EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: SC ACTS ON AIBE & CLAT DISABILITY ISSUES
Category: Constitutional law - Administrative affairs policy making
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Introduction
In the case of Yash Dodani and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No.785/2024 the Supreme Court addressed a combined petition filed by three law students. All three of them were with benchmark disabilities. They sought reasonable accommodations for their upcoming law examinations. The decision was made by a division bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan. They examined both the petitions on the Common Law Entrance Test (CLAT) Postgraduate exam and the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE). They did an in-depth analysis of the case considering its importance in protecting the educational rights of students.
Background
This legal case delved through the narratives of three petitioners who were urgently in need of a remedy. If the existing system of examination continues, they could not showcase their knowledge or perform well in the examinations up to their levels. Thus, they stood up against the existing practices. The first petitioner was a 90 percent low-vision disabled law graduate from NALSAR University of Law. He approached the Supreme Court requesting a critical accommodation: the ability to use a computer during the AIBE-XIX examination. The second petitioner was a 100 percent blind law student. He was from Government Law School, Mumbai. he sought clarification on scribe eligibility criteria for the CLAT, highlighting the complex procedural challenges that visually impaired students face. The third petitioner was another 100 percent blind law graduate from Auro University in Surat. He requested for access to soft copies of Bare Acts and also for computer-based examination options.
KEY ASPECTS
The legal discourse focused around the fundamental questions of accessibility, technological assistance and the systemic barriers confronting students with disabilities in legal education.
The case was not a mere procedural request of the said case. It represented a broader challenge to the established examination patterns. In the modern era they advocated for modern technological solutions like screen readers and comprehensive computer-based examination options to assist them.
The case emphasised on the Job Access with Speech (JAWS) software as an important accessibility tool that would help them.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court bench divisional bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, engaged with the petitions with utmost sensitivity. Thus, they went in-depth to the topic. Justice Kant stated that "Money is overflowing for BCI" which highlighted the court's frustration with the bureaucratic reluctance to implement all-inclusive practices. The Bar Council of India was questioned for its passive way of conducting the examinations. The Court decided on the case to adopt modern technological measures to support students with disabilities.
Conclusion
The directives of the Supreme Court were a landmark moment in educational accessibility in India. By mandating the Bar Council of India to provide JAWS software at its own cost to the students, allowing the students to use their personal keyboards and directing the CLAT Consortium to develop a comprehensive policy within the next four weeks, the court has sent a strong message about the rights of students with disabilities.
The judgment was not just a solution to the present legal dispute. It was a powerful statement about the inclusivity of the differently abled students and the technological adaptation possible to resolve the issue which would protect the fundamental right to education. The judgment urged the institutions to reconsider their examination patterns. The Supreme Court in reality promoted the true empowerment and equity.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY : ADV AYANTIKA MONDAL
