There Cannot Be Discrimination Between PwBD & PwD Candidates In Granting Scribes & Other Such Facilities In Writing The Exams: SC
The Supreme Court allowed a Petition by a PwD candidate to be allowed the facility of a scribe and other such facilities under the law during exams.

The Supreme Court has held that there can be no discrimination between PwBD and PwD candidates in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, etc. in writing the examination.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Petitioner diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia (Writer’s Cramp) seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection directing them to provide the facility of a scribe, compensatory time, and other necessary accommodations to Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held “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. Earlier, the office memorandum dated 29.08.2018 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.”
Advocate Rushabh Vidyarthi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Vaibhav Dang appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, who was diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia and assessed with 25% permanent disability, alleged that despite having a certified disability, he was denied facilities that were only extended to candidates with 40% or more disability (PwBD candidates).
The Supreme Court, in an earlier interim Order of 2022, had directed the State Bank of India (SBI) not to insist on benchmark disability for granting a scribe, following the precedent in Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021). Subsequently, the Petitioner was granted a scribe and compensatory time for SBI’s examinations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted, “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.”
“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,” the Bench held.
The Court emphasised that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) guaranteed “reasonable accommodation” for all persons with disabilities, not just PwBD candidates. It observed that the Office Memorandum in the present case did not implement the principles of reasonable accommodation and contained restrictions without justification.
Consequently, the Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to revisit the Office Memorandum, remove the restrictions, and grant relaxations in a reasonable manner and incorporate the following aspects:
- “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;
- 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;
- set up a grievance redressal portal to register complaints, which would permit the candidates to approach it first before approaching the court of law;
- inspect the guidelines framed by different authorities and re-notify the existing guidelines with an aim to ensure compliance;
- 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;
- set up Incentive programs for scribes to ensure their availability and provide necessary training;
- 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;
- offer PwD candidates a choice of examination modes, such as scribe, braille, large print, audio recording of answers, etc.;
- take penal action against authorities / officials in charge of decisionmaking process, who fail to follow the guidelines set out by the Respondent No.5 and formulate guidelines which exclude PwD;
- sensitise the persons working for the respondent authorities, and train them on a regular basis, to address the reasonable accommodation needs of PwDs; and
- 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’.”
Cause Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 142)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rushabh Vidyarthi, Prannv Dhawan, Meenakshi Pahuja, Aviral Saxena, Shrawani and Hardik Jayal; AOR Vikas Jain
Respondents: Advocates Vaibhav Dang, Sharath Nambiar, Vatsal Joshi, Akshit Pradhan, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Gaurang Bhushan and Rakesh Singh; AOR Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Sanjay Kapur, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal and Arun K. Sinha