Extending Reasonable Accommodation Beyond Benchmark Disabilities: A New Precedent

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2025 INSC 142) addresses a pivotal question on the accessibility of competitive examinations and recruitment processes for persons with disabilities (PwD). The petitioner, Gulshan Kumar, challenged the prevalent practice whereby certain facilities—including scribes, compensatory time, and other accommodations—were granted only to those with “benchmark disabilities” (i.e., individuals with at least 40% disability). Gulshan Kumar, a candidate with a neurological condition classified at 25% permanent disability, was denied or faced undue obstacles in obtaining the necessary exam accommodations.

This public interest litigation was brought under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directives to several prominent recruitment bodies (Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, State Bank of India, Staff Selection Commission, Bihar Staff Selection Commission) and the Government of India’s Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to ensure that examination accommodations are extended not merely to persons with benchmark disabilities but to all persons with disabilities (PwD) as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act, 2016”). This decision clarifies that restricting such critical accommodations solely to persons with benchmark disabilities contravenes the principle of “reasonable accommodation” and amounts to discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its decision:

• Affirmed that the principle of reasonable accommodation mandates that any individual with a disability that forms a barrier to writing an examination must be afforded the appropriate facilities, including scribes and compensatory time, regardless of their disability percentage.
• Declared that confining these rights to persons with benchmark disabilities (≥40% disability) is contrary to the RPwD Act, 2016 and earlier Supreme Court precedents (Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash), which underscored non-discrimination and equality.
• Recognized that many examination bodies and agencies were inconsistent in implementing the 10 August 2022 Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Court noted several shortcomings and directed the Ministry to revise and clarify its guidelines to ensure truly inclusive measures for all PwD.
• Stressed that fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution can be enforced even against private or autonomous bodies, dismantling the contention that any such body is outside the purview of writ jurisdiction if it impedes disability rights.
• Directed the Ministry (Respondent No.5) to publish, within two months, a fresh notification broadening examination accommodations to all PwD candidates, irrespective of disability percentage, and to set up an efficacious grievance redressal mechanism for any breaches.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court discussed and relied upon significant judgments concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, notably:

• Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021) 5 SCC 370: Established that “benchmark disability” should not be the sole criterion to confer the right to scribe and compensatory time. It emphasized that the principle of reasonable accommodation is intrinsic to ensuring non-discrimination against PwD.
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2021 SCC Online SC 1112): Confirmed that restricting scribe facilities and compensatory time to persons with only ≥40% disabilities is arbitrary and violates the statutory mandate of the RPwD Act, 2016.
• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) 5 SCC 793: Reiterated the balancing of inclusive measures (like scribes) with preserving examination integrity. Clarified that the “benchmark disability” label should not bar deserving candidates from accommodations.
• Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016): Broadened the scope of enforceability of fundamental rights (Articles 19 and 21) even against non-government actors, bolstering the position that bodies such as the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) are not immune from compliance with fundamental rights of PwD.

The Judgment also incorporated developments from foreign jurisdictions, such as decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, to highlight the shared international consensus on providing inclusive education and acknowledging that denial of accommodations to people with disabilities amounts to discrimination.

B. Legal Reasoning

The core legal reasoning of the Supreme Court flows from the principle of reasonable accommodation enshrined in Sections 2(h), 2(m), and 2(y) of the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court clarified:

• Distinction between PwD and PwBD: While persons with benchmark disabilities (40% or above) receive specific quotas and reservations, the Act provides broader protections to all PwD under Section 2(s). Denying a scribe and compensatory time to individuals with disabilities below 40% contravenes their right to equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21.
• Reasonable Accommodation in Examinations: The Court reasoned that fair examination practices are integral to guaranteeing the constitutional rights of PwD. The existing Office Memorandum (dated 10 August 2022) issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment inadequately covered limited “writing disabilities.” The new direction expands scope to any disability that forms a barrier to the candidate’s ability to take exams on par with others.
• Role of Government and Private Entities: The Court rejected the argument that private, autonomous, or non-government bodies are exempt from ensuring these accommodations. Consistent with Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination can be enforced against anyone, making the obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities both universal and inescapable.
• Uniform Implementation and Grievance Redressal: In addition to clarifying that the guidelines must be revised, the Court directed the Ministry to set up a grievance portal. Through regular training and checks, the Ministry should ensure that recruitment agencies uniformly adopt these accommodations.

C. Impact

This decision will have far-reaching implications:

• Examination-conducting bodies such as IBPS, SBI, SSC, and other national recruitment agencies must reformulate their instructions and application forms to ensure that candidates with any form of disability are appropriately accommodated.
• Universities, colleges, and certification boards will be compelled to monitor strict compliance, reevaluating their existing procedures to ensure they are in line with the Supreme Court’s directives.
• The clarification that all PwD candidates, not just those with ≥40% disability, are entitled to scribes, compensatory time, assistive devices, or alternative test-taking methods reaffirms a more inclusive approach in India’s educational and recruitment landscapes.
• The creation of a grievance redressal mechanism should gradually reduce the need for aggrieved PwD candidates to seek judicial recourse for basic testing accommodations. The Court signaled that consistent oversight and accountability measures must be put in place for effective real-world implementation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Some pivotal legal concepts discussed in the Judgment are:

• Persons with Disabilities (PwD) vs. Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD): Under the RPwD Act, 2016, a person with a benchmark disability is one who has at least 40% of a specified disability. However, all individuals with disabilities (i.e., any significant impediment to participating in regular activities) are protected under the Act and are entitled to reasonable accommodations.
• Reasonable Accommodation: The Act defines this as “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments,” without imposing disproportionate or undue burden, to ensure persons with disabilities can equally exercise their rights. This can include scribes, extra time, alternate formats of exam papers, or special seating arrangements.
• Equal Opportunity: The Court underscored that every person with a disability is entitled to equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Denial of a scribe or extra time for a candidate who needs it effectively discriminates against that candidate, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the RPwD Act.
• Expanded Writ Jurisdiction: The decision cites Kaushal Kishor to highlight that non-state entities can be made parties if they infringe on constitutional rights. This dismantles prior judgments suggesting that a writ might not lie against private bodies.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2025 INSC 142) stands as a significant affirmation of inclusive education and equality for persons with disabilities. By reiterating that crucial examination facilities—such as scribes and compensatory time—must be extended to all PwD candidates irrespective of disability percentage, the Court has closed a major gap in the enforcement of the RPwD Act, 2016.

Beyond simply rectifying Gulshan Kumar’s situation, this Judgment offers a broad directive to state and private entities alike. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has been given a two-month timeline to update its official memorandum and incorporate essential measures, including alternate formats for exams, expanded scribe availability, compensated extra time, and the establishment of a robust grievance redressal mechanism.

In essence, this landmark judgment builds on the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions, underscores the integral importance of reasonable accommodation, and forges a more equitable path forward for countless individuals with disabilities seeking to take competitive examinations on an equal footing. Its immediate and long-term significance lies not only in shaping more inclusive testing policies but also in reaffirming the core values of the Constitution—equality, dignity, and shared opportunities for all.