       of the additional affidavit dated 12th September, 2025 as well as the
       other materials placed on record by respondent No. 2-UPSC, this
       Court is of the considered view that a substantial part of the grievances
       raised in the present writ petition stand duly alleviated. Respondent
       No. 2-UPSC has now taken a conscious progressive decision to
       extend the facility of Screen Reader Software to visually impaired
       candidates in various examinations to be conducted by it, thereby
       recognising and advancing the rights of candidates with disabilities
       to equal opportunity and accessibility in public examinations.
10. However, it is equally evident that while the policy decision
    has been taken, the mechanism and modalities for its effective
    implementation remain to be streamlined and operationalised.
    Respondent No. 2-UPSC’s dependence upon external infrastructure
    and manpower, coupled with the absence of a clearly delineated
    roadmap or timeline for establishing the requisite technological
    framework across examination centres, underscores the need
    for institutional coordination and phased execution. This Court,
    therefore, finds it imperative that the creases in the process for
    implementation be duly ironed out through concrete planning, inter-
    agency collaboration, and the establishment of uniform standards,
    so as to ensure that the laudable objective of accessibility does not
    remain confined to paper but is translated into practical reality in
    forthcoming examination cycles.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and in order to ensure that the
    decision taken by respondent No. 2-UPSC is effectively translated
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                        453

              Mission Accessibility v. Union of India & Ors.


     into action and the rights of candidates belonging to the PwBD/PwD
     category are fully safeguarded, the following directions are issued
     to take the matter to its logical conclusion: -
     A.   Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall ensure that in every notification
          for the examinations conducted by it, a clear provision is
          incorporated permitting candidates eligible for a scribe to request
          a change of scribe up to at least seven days prior to the date
          of the examination, and such requests shall be objectively
          considered and disposed of by a reasoned order within three
          working days of receipt of the application.
     B.   Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall file a comprehensive compliance
          affidavit within a period of two months from the date of this
          order, clearly delineating the proposed plan of action, timeline,
          and modalities for the deployment and use of Screen Reader
          Software for visually impaired candidates in the examinations
          to be conducted by it. The affidavit shall also specify the steps
          proposed for testing, standardisation, and validation of the
          software and related infrastructure across all or designated
          examination centres, and shall further indicate the feasibility of
          ensuring that the said facility is made operational and available
          to all eligible candidates from the next cycle of examinations.
     C.   Respondent No. 2-UPSC shall, in coordination with the
          Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
          (DEPwD) and the National Institute for the Empowerment of
          Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), formulate uniform
          guidelines and protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software
          and other assistive technologies to ensure standardisation,
          accessibility, and security of the examination process across
          all or identified examination centres, as deemed fit by it.
     D.   Respondent No. 1-Union of India, through the Department of
          Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Ministry of Social Justice
          and Empowerment, shall extend all necessary administrative
          and technical support to respondent No. 2-UPSC for the
          expeditious implementation of the above measures and shall
          facilitate coordination with State Governments and examination
          authorities wherever required.
     E.   It is further directed that the implementation of these measures
          shall be undertaken in a manner that ensures full accessibility to
454                                                             [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


               eligible candidates while maintaining the sanctity, confidentiality,
               and fairness of the examination process.
12. The aforesaid directions are being issued to ensure that the
    constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination, and the
    right to live with dignity enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the
    Constitution of India, read with the provisions of the Rights of Persons
    with Disabilities Act, 2016, is meaningfully implemented, and that
    the facilitative measures envisaged by respondent No. 2-UPSC are
    operationalised in both letter and spirit within the stipulated timeframe.
13. Before parting, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that the
    true measure of inclusivity in governance lies not merely in the
    formulation of progressive policies but in their faithful and effective
    implementation. The rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities
    are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional
    promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in
    Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Union Public
    Service Commission, being the premier constitutional body entrusted
    with upholding the values of merit and fairness in public recruitment,
    must ensure that its processes are accessible, transparent, and
    sensitive to the needs of every segment of society. It is therefore
    imperative that the directions issued herein are carried out with utmost
    earnestness, sensitivity, and expedition, so that the constitutional
    vision of equal opportunity and meaningful participation of persons
    with disabilities is not reduced to a distant aspiration, but is realised
    as a living, enforceable, and enduring reality in the conduct of all
    public examinations in the country.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of
    the observations and directions hereinabove.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
16. List again on 16th February, 2026 for receiving the compliance affidavit
    of respondent No. 2-UPSC.

       Result of the case: Writ Petition disposed of.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan