The case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) addresses a significant question: Should the law be the mouthpiece of social consensus, especially regarding the rights of differently-abled individuals? Justice DY Chandrachud, through this judgment, emphasized that the Indian Constitution does not serve only the majority. This judgment is a crucial step towards the upliftment and advancement of the differently-abled, embodying principles of equality and inclusivity.
Vikash Kumar, an MBBS graduate with dysgraphia (a disability affecting writing ability), aspired to join the civil services. In his 2017 civil services exam application, he declared his locomotor disability and was provided with a scribe. However, new rules in the Civil Services Examination Rules 2018 restricted the provision of scribes, impacting Kumar's ability to appear for the 2018 examination. The UPSC rejected his request for a scribe, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recognized the core issues of equal opportunity and access for the differently-abled, directing the AIIMS to evaluate Kumar’s condition. The medical board confirmed his condition as bilateral Writer’s Cramp but noted that it did not meet the "benchmark disability" criteria.
The Supreme Court allowed Kumar's appeal, granting him the facility of a scribe for competitive examinations. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was instructed to frame guidelines to regulate and facilitate scribe facilities for persons with disabilities, in consultation with affected individuals and organizations representing them.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is grounded in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Section 3 of the act declares this intention, ensuring equality without the constraint of a benchmark disability. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforced that equality entails reasonable differentiation and specific measures, recognizing the distinct needs of differently-abled individuals.
Reasonable Accommodation
The court highlighted the necessity of reasonable accommodation, a concept requiring adjustments based on individual needs. Minimal involvement of differently-abled individuals in policymaking often leads to their voices being unheard. The act mandates that both government and private sectors bear responsibilities to ensure equality for differently-abled persons.
Affirmative Duties
Providing a scribe is not a privilege but an affirmative duty of the government. Denying this facility based on the benchmark disability criterion contradicts the act’s intent. The court noted that concerns over potential misuse of scribe facilities should not deprive an entire class of their statutory rights. The possibility of misuse exists among able-bodied individuals as well, and punitive measures can address such issues without imposing additional burdens on the differently-abled.
Empowerment through Employment
Employment opportunities are essential for empowering differently-abled individuals. The rigid stance of the UPSC, by limiting scribe facilities, forces highly competent candidates into the private sector, undermining the public sector’s diversity and inclusivity.
Leave a comment