Supreme Court Rules on Scribe Eligibility for CLAT Exam: Rights of Disabled Candidates Upheld
The case of Arnab Roy vs. Consortium of National Law Universities revolves around the issue of scribe eligibility for candidates with disabilities appearing for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the eligibility criteria for scribes imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities were discriminatory and contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The judgment clarified the rights of candidates with disabilities and emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation to ensure a fair examination process.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Arnab Roy, a lawyer and disability rights activist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain conditions imposed by the Consortium of National Law Universities for the conduct of the CLAT 2023 exam.
The main issue raised in the petition concerned the eligibility criteria for scribes, which were imposed less than four weeks before the exam.
Key events leading to the dispute:
- August 28, 2022: The CLAT advertisement was issued.
- November 18, 2022: The registration process closed.
- November 24, 2022: The Consortium issued guidelines restricting scribe eligibility.
- December 15, 2022: The Supreme Court intervened and directed reasonable accommodations.
- December 18, 2022: The CLAT exam was conducted under revised conditions.
- March 17, 2023: The Supreme Court delivered its final ruling.
Issues Raised by the Petitioner
The petitioner raised three key grievances:
1. Denial of Scribes to Candidates Without Benchmark Disabilities
The petitioner argued that the Consortium had denied the right to a scribe to candidates who did not have a benchmark disability (i.e., a disability of 40% or more). This was in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikash Kumar vs. UPSC, which had ruled that:
“To confine the facility of a scribe only to those who have benchmark disabilities would be to deprive a class of persons of their statutorily recognized entitlements.”
2. Arbitrary Restriction on Scribe Eligibility
The Consortium imposed restrictions stating that a scribe:
- Must not be above the 11th-grade level.
- Must not be affiliated with any coaching institute.
The petitioner contended that these restrictions eliminated most available scribes, as nearly all 10th and 11th-grade students were enrolled in coaching programs.
3. Failure to Provide Scribes to Candidates Who Could Not Find One
The petitioner argued that the Consortium had abdicated its responsibility to provide scribes for candidates who were unable to secure one due to financial or accessibility constraints.
Arguments by the Respondent (Consortium of National Law Universities)
The Consortium defended its guidelines, arguing that:
- The restrictions on scribe eligibility were necessary to maintain the integrity of the exam since CLAT is a multiple-choice test.
- If a scribe had more than an 11th-grade education, they might influence the candidate’s responses.
- The Consortium was willing to provide scribes to candidates who could not find one.
Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner on some issues while allowing the Consortium’s restrictions on scribe eligibility.
1. Consortium Must Provide Scribes for Candidates Who Cannot Find One
The Court directed the Consortium to ensure that no disabled candidate is denied access to the exam due to the lack of a scribe.
“The first respondent shall ensure that no disabled student is denied access to the examination and that all necessary facilities by way of reasonable accommodation are provided.”
2. Scribe Eligibility Restrictions Are Justified
The Court upheld the Consortium’s decision to restrict scribe eligibility, stating that it was necessary to maintain the integrity of the test.
“The Consortium has, in its guidelines, required that the candidate should not be above the 11th standard and should not be affiliated with any test-preparatory organization or coaching center. At the highest, a candidate could have a grievance if no such scribe meeting the said description is available.”
3. Guidelines Must Be Published with the Exam Notification
The Court ruled that in future, guidelines for disabled candidates must be notified at the same time as the exam advertisement.
“To ensure certainty, the guidelines must be issued together with the advertisement so that PwD candidates are not left in a state of uncertainty.”
4. Candidates Must Be Given Time to Interact with Their Scribes
The Court directed that when a scribe is provided by the Consortium, the candidate must be given at least two days to interact with the scribe before the exam.
“In order to familiarize the scribe and the aspirant candidate, at least two days of interaction should be provided.”
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court:
- Directed the Consortium to provide scribes when candidates cannot secure one.
- Upheld the restrictions on scribe eligibility.
- Mandated that future guidelines be issued at the same time as the exam notification.
- Ordered that candidates be given two days to interact with their scribes.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for disabled candidates appearing for competitive exams:
1. Strengthening Disability Rights
- The judgment reinforces the principle that disabled candidates must be given reasonable accommodations.
- The Court reaffirmed that the right to a scribe is not limited to those with benchmark disabilities.
2. Ensuring Exam Integrity
- By upholding scribe eligibility restrictions, the Court ensured that the fairness of the exam is maintained.
- The ruling prevents potential misuse of the scribe system.
3. Reducing Uncertainty for Disabled Candidates
- By mandating early publication of guidelines, the Court reduced last-minute uncertainty.
- The requirement for candidates to interact with their scribes ensures they are comfortable on exam day.
Conclusion
This judgment establishes a balance between ensuring fairness in competitive exams and upholding the rights of disabled candidates. The ruling prevents discriminatory practices while maintaining the integrity of entrance exams like CLAT.
Petitioner Name: Arnab Roy.Respondent Name: Consortium of National Law Universities.Judgment By: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.Place Of Incident: India.Judgment Date: 17-03-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: arnab-roy-vs-consortium-of-nation-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-03-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
