New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Union Public Service Commission to incorporate provisions in all examination notifications permitting eligible candidates to request scribe changes up to at least seven days before the examination date, and to file a comprehensive plan within two months for implementing Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates, holding that true inclusivity lies not merely in formulating progressive policies but in their faithful implementation.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta examined whether UPSC’s requirement to furnish scribe details at the application-submission stage was arbitrary, and whether denial of screen reader facilities violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court heard Writ Petition (C) No. 206 of 2025 filed by Mission Accessibility, an organisation advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, seeking modification of scribe registration timelines in the Civil Services Examination and permission to use laptops equipped with Screen Reader Software along with accessible digital question papers for eligible candidates.
The reliefs sought included declaring the impugned requirement arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution; directing UPSC to permit submission of scribe details at a reasonable time closer to the examination date; allowing modification of scribe details anytime before any stage of the examination; allowing laptop use with screen readers at all stages; and providing question papers in accessible digital formats.
On 06.05.2025, the Court allowed impleadment of the Department of Personnel and Training as respondent No. 3 and directed counsel for UPSC to confer with DoPT regarding the concerns of candidates. UPSC was directed to file an affidavit regarding changes in scribe policy.
UPSC filed an affidavit stating that it had received requests from approximately 27 PwBD/PwD candidates for scribe changes and assured that each request would be examined on merit. A press note was uploaded stating that UPSC would consider change requests until 18.05.2025 on a merit basis. However, the affidavit was completely silent on providing screen reader facilities.
On 09.05.2025, the Court directed that all scribe-change requests by eligible candidates under the CSE Rules 2025 shall be entertained until 18.05.2025, and that each request shall be objectively considered and decided by a reasoned order within three working days of receipt. UPSC was also directed to file a specific affidavit on the use of computers with screen readers.
The petitioner’s counsel raised concerns about the criteria for scribe changes, including: the prescribed timeline for disposal; lack of clarity on grounds for accepting or rejecting requests; and ambiguity regarding documentary evidence requirements.
UPSC’s counsel responded that 18.05.2025 was the last date for scribe-change applications and assured disposal within three working days. On screen readers, counsel submitted that accepting the proposal would require extending the option to all eligible candidates, and UPSC presently lacked necessary logistical facilities for the preliminary examination scheduled for 25.05.2025.
On 31.10.2025, the Court’s attention was drawn to UPSC’s additional affidavit dated 12.09.2025, which stated that it had, in principle, resolved to introduce Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates appearing in various examinations. However, the affidavit stated that the necessary infrastructure for effective implementation was presently not in place.
UPSC averred that it does not maintain its own examination infrastructure and is entirely dependent on infrastructure, logistical support, and manpower from State Governments, District Authorities, Schools, and Colleges that conduct its examinations. UPSC assured that upon ensuring feasibility, readiness, and adequacy of requisite infrastructure and software—after comprehensive testing to ensure examination integrity and security—it shall extend the Screen Reader Software facility at the earliest possible juncture.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that while satisfied with the in-principle decision, it lacked a concrete implementation plan. UPSC had not indicated any definitive roadmap, operational framework, or timeline for equipping examination centres with the required technological and infrastructural facilities, leaving the issue uncertain.
UPSC’s counsel responded that the Commission was in active consultation with State Authorities, the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities to finalise technical standards, operational modalities, and procedural safeguards. UPSC emphasised its commitment to maintaining examination sanctity, confidentiality, and security, and assured that the facility would be operational from the next examination cycle after due testing and standardisation.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the bench, opened with profound observations:
“The measure of a just and inclusive society lies not merely in the freedoms it proclaims, but in the opportunities it ensures for all its citizens to realise their fullest potential. Equality, in its truest sense, demands not uniformity but the removal of barriers that prevent individuals from standing on equal footing.”
The Court noted:
“The present writ petition comes before this Court, seeking not privilege, but parity; not indulgence, but the rightful fulfilment of the constitutional vision of equal opportunity for all.”
Justice Mehta held that the grievances raised stand largely alleviated, as UPSC has now taken a conscious and progressive decision to extend the Screen Reader Software facility to visually impaired candidates across examinations—a step recognising and advancing their rights to equal opportunity and accessibility.
However, the bench observed that while the policy decision has been taken, the mechanism and modalities for its effective implementation must still be streamlined. UPSC’s dependence on external infrastructure, coupled with the absence of a clear roadmap, underscores the need for coordinated institutional action and phased execution.
Comprehensive Directions Issued
- UPSC shall ensure that every examination notification includes a clear provision permitting eligible candidates to request a scribe change up to at least seven days prior to the examination date, and such requests shall be disposed of within three working days with a reasoned order.
- UPSC shall file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two months delineating its action plan, timeline, and modalities for deployment and use of Screen Reader Software.
- UPSC shall, in coordination with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities and NIEPVD, formulate uniform guidelines and protocols for Screen Reader Software and other assistive technologies, ensuring standardisation, accessibility, and examination security.
- The Union of India, through DoPT and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, shall provide all necessary administrative and technical support to expedite implementation and facilitate coordination with State Governments and examination authorities.
The bench emphasised that implementation of these measures must ensure full accessibility for eligible candidates while maintaining the sanctity and fairness of the examination process.
Justice Mehta further observed that these directions are necessary to ensure meaningful implementation of the constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity under Articles 14 and 21, read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
In conclusion, the Court stated that the true measure of inclusivity lies not merely in framing progressive policies but in ensuring their effective implementation, reiterating that the rights of persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence but constitutional guarantees.
The matter was listed on 16.02.2026 for UPSC’s compliance affidavit.
Case Title: Mission Accessibility vs. Union of India & Ors.
