A group of visually impaired law students and graduates have approached the Supreme Court alleging systemic discrimination and non-compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act in the conduct of legal examinations such as the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT). [Yash Dodani and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.]
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the Central government on the plea and listed the matter for hearing on November 25.
The petitioners, individuals with significant visual impairments, highlighted persistent barriers in accessing necessary accommodations during these exams, despite repeated attempts to engage with the Bar Council of India (BCI) and CLAT conducting authorities.
Specific Grievances
One of the petitioners, a law graduate from NALSAR University with 90% low vision, had sought permission to use a computer for the AIBE-XIX examination. Despite his repeated emails and letters to the BCI, he received no response or support.
Notably, the petitioner has an exemplary record, including setting up an Accessibility Lab for visually and hearing-impaired individuals.
Another petitioner, a blind law student from Government Law College, Mumbai, had requested clarifications on scribe eligibility criteria and permission to use a computer for the CLAT examination. His efforts, too, were met with silence.
The third petitioner, a blind law graduate from Auro University in Surat, had sought soft copies of Bare Acts and permission to use a computer for the AIBE-XIX. After an oral denial by the BCI's helpdesk, he received no written communication addressing his concerns.
The petitioners then filed the present plea before the apex court.
The petitioners have argued that these omissions violate not only the RPwD Act but also the Government of India's guidelines on conducting examinations for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, issued on August 29, 2018.
As per the plea, persons with visual impairments were denied reasonable accommodations, such as the option to use computers or access digital copies of Bare Acts during exams.
Further, there is a lack of clarity and guidelines regarding scribe eligibility criteria and inadequate provisions for accessible examination centers.
The petitioners also pointed to instances of insensitivity and harassment faced by candidates due to a lack of awareness and training among invigilators.
These systemic shortcomings amount to discrimination and hinder visually impaired candidates from competing on equal footing with others, it has been contended.
The petitioners have sought relief from the Court to ensure the respondents implement necessary accommodations and abide by legal provisions.
Specifically, they have requested the provision of computers, access to soft copies of Bare Acts for exams like AIBE-XIX, clear and inclusive guidelines on scribe eligibility, and accessible exam centers for persons with disabilities.
Additionally, they have sought mandatory sensitization programs for invigilators to address the specific needs of persons with visual impairments, ensuring a fair and accessible examination process.