Published on 17th July 2025
Authored By: Ayushi Yadav
Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission is a milestone in Indian disability jurisprudence. It expanded the understanding of “reasonable accommodation” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and clarified that this right is not restricted to those with a “benchmark disability” (i.e., 40% or more disability), but is available to all persons with disabilities under constitutional and international obligations.
The Court’s interpretation prioritised substantive equality, human dignity, and India’s commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, a qualified MBBS graduate, intended to appear for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). He suffered from writer’s cramp (focal dystonia), a neurological disorder severely affecting his ability to write.
Kumar applied to use a scribe during the Mains examination, citing medical evidence of his condition. However, the UPSC rejected his request on the grounds that he did not have a “benchmark disability” as defined in section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, which prescribes a minimum 40% disability threshold.
The Delhi High Court dismissed his petition, stating the UPSC was justified in applying the rule uniformly. Aggrieved by the decision, Kumar approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the denial of a scribe to a person not having a benchmark disability violates the RPwD Act, 2016.
- Whether the concept of “reasonable accommodation” under the RPwD Act is available only to persons with benchmark disabilities.
- Whether such denial violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, especially the right to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
Judgment
- Reasonable Accommodation as a Right
The Court held that reasonable accommodation is a legal right, not a concession. It derives statutory force from sections 3, 5, and 20 of the RPwD Act.
“The principle of reasonable accommodation is intrinsic to the right to equality. The denial of reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination”
(Vikash Kumar v UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370, para 39)
Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act defines reasonable accommodation as “necessary and appropriate modification…to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy rights on an equal basis.” This right is not limited to benchmark disabilities.
- Interpretation of Disability Categories
The RPwD Act differentiates between:
“Person with disability” [s 2(s)]: anyone with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment.
“Person with benchmark disability” [s 2(r)]: person with 40% or more specified disability.
The Court clarified that while benchmark disabilities are relevant for reservations and certain statutory entitlements, reasonable accommodation must be extended to all persons with disabilities, including non-benchmark cases.
- Constitutional Dimensions
The judgment emphasized substantive equality under Article 14 and the right to dignity under Article 21:
“Formal equality is not sufficient. The law must take into account the different circumstances of persons to ensure real equality.”
(ibid, para 45)
The denial of a scribe to Vikash Kumar was found to be a violation of his fundamental rights.
- Overruling V Surendra Mohan
The Court criticised and overruled V Surendra Mohan v State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 4 SCC 237], where visual disability was used to bar a candidate from judicial service.
> “This Court cannot endorse a standard which limits access to opportunities solely on the basis of perceived incapacity.”
(Vikash Kumar, para 62)
E Directions Given
- UPSC was directed to allow Vikash Kumar to use a scribe.
- Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was instructed to revise guidelines for the use of scribes in examinations.
- Authorities must conduct individual assessments, not rely solely on percentage-based thresholds.
International and Comparative Law Analysis
A . UNCRPD and Article 2
India ratified the UNCRPD in 2007. Article 2 defines reasonable accommodation as essential to preventing discrimination. The Court acknowledged that Indian law must conform to such obligations under Article 51(c) of the Constitution.
> “The RPwD Act is a reflection of India’s commitment under the UNCRPD. Denial of reasonable accommodation violates international norms.”
(ibid, para 30)
- Comparative Jurisdictions
The judgment aligns India’s disability rights framework with:
UK Equality Act 2010 – where public bodies must provide reasonable adjustments.
Canadian Human Rights Act – mandates individualised accommodation unless undue hardship arises.
Broader Legal and Social Analysis
- Doctrinal Shift: From Formal to Substantive Equality
The Court moved away from rigid rule-based decision-making towards a transformative constitutional approach, recognizing that equity and inclusion require individualised assessments.
- Right to Dignity and Human Flourishing
The Court integrated dignity as a legal standard, not just a philosophical one. A denial of scribe assistance based on arbitrary thresholds infringes on the freedom to develop one’s personality under Article 21.
- Institutional and Policy-Level Changes
Following the judgment :
UPSC revised its policy on scribes.
Other bodies (e.g., Staff Selection Commission) adopted individual assessment frameworks.
The Ministry updated the Scribe Guidelines (2018) to make them more inclusive.
Impact of the Judgement
- On Public Authorities
Authorities must now:
Conduct case-by-case assessments.
Avoid rigid insistence on “benchmark disability” for accommodations.
Provide functional assessments of impairment and barriers.
- On Jurisprudence and Precedents
This case is frequently cited in :
Rohit Kumar v GNCTD (Delhi HC, 2022) – on access to education for children with disabilities.
Tanya Singh v NTA (2022) – regarding additional time and scribe facilities in competitive exams.
- On Civil Society and Academia
Scholars and disability rights groups have celebrated the ruling. According to Nandini Chatterjee:
“The Vikash Kumar judgment puts dignity and reasonable accommodation at the centre of constitutional discourse on disability.”
(Nandini Chatterjee, ‘India’s Vikash Kumar judgment allows dignity for the disabled’, Disability Law Review, 2023)
Gautam Bhatia adds :
“The decision clarifies that rights-based accommodation is not dependent on arbitrary medical thresholds.”
(G Bhatia, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 2021)
Challenges in Implementation
Despite the ruling, some issues persist:
Lack of uniformity in assessment procedures across states.
Bureaucratic inertia and resistance to policy changes.
Inadequate awareness among officials and affected persons.
Continuous judicial vigilance and administrative reforms are necessary to ensure the spirit of the judgment is implemented.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikash Kumar v UPSC is a landmark ruling that strengthens the legal architecture of disability rights in India. It places the individual’s lived experience at the centre of adjudication, aligns domestic law with international norms, and prioritises dignity and equality.
The case represents a constitutional shift from procedural compliance to substantive justice, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not merely included but are empowered through rights-based frameworks. It sets a powerful precedent for future jurisprudence and governance aimed at building a more inclusive India.
