A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2022, arises from the petitioner’s claim that benefits available to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) were being denied to him as a Person with Disability (PwD) despite medical certification showing 25% permanent disability for Focal Hand Dystonia (writer’s cramp) and a NIMHANS recommendation for a scribe. The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory architecture of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 particularly Sections 2(s), 2(r), 2(y), 16, 17 and prior precedents including Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Avni Prakash v. NTA, to hold that reasonable accommodation is the central tenet and that denial of scribe/compensatory time to PwD candidates constitutes discrimination.

The Court found defects in the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 issued by the nodal Ministry (which attempted to operationalise the Court’s directions) and directed the nodal agency to re-notify uniform guidelines extending all examination-related benefits available to PwBDs to all PwDs (except reservation), introduce grievance mechanisms, extend scribe-certificate validity, incentivise/training for scribes, permit multiple exam-modes, and sensitise authorities. The Court also held that private/autonomous exam agencies are amenable to obligations under Articles 19/21 in appropriate circumstances, following Kaushal Kishor, and required strict compliance with Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash.

Keywords: reasonable accommodation; scribe; compensatory time; PwD v. PwBD; Office Memorandum 10.08.2022.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, a graduate certified by NIMHANS and assessed with 25% permanent disability for Focal Hand Dystonia, sought examination accommodations (scribe, compensatory time) from multiple recruiting agencies and was repeatedly denied because those agencies limited such facilities to PwBDs (≥40% benchmark disability). The Supreme Court had earlier in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC clarified that reasonable accommodation flows from the RPwD Act and that benefits like a scribe cannot be restricted only to benchmark-disabled candidates.

Following those directions, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 to operationalise scribe/compensatory-time access for persons with <40% disability, but the petitioner argued that the OM fell short both substantively (restricting benefits to “difficulty in writing” and excluding other facilities) and procedurally (no grievance mechanism, short validity for certificates, inadequate modes of examination).

The background thus frames a tension between judicial directives, executive guidelines, and ground-level implementation by autonomous/public examination agencies (IBPS, SBI, SSC, state commissions). The Court treated this matter as public interest in order to resolve systemic lacunae and issue directions for a uniform, rights-respecting scheme.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner belonged to an OBC category and, in 2017, was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (writer’s cramp), a chronic neurological condition that impairs writing. He received a 25% disability assessment and a Unique Disability ID from the Primary Health Centre and a medical certificate from NIMHANS (12.07.2021) recommending a scribe. He used a scribe for his postgraduate exam. Thereafter, he applied for several recruitment examinations (IBPS, SBI, SSC, Bihar SSC) but encountered application forms and implementation practices that provided scribe/compensatory time only to PwBD candidates (40%+).

The petitioner contested this exclusion as discriminatory and sought writ relief under Article 32, praying for directions to grant scribe, compensatory time, and issuance of uniform instructions to examination authorities. The Second Respondent (SBI) ultimately allowed scribe/compensatory time after the Court’s interim order dated 15.12.2022, but the petitioner challenged the systemic inconsistency and inadequacy of the 10.08.2022 OM. The respondents (IBPS, SBI, Bihar SSC, Nodal Ministry) relied on statutory/regulatory competence, prior OM text, and implementation steps; IBPS relied on Rajbir Surajbhan Singh precedent to deny writ jurisdiction, while the State and central bodies emphasised compliance with the 2022 OM.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether benefits such as scribe and compensatory time may lawfully be confined only to PwBD (benchmark 40%+) candidates, excluding other PwD persons who face barriers in writing?
ii. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 correctly captures the mandate of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, 2016?
iii. Whether autonomous exam bodies (like IBPS) are obliged to follow uniform guidelines and can be held to constitutional obligations in providing reasonable accommodation?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a PwD under Section 2(s) and had certified need for a scribe from NIMHANS. He argued that denying facilities available to PwBD candidates was discriminatory and contrary to Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash, which recognise reasonable accommodation as integral and not tied to benchmark thresholds. He pointed to procedural failings in application forms, absence of displayed compensatory time on screens, refusal by certain bodies to grant facilities, and lack of grievance mechanisms; and urged that OM 10.08.2022 must be expanded to include technological modes, longer scribe-certificate validity, grievance portal and training for officials.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents contended they followed extant OMs and court directions. IBPS argued it is not a State under Article 12 and relied on Rajbir Surajbhan Singh to assert limited writ amenability, while assuring future inclusion of the scribe option in forms. SBI accepted interim directions and permitted scribe/compensatory time for the petitioner. Bihar SSC traced its scheme to State approvals and argued the petitioner did not request a scribe formally; it maintained compliance with prior OMs extending benefits to PwBDs. The nodal Ministry defended OM 10.08.2022 as an expert-committee product calibrated to prevent misuse, while asserting its guidance nature.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Court reaffirmed the primacy of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, 2016 and international jurisprudence cited (Canadian, European authorities), holding that exclusion of PwDs from scribe/compensatory time is discriminatory. It read Section 17(i) and Section 2(y) as expansive and not confined to benchmark disabilities, citing Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash for the proposition that reasonable accommodation is an affirmative obligation. The Court found OM 10.08.2022 deficient because it limited relief to persons with “difficulty in writing” narrowly, omitted other feasible modes (Braille, machines, large print, audio), had short certificate validity, lacked grievance redress and uniform implementation measures.

The Court also rejected IBPS’s non-justiciability plea in light of Kaushal Kishor (acknowledging enforceability of Articles 19/21 against non-state actors in certain contexts) and directed the nodal agency (Respondent No.5) to revisit and re-notify guidelines within two months, adding eleven specific operational measures (uniform adherence, sensitisation drives, grievance portal, re-inspection and re-notification, extension of certificate validity, incentive/training for scribes, pre-exam familiarisation time with scribe, choice of exam modes, penal action for non-compliance, training of officials, strict compliance with Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash). The Court disposed the petition with directions and listed compliance reporting.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The legal core: reasonable accommodation is an indispensable element of equality and non-discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016; statutory provisions (Sections 2(y), 16, 17) and this Court’s precedents require extension of examination accommodations to all PwDs whose disabilities cause barriers to writing, irrespective of benchmark percentage. The benchmark (40%) pertains primarily to reservation entitlements (Chapter VI) and cannot restrict reasonable accommodation under Chapter III. Therefore, denying scribe/compensatory time to a medically certified PwD constitutes discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 21. The Court further reasoned that administrative guidelines must operationalise statutory guarantees; defective executive or procedural measures that narrow the statute must be remedied.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed (non-bindingly) that technology (computerisation, Braille conversion, e-text) offers practical alternatives to human scribes and administrative units should embrace such options; that examination bodies should provide panels of scribes and give candidates interaction time; and that short certificate validity (6 months) is impractical these remarks function as policy guidance to reduce barriers and malpractice risk. The Bench also commented on the desirability of incentive/training programs for scribes and the need for penal measures against errant authorities—observations aimed at improving implementation rather than altering the legal ratios.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Direct uniform compliance by all recruitment/exam bodies with re-notified guidelines.
ii. Periodic sensitisation drives at educational institutions and among officials.
iii. Establish a grievance redressal portal as first recourse.
iv. Inspect existing authority guidelines and re-notify uniform OM.
v. Extend scribe-certificate validity beyond six months.
vi. Incentive/training programs for scribes; panel creation.
vii. Allow pre-exam familiarisation time with appointed scribe.
viii. Offer choice of examination modes (scribe, braille, large print, audio, typing).
ix. Penal action against authorities who exclude PwDs in guidelines.
x. Regular training of personnel to address reasonable accommodation.
xi. Ensure strict compliance with Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment performs crucial statutory and remedial work: it harmonises the RPwD Act’s promise of reasonable accommodation with practical exam administration, clarifies that benchmark thresholds do not curtail accommodation entitlements, and places systemic obligations on the nodal Ministry and exam bodies to ensure accessible, uniform processes. Practically, the Court adopts a rights-centred and implementation-oriented approach mandating grievance mechanisms, expanded modes of examination, longer certificate validity and scribe support systems which addresses both substantive equality and administrative defects that generate de facto exclusion.

The decision also narrows the shelter previously claimed by certain autonomous bodies, anchoring their duties in constitutional guarantees where public functions implicate rights. For future litigation and policy, the judgment signals judicial impatience with token compliance and emphasises proactive administrative design to operationalise inclusion. The directions, if implemented effectively, will reduce litigation, provide predictable access pathways for PwDs, and modernise exam infrastructure to incorporate technological accommodations alongside human scribes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370 : [2021] 12 SCR 311.
ii. Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1112 : [2021] 11 SCR 891.
iii. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities & Another, (2024) 5 SCC 793 : [2024] 14 SCR 464.
iv. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 : [2023] 8 SCR 581.
v. Moore v. British Columbia (Education), [2012] 3 SCR.
vi. G.L. v. Italy, ECtHR, Application No. 59751/15 (10.12.2020).
vii. T.H. v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, Application no. 46519/20 (11.07.2023).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. The Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21, 32).
ii. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Sections 2(s), 2(r), 2(y), 16, 17, 20, 21, 32).