NDLI: Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – ss. 2(r), 2(s), 2(y), 3 and 56 – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018 – Facility of a scribe in the Civil Services Examination – Entitlement to – The appellant has a disability in the form of dysgraphia, commonly known as a Writer’s Cramp – On 07.02.2018, UPSC issued a notification for the CSE 2018 – The CSE Rules 2018 issued by DoPT providing for the manner and conduct of the examination – The general instructions provided that all candidates must write their papers in their own hand and will not be allowed the help of a scribe – Exceptions to this rule were provided for blind candidates; candidates with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy where the “dominant (writing) is affected to the extent of slowing the performance of function (minimum of 40% impairment)” – Candidates within the exception were allowed the help of a scribe – Appellant in his online application for the CSE 2018 declared himself to be a person with a benchmark disability of 40% or more and requested the UPSC to provide him with a scribe for the examination – Application was rejected by the UPSC – Aggrieved, appellant moved to the Tribunal – Tribunal dismissed the application and it was held that appellant did not fulfill the criteria – Appellant filed writ petition – The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant had not qualified at the Preliminary Examination for CSE 2018 and thus, the relief seeking an amendment of the CSE Rules 2018 to provide scribes to candidates with specific disabilities was rendered otiose – The Supreme Court directed AIIMS to constitute a medical board to evaluate the condition of the appellant – AIIMS, by its report opined that the appellant suffers from a “chronic neurological condition” termed as bilateral Writer’s Cramp – However, the report opines that while he does not suffer from a “benchmark disability”, the appellant is a ‘person with disability’ under the RPwD Act, 2016 – The extent of the disability is assessed at 6% – Held: The guidelines of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 29.08.2018 recognise the entitlement to a scribe only for candidates with benchmark disabilities – The guidelines which have been framed on 29.08.2018 can by no means be regarded as being exhaustive of the situations in which a scribe can be availed of by persons other than those who suffer from benchmark disabilities – The rights which emanate from provisions such as s.3 extend to persons with disability as broadly defined by s. 2(s) – To confine the facility of a scribe only to those who have benchmark disabilities would be to deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements – To do so would be contrary to the plain terms as well as the object of the statute – In the instant case, the condition of appellant was repeatedly affirmed by several medical authorities including NIMHANS and AIIMS – The appellant has a specified disability inasmuch as he has a chronic neurological condition – This condition Forms part of Entry IV of the Schedule to the RPwD Act 2016 – The writer’s cramp has been found successively to be a condition which the appellant has, making it difficult for him to write a conventional examination – To deny the facility of a scribe in a situation such as the present would negate the valuable rights and entitlements which are recognised by the RPwD Act 2016 – Appellant entitled to the facility of a scribe – Thus, the impugned order and judgment of the High Court is set aside. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – ss. 2(r), 2(s), 2(y), 3 and 56 – Benchmark disability not a precondition to obtain a scribe – Held: The whole concept of a benchmark disability within the meaning of s. 2(r) is primarily in the context of special provisions including reservation that are embodied in Chapter VI of the RPwD Act 2016 – Conceivably, the Parliament while mandating the reservation of posts in government establishments and of seats in institutions of higher learning was of the view that this entitlement should be recognized for persons with benchmark disabilities – As a matter of legislative policy, these provisions in Chapter VI have been made applicable to those with benchmark disabilities where a higher threshold of disability is stipulated – Conflating the rights and entitlements which inhere in persons with disabilities with the notion of benchmark disabilities does dis-service to the salutary purpose underlying the enactment of the RPwD Act 2016 – To deny the rights and entitlements recognized for persons with disabilities on the ground that they do not fulfill a benchmark disability would be plainly ultra vires the RPwD Act 2016. Constitution of India – Arts.14, 19 and 21 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Held: The golden triangle of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 applies with full force and vigour to the disabled – S.3 is a statutory recognition of the constitutional rights embodied in Arts. 14, 19 and 21 among other provisions of Part III of the Constitution – S. 3 casts an affirmative obligation on the government to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy (i) the right to equality; (ii) a life with dignity; and (iii) respect for their integrity equally with others. Principles/Doctrines – Principle of reasonable accomodation – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Held: The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society – The concept of reasonable accommodation in s. 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 incorporates making “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments” so long as they do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case to ensure to persons with disability the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others” – Equality, non- discrimination and dignity are the essence of the protective ambit of the RPwD Act 2016. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Formulation of new policy concerning access to scribes for persons with disabilities – Held: Direction issued to the Union Government in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to ensure the framing of proper guidelines which would regulate and facilitate the grant of a facility of a scribe to persons with disability within the meaning of s. 2(s) where the nature of the disability operates to impose a barrier to the candidate writing an examination – It was also directed to consult persons with disabilities and involve them in the decision making process.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 78
Petitioner	Vikash Kumar
Respondent	Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
SCR	[2021] 12 S.C.R. 311
Judgement Date	2021-02-11
Case Number	273

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dileep Kumar Singh

Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. A.k. Nair & Ors.

State of U.p. & Ors. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey and Ors.

Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dileep Kumar Singh

Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. A.k. Nair & Ors.

State of U.p. & Ors. Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain

Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey and Ors.

Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.