LexARNAB ROY versus CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 464 : 2023 INSC 261 464 CASE DETAILS ARNAB ROY v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1109 of 2022) MARCH 17, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue specifi cally addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., by an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, guidelines have been formulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: Held: Paragraph 4 of the Offi ce Memorandum stipulates that all recruitment agencies, academic/examination bodies under the administrative control of each Ministry/Department may be advised appropriately to ensure compliance of the guidelines – In pursuance of the interim directions of the Court, the Consortium of National Law Universities extended necessary facilities to PwD candidates in terms of the statement which was tendered before the Supreme Court. [Paras 11, 12] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The CLAT advertisement was issued on 28.08.2022 and the registration closed on 18.11.2022 – The Consortium issued its set of guidelines on 24.11.2022 and the entrance test was conducted on 18.12.2022 – Petitioner urged guidelines to be issued together with the advertisement: 465 Held: It was directed that in future, the guidelines which shall be applicable for the facilities which should be extended to PwD candidates are to be notifi ed suffi ciently in advance and, in any event, together with the advertisement by which the schedule for the CLAT is placed in the public domain – This would ensure that candidates are not left in a state of uncertainty and know precisely the nature of the facilities and reasonable accommodation which has been made available to them consistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. [Para 17] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Directions issued to the Consortium conducting CLAT: Held: CLAT directed that, in the future, formulate the modalities in a manner consistent with its formulation which was placed on the record before the Supreme Court so as to obviate any inconvenience to PwD candidates – The consortium shall also take due steps to ensure that its guidelines are consistent with the Offi ce Memorandum dated 10.08.2022 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Persons with Disabilities. [Para 19] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – In the Common Law Admission Test, the Consortium had sought to prohibit scribes if they are (a) above the 11th grade in educational attainment; or (b) affi liated to any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre – Propriety: Held: In this backdrop, it is necessary, in order to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the examination, that the scribe does not provide independent answers to the MCQs based on their own knowledge or experience and hence the two-fold restriction has been imposed – Moreover, it has been submitted that in any event, if a candidate has any diffi culty in engaging a scribe, the Consortium is ready and willing to provide a scribe so that the candidate is not prevented from appearing for the entrance test – Therefore, the request of the Consortium is allowed to the extent of its assertion that the scribe who is selected should not be qualifi ed above the 11th standard and should not be associated with any test-preparatory organisation or examination coaching centre. [Paras 22, 27] ARNAB ROY v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Facilitation of a scribe to the candidates – Where the consortium provides scribe, at least two days’ time should be provided so as to enable the candidate to interact with the scribe: Held: In other words, candidates appearing for the CLAT can either bring their own scribe or if it is not possible to do so, request the Consortium to provide a scribe who is then made available to the candidate – It was agreed that where the Consortium provides a scribe, at least two days’ time should be provided so as to enable the can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.