Recently, the Supreme Court considered a petition filed by visually impaired law students and graduates, alleging systemic discrimination in the conduct of legal examinations such as the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). The petitioners contended that the lack of accommodations and non-compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act violated their fundamental rights. The Court observed that such allegations required urgent attention to ensure inclusivity and fairness in legal education and examinations.
The petitioners, all individuals with significant visual impairments, approached the Supreme Court citing various challenges in accessing accommodations during legal examinations. Despite repeated attempts to engage with the Bar Council of India (BCI) and CLAT authorities, their requests for reasonable adjustments were either ignored or denied. One petitioner, a law graduate from NALSAR University with 90% low vision, sought permission to use a computer for the AIBE-XIX examination. Despite sending several emails and letters to the BCI, he received no response. Another petitioner, a blind law student from Government Law College, Mumbai, requested clarifications on scribe eligibility criteria and permission to use a computer for the CLAT examination, but his concerns were met with silence. Similarly, a blind graduate from Auro University in Surat sought soft copies of Bare Acts and permission to use a computer for the AIBE-XIX but was denied orally and received no formal communication. The petitioners argued that these denials violated the RPwD Act and the Government of India's guidelines for conducting examinations for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities issued in 2018. They emphasised the absence of clear scribe eligibility criteria, accessible examination centres, and provisions for digital tools, which hindered their ability to compete on equal footing.
The Apex Court acknowledged the seriousness of the issues raised, observing that the absence of reasonable accommodations in legal examinations could perpetuate systemic discrimination against visually impaired candidates. It noted that the respondents must adhere to the provisions of the RPwD Act and ensure compliance with guidelines mandating inclusivity in examinations. The Court further remarked that a lack of awareness and insensitivity among examination authorities and invigilators exacerbates the difficulties faced by candidates with disabilities.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government and listed the matter for further hearing. The petitioners sought specific reliefs, including the provision of computers, access to digital copies of Bare Acts, clear guidelines on scribe eligibility, and accessible examination centres. They also requested mandatory sensitization programs for invigilators to ensure a fair and inclusive examination process.
~Siddharth Raghuvanshi
Picture Source :