Respondents:
Union Public Service Commission and ORS.
Appellant:
Vikash Kumar
Facts of the Case:
- The appellant, Vikash Kumar, has a form of dysgraphia also known as writer’s cramp. In August of 2016, he graduated from Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Instruction and Research (JIPMER) and got a MBBS degree. After his degree he wanted to pursue a career in the civil services and appeared for the Civil services exam in 2017.
- A scribe was provided to him by the examination authorities which was the Union Public Services Commission which permitted him to give the examination. In the online form for CSE, the appellant declared himself to be a person who is suffering from the locomotor disability to avail a scribe.
- On 7 February 2018, the DoPT issued guidelines for the examination. The general instruction was that all the candidates had to write their own papers. People with the locomotor disability, cerebral palsy (where the dominant hand is affected) and blind candidates were exempted from this rule. They should have had minimum of 40% of impairment. These candidates were provided with a scribe and an additional 20 minutes for the exam.
- In his application the appellant declared himself to be disabled with 40% and more impairment and asked for a scribe. On 15 March 20, UPSC rejected his request on the grounds that he did not meet the criterion.
- The case was first heard in the Delhi High Court, but it failed to grant him instant relief. The court decision made him appeal in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- If dysgraphia comes under the RPwD[1] act as a disability.
- If Vikash Kumar was entitled to get a scribe during the examination.
- The bigger issue of interpreting and applying the principles of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD act.
Contention:
Vikash Kumar
Vikash Kumar’s arguments emphasised on the definition of disability and its inclusivity. He argued that dysgraphia falls under the definition of a disability under the act. He highlighted that act’s definition covers a variety of disabilities that are not even listed but impairs someone’s day to day functioning drastically. He argued that dysgraphia greatly affects him as he us unable to perform in exams. So, he should be qualified as a disabled person under the act. Denying him a scribe is also denying him of his rights under Article 14[2] and Article 21[3] of Indian constitution. Without the provision of a scribe, he is at a big disadvantage compared to others. This lack of accommodation hindered hi ability to compete fair and square with other candidates. This also reinforced the systemic barriers faced by disabled individuals and he was discriminated based on his disability. He also argued that denying him a scribe also violated India’s international obligation under the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The UNCRPD underlines the need for an inclusive education system and make sure that person with disability can participate in equal footings with others.
Respondents
Respondent’s argument was their adherence to the guidelines which are already established. They argued that scribe can only be provided to the specific disabilities provided in the list of disabilities. Dysgraphia was not in the list. They just maintained the followed the guidelines. They also talked about the practical challenges that would arise if they started giving accommodation to every disabled person. It would lead to administrative chaos and misuse of the provision. They contested that a consistent and clear policy is needed for the fair administration of exam. They also pointed out that making exception on case-by-case basis would undermine their manageability and reliability of the examination process. They kept that any modification in the list would require thorough review of the guidelines and needed careful consideration. Hence, it was beyond their immediate jurisdiction. They contended that denial of scribe was not because the case of discrimination but rather them following their already established procedures.
Judgement:
The supreme court ruled in the Favor of Vikash Kumar and held that dysgraphia is a disability that comes under the disability act. The act covers a lot more disabilities that are currently under the list. The court held importance of the reasonable accommodation principle. It ensures that persons with disabilities get equal rights with respect others. Denying it is not only discriminatory, but it also violates fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution. The court also restated India’s commitment to the UNCRPD and provide with necessary accommodation to disabled persons. Lastly the court directed UPSC to provide a scribe to Vikash Kumar and also modify the guidelines to be in lines with the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD. To summarise, Vikash Kumar was entitled to get reasonable accommodation.
Defects of law:
While this case is very important and is generally celebrated as taking rights of a disabled person further, it has some defects of laws. There is a lack of clarity and inclusivity in the already existing guidelines. This leads to ambiguity in definitions. There is inadequate implementation of reasonable accommodation. The guidelines for UPSC are already very rigid. This results in severe lack of responsiveness to individual needs. Like Vikash Kumar, several people with disability faces prolonged legal battles. Also burden of proof comes on the individual to proof that they are disabled. In addition to that there is also insufficient support system and policy revisions related to them. Examination processes are mostly inaccessible to disabled people. Some recommendations which can be used for improvement are updated guidelines and have a regular comprehensive review. There should be regular training and sensitization of administrators and other officials to enhance their understanding of different disabilities. There should be an enhanced support system for people with learning disabilities including educational resources, public awareness campaigns and specialized trainings. Lastly, principles of UNCRPD should be fully integrated into national policies and guidelines. This will ensure a balanced approach to disability rights. By using these recommendations, India can move towards being a truly egalitarian.
Inference:
This case is significant for the society because it broadens the definition of disability under the RPwD act. The judgement stresses towards the inclusivity of disabilities that should be there in the act. It also expands the understanding of what comes under a disability. The broader interpretation encourages an inclusive society that acknowledges the need of individuals. The ruling also highlights a critical point of reasonable accommodation which needed necessary changes. These changes will help in adjusting for people with disability. It pushes educational institutions, employers and public service bodies to re-evaluate their policies. They also make sure that they provide appropriate accommodations. This case brings special attention towards learning disabilities like dysgraphia. It raises awareness among the general masses. This increases the sensitivity and understanding regarding persons with disability. It helps reducing stigma and discrimination against persons with disabilities. It also provides with a culture of empathy and support which is again an essential element for the development of an egalitarian society. By upholding the judgement, it is clear that Vikash Kumar got his rights. It empowers disabled individuals to fight for their rights and seek for their accommodations without any fear. It sends a strong and clear message to not be afraid of any stigma or discrimination. Judiciary stands with them and not against them. It encourages more people to pursue their dreams and ambitions. It also reinforces India’s commitment to international standards for disability rights particularly the Unites Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This alliance not only enhances the protection of rights within India but also strengthens the country’s position as a global advocate for disability inclusion. By emphasizing on the principles of equality, non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation, this judgement paves the way for a more inclusive and equitable society.
Ananya Rana
BBA LLB
O.P. Jindal Global University.
References:
- Cleveland Clinic medical professional, Dysgraphia: What it is, symptoms, diagnosis & treatment Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23294-dysgraphia (last visited Jun 15, 2024).
- Kriti Mishra et al., The prevalence pattern of locomotor disability and its impact on mobility, self-care, and interpersonal skills in rural areas of Jodhpur District Nigerian medical JOURNAL: journal of the Nigeria Medical Association (2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6737803/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20NSSO%2C%20a,with%20physical%20deformities%20in%20body (last visited Jun 16, 2024).
- Vikash Kumar vs union public services and ors, .
[1] India Code: Home, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act,_2016.pdf (last visited June 30, 2024).
[2] India Const. art. 14.
[3] India Const. art. 21.