Supreme Court of India· 17 March 2023

Can an examination body require that a scribe be not qualified above the 11th standard and not be affiliated to a coaching centre?

ARNAB ROY v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR.

2023 INSC 261 · Writ Petition (Civil) No 1109 of 2022
Coram: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J B Pardiwala

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.2(s) Rights of Persons with Di…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. Where the examination consists of Multiple Choice Questions, such a restriction maintains the integrity and sanctity of the examination by ensuring the scribe does not provide independent answers, and it is permissible because the examination body has taken upon itself the obligation to provide a scribe meeting that description.

Headnote

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — s.2(r) — s.2(s) — Constitution of India — Art.32 — Reasonable accommodation — Scribe — Entrance examination — Guidelines — Notification in advance — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Reasonable accommodation — Guidelines to be notified with the advertisement — Held: Guidelines governing the facilities to be extended to PwD candidates must be notified sufficiently in advance and, in any event, together with the advertisement placing the examination schedule in the public domain, so that candidates are not left in a state of uncertainty. (¶17) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — s.2(s) — Scribe where disability is below the benchmark — Held further: A candidate with a specified disability who has difficulty in writing is entitled to the facility of a scribe and compensatory time on production of a certificate from the competent medical authority of a Government healthcare institution. (¶10) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Qualification of the scribe — integrity of the examination — Held further: An examination body may require that the scribe be not qualified above the 11th standard and not be affiliated to any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre, where it undertakes to provide such a scribe itself. (¶25, 27) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Guidelines not frozen — liberty to modify — Held further: The nature and contents of such Guidelines cannot be frozen for the future and remain open to modification as experience is gained in conducting the examination. Writ Petition and Miscellaneous Application disposed of. (¶28, 29)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 22On the other hand, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the consortium, emphasised the circumstances in which such a restriction has been imposed. Senior counsel submitted that the entire examination consists of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs). In this backdrop, it is necessary, in order to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the examination, that the scribe does not provide independent answers to the MCQs based on their own knowledge or experience and hence the twofold restriction has been imposed. Moreover, it has been submitted that in any event, if a candidate has any difficult in engaging a scribe, the Consortium is ready and willing to provide a scribe so that the candidate is not prevented from appearing for the entrance test.

Paragraph 25It is from this perspective that the consortium has, in its guidelines required that the candidate should not be above the 11th standard and in addition should not be affiliated with any test-preparatory or examination coaching centre. At the highest, a candidate could have a grievance if no such scribe meeting the said description is available. But as already noted above, the Consortium has taken upon itself the obligation to provide a scribe who meets with the stipulations which are contained in the Guidelines.

Paragraph 27We, therefore, allow the request of the Consortium to the extent of its assertion that the scribe who is selected should not be qualified above the 11th standard and should not be associated with any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre.

Acts & Sections

s.2(s) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s.2(r) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Art.32 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ARNAB ROY v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must guidelines on facilities for candidates with disabilities be notified together with the advertisement announcing an entrance examination?Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, may a candidate whose specified disability is below the benchmark claim a scribe?When an examination body provides the scribe, must the candidate be given time to interact with the scribe before the examination?Can guidelines governing reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities be frozen for the future?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections