Person suffering from Writer's Cramp entitled to scribe for giving Civil Service exam: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person suffering from the neurological condition, Writer's Cramp, is entitled to have a scribe to write the Civil Service exam (Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission)..The Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to frame guidelines so that scribes are provided to the disabled candidate as mentioned under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (2016 Act). These guidelines have to be framed within three months of the order, the Court added. ."The appellant has a chronic neurological condition which is in Schedule 4 of the 2016 Act. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to a scribe," the Court ruled..Importantly, the Court also held that 'benchmark disability' as defined in the Act is not a precondition to obtaining a scribe.The 2016 Act makes certain special provisions for persons with 'benchmark disability' but with today's ruling, the right to obtain a scribe could extend to a case which does not fall within the ambit of 'benchmark disability'. .The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna in a plea challenging Civil Services Rules for being discriminatory towards the UPSC aspirant as it allows a scribe for visually and orthopedically impaired persons who cannot write by their own hand, but not for persons with Writer's Cramp. .The Bench said that the 2016 Act was a watershed moment to provide equal rights to the disabled. Persons with disabilities encounter barriers of prejudice and discrimination which have their origin in social, economic inequalities, the Court observed. .Disability under the 2016 Act is not a medical condition, the Court said. It deals with the overall impairment of the individual and focuses on the specific part of the body that is affected..It was the petitioners case that provision of a scribe / writer is within the scope of 'reasonable accommodation' as defined in Section 2(y) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Disabilities Act) and, therefore, the respondents were legally obliged to provide a scribe / writer to the petitioner..In January, 2020, medical board at AIIMS, New Delhi, was directed by the top court to evaluate the petitioner and report as to whether the petitioner suffers from 'benchmark disability' within the meaning of Section 2(r) and Section 2(zc) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; or alternatively, whether the petitioner is a 'person with disability' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the 2016 Act and, if so, the extent of the disability..AIIMS informed Court that the petitioner was suffering from Bilateral Writer's Cramp and that petitioner has the specified disability of 'chronic neurological condition', as specified in the Schedule to the 2016 Act. The report further opined that the petitioner does not suffer from 'benchmark disability' and the petitioner is a 'person with disability' and the extent of disability is 6 percent..It was argued by the petitioner that extent of disability of 6 percent as evaluated by the AIIMS medical board for the Petitioner pertains to the extent of his loco-motor disability due to a chronic neurological condition, viz. the inability in moving self or objects..The primary argument put forth by the petitioner was that he is a person with disability within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.Consequently, it was his argument that under Section 20 of the said Act, he is entitled to non-discrimination in public employment and reasonable accommodation so as to enable him to take the Civil Service Examinations (CSE)..The Court was also faced with the argument of whether the provision of a scribe / writer is within the scope of reasonable accommodation as defined in Section 2(y) of the 2016 Act, and therefore whether respondents are legally obliged to provide a scribe / writer to the Petitioner..Advocates Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar and Rajan Mani appeared for the petitioner. Additional Solicitor-General Madhavi Divan appeared for Centre and Advocate Naresh Kaushik for UPSC..[Read Judgment]