Author: Tejaswani Jain

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: 2025 INSC 1376

Case type: Writ Petition (Writ Petition (C) No(S). 206 of 2025)

Bench: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Date of Judgement: 3.12.2025

Relevant Provisions: Articles 14, 16, and 21 of The Constitution of India, 1950

Brief facts of the case:

The Petitioner, Mission Accessibility is an organisation engaged in the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities. The writ petition was filed for enforcing the rights guaranteed to them under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 . The petitioner challenged the UPSC guidelines that mandated furnishing scribe details at the time of application submission and also restricted  the use of laptops with screen readers for visually impaired candidates by stating them as arbitrary and unreasonable. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted the lack of institutional support for assistive technology.

Issues involved:

1. Whether the rigid timeline for furnishing or changing scribe details violates the rights of PwBD/PwD candidates.
2. Whether denial of Screen Reader Software and accessible digital question papers infringes the constitutional right to equality, dignity, and equal opportunity.
3. Whether UPSC is obligated to guarantee substantive equality in public examinations.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The Petitioner contended that the impugned requirements are violative of the right to equal opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and disproportionately burden visually impaired candidates. The absence of assistive technology effectively excludes PwBD/PwD candidates from fair participation and constitutes to denial of reasonable accommodation as provided for under the RPwD Act;

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Respondent acknowledged the need for accessibility but claimed that the Commission does not have the necessary logistical facilities for the forthcoming preliminary examination and that the respondent  is entirely dependent upon the infrastructure, logistical support, and manpower of the State Governments, District Authorities, Schools, and Colleges which are entrusted with the conduct of its examinations. They assured that the facility of Screen Reader Software had been approved in principle, but required logistical preparedness and security validation.

Judgement:

On 3 December, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the rights of persons with disabilities to equal opportunity in public examinations must be safeguarded under the constitutional mandates of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. The Hon’ble Court directed the UPSC to include a clear provision in every notification permitting the candidates eligible for a scribe to request a change of scribe up to at least seven days prior to the date of the examination and also to dispose of such requests within 3 working days of receipt of the application.

Additionally, the Court mandated the Commission to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two months detailing concrete plans and timelines for screen-reader software deploymen. The Court also  mandated the commission to formulate uniform guidelines and protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software and other assistive technologies in the examination process in coordination with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD).

 The Union Public Service Commission is further  directed to ensure accessibility and inclusion for PwBD candidates in civil service examinations by the court.

Ratio decidendi:

The Court observed that while the policy intent was commendable, the lack of a clearly defined implementation mechanism necessitated judicial intervention. The Court emphasized that accessibility measures must move beyond policy declarations and be translated into practical, enforceable realities through structured planning and inter-agency coordination. It was also observed that the true measure of inclusivity in governance lies not merely in the formulation of progressive policies but in their faithful and effective implementation. The rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

The ruling aligned the structural framework for conducting Civil Service Examination with the constitutional norms, reiterating that equality, dignity and non-discrimination are dependent on accessibility.  The decision marks a significant policy advancement towards ensuring accessibility and inclusion. However, the accessibility measures must move beyond policy declarations and be translated into practical, enforceable realities through structured planning and inter-agency coordination.

Conclusion:

This case represents a significant development in disability rights law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reinforced the constitutional mandate of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination and reaffirmed that the right to equal opportunity is a core and inalienable aspect of the fundamental rights. The ruling offers an enforceable framework for guaranteeing that people with disabilities can compete equally in India’s most competitive public exams by requiring precise deadlines, coordination procedures, and rational decision-making for accommodation requests.Therefore, in order to guarantee substantive inclusion and turn rights from written promises into lived realities, the law must go beyond formal equality as a tool of justice.