IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court

Reasonable Accommodation is a Right, Not a Privilege: Exam Bodies Cannot Deny Scribe and Extra Time to PwD Candidates - In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court of India held that the distinction between ‘Persons with Disabilities’ (PwD) and ‘Persons with Benchmark Disabilities’ (PwBD) in granting examination accommodations is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court ruled that all candidates with disabilities, regardless of the percentage of impairment, must be provided with the facilities of a scribe, compensatory time, and other necessary accommodations in competitive examinations.

"The principle of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the equality and non-discrimination framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Denying these accommodations to persons with disabilities solely on the ground that their impairment is less than 40% is a blatant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution," observed the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Others (2025).

The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32, where the petitioner, diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp) and assessed with 25% permanent disability, was denied the facility of a scribe and extra time in competitive examinations conducted by IBPS and SBI. Holding that such an approach violated the fundamental rights of disabled candidates, the Court directed all exam-conducting bodies to immediately extend these facilities to all PwD candidates, without any distinction.

“Government Must Enforce Disability Rights with Strict Compliance, Penal Action Against Exam Bodies Ordered”

Taking a strong stance against exam bodies failing to implement disability guidelines, the Supreme Court directed the Government of India to amend its Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2022 within two months. The Court noted that many exam-conducting bodies, including IBPS and SBI, continued to impose arbitrary restrictions despite previous judgments such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) and Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2021).

"It is unacceptable that exam-conducting bodies continue to deprive disabled candidates of their rightful accommodations. The Government must ensure uniform compliance across all recruitment agencies, failing which strict penal action must be taken," the Court observed.

The revised guidelines must remove the distinction between PwD and PwBD candidates, establish a centralized grievance redressal mechanism, and ensure strict penal action against officials failing to comply. The Court further directed that exam centers must be fully accessible, and alternative examination formats such as Braille, large print, and audio recordings must be provided.

“IBPS Cannot Escape Accountability, Exam-Conducting Bodies Performing Public Functions Are Subject to Fundamental Rights”

The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) attempted to argue that it was not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), which held that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced against private entities performing public functions.

"When an institution conducts recruitment exams for public sector jobs, it is discharging a public function and cannot evade its responsibility under fundamental rights. Exam-conducting bodies must comply with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and government guidelines," the Court ruled.

This ruling ensures that all private and public examination-conducting bodies are now legally bound to provide disability accommodations and can be held accountable for non-compliance.

“India Must Align with International Disability Rights Standards, Inclusive Education is a Global Obligation”

The Supreme Court extensively referred to international disability rights jurisprudence, citing foreign rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The Court noted that India, as a signatory to the UNCRPD, has an obligation to implement inclusive education and accessibility measures for persons with disabilities.

The ruling relied on cases such as Moore v. British Columbia (Canada), where the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that "students with disabilities require accommodation of their differences to benefit from educational services." Similarly, in GL v. Italy, the ECHR held that inclusive education is a fundamental human right and that states must ensure equal access for disabled candidates in examinations.

"Exclusionary policies that deny reasonable accommodations to disabled candidates violate both domestic law and international obligations. India must uphold its commitments under the UNCRPD and ensure full accessibility in examinations," the Court stated.

“Government Must Take Proactive Steps to Ensure Exam Accessibility, No More Burden on Disabled Candidates”

Highlighting numerous cases where disabled candidates were denied their rightful accommodations due to lack of awareness or coordination among authorities, the Supreme Court directed the Government to ensure strict compliance and enforcement of disability rights in examinations.

"It is not the responsibility of individual candidates to fight for their basic rights. The Government must take proactive measures to ensure that exam bodies are fully aware of and comply with disability accommodations," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court directed the Government of India to implement the following measures within two months:

• Conduct periodic training and sensitization programs for examination officials.

• Ensure automatic inclusion of disability accommodations in all exam application forms.

• Take immediate disciplinary action against authorities failing to comply.

• Establish a grievance redressal portal for disabled candidates.

Provide alternative examination formats, including Braille, large print, and computer-based tests.

The Court warned that failure to comply with these directives would attract strict penal consequences for the concerned authorities.

“Supreme Court Issues Final Directions, Matter Listed for Compliance Reporting”

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of India to file a compliance report within two months. All exam-conducting bodies, including IBPS, SBI, and SSC, were directed to immediately implement the revised guidelines and provide necessary accommodations to all PwD candidates.

"This Court will not tolerate continued discrimination against disabled candidates in examinations. Any failure to comply with this order will result in serious consequences," the Bench warned.

This landmark judgment marks a significant step towards ensuring equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in education and employment examinations, reinforcing that accessibility is a right, not a privilege.

Date of Decision: February 3, 2025