Supreme Court directs fresh uniform guidelines so examination relaxations for all persons with disabilities are applied without discrimination

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a public interest petition challenging the limited scope and implementation of an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment that governed grant of scribes and compensatory time in competitive examinations. The petition sought directions to examination bodies including IBPS, State Bank of India, Staff Selection Commission and Bihar Staff Selection Commission to provide scribe facilities and other reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities (PwD) who did not meet the 40% “benchmark disability” threshold.

The Court held that the principle of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 required uniform and non‑discriminatory extension of examination facilities to all PwD candidates and directed the nodal Ministry to revisit and re‑notify the August 10, 2022 Office Memorandum within two months to remove restrictive conditions and ensure effective implementation. The Court observed that “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.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 the examinations.” The Court directed the Ministry to set up a grievance redressal portal, carry out sensitisation drives, extend validity of scribe certificates, incentivise and train scribes, permit choice of examination modes (scribe, braille, large print, audio or computer), and take penal action against authorities that failed to implement the guidelines. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to report compliance after two months and no costs.

Background The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, was diagnosed with focal hand dystonia (writer’s cramp) and assessed as having 25% permanent disability; he held a NIMHANS certificate recognising his need for a scribe. He alleged that recruitment application forms and processes routinely restricted scribe and compensatory time to candidates having benchmark disability (40% or more), thereby excluding candidates like him and causing discrimination in access to examinations conducted by the respondents. The Court recorded that an earlier interim order dated December 15, 2022 had already clarified that SBI would not insist on benchmark disability for grant of a scribe and, pursuant thereto, the petitioner obtained a scribe and compensatory time in two SBI examinations.

Respondents including IBPS, SBI and Bihar Staff Selection Commission maintained they followed existing orders and the August 10, 2022 Office Memorandum, and raised jurisdictional and procedural objections — IBPS relying on prior precedent that it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court reviewed statutory provisions under the RPwD Act (Sections 2, 16–18), prior decisions including Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Avni Prakash v. NTA emphasising reasonable accommodation, and later authority on enforceability of fundamental rights against non‑State actors. The Court found defects and lacunae in the August 10, 2022 Memorandum and in implementation practices — such as absence of application form fields, lack of display of compensatory time during tests, limited modalities permitted, short validity of medical certificates, and absence of a grievance mechanism — and concluded that a uniform revisited guideline was necessary to prevent inconsistent procedures and discrimination.

The Court therefore ordered the Ministry to rework and reissue the guidelines, to ensure uniform compliance by all recruitment agencies and examination bodies, to provide choices of examination modes and safeguards such as pre‑exam interaction time with appointed scribes, and to institute monitoring, training and punitive measures for non‑compliance. The petition was disposed of accordingly and the case was posted after two months for reporting compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2022 (2025 INSC 142) Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not specified in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kapur (counsel for State Bank of India); Standing Counsel for State of Bihar (name not specified); other respondents represented by their counsels as recorded in proceedings.