In August, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued new guidelines to facilitate visually impaired candidates in competitive examinations. On paper, these guidelines appear progressive. They encourage exam bodies to incorporate technologies such as screen readers, customised keyboards, and the option for candidates to type answers independently. However, the guidelines are devoid of enforceable obligations, timelines, or clear accountability. The government has deferred its implementation to December 31. This risks entrenching a system that sidelines disabled candidates under the guise of “encouragement.”
The guidelines are largely aspirational and lack concrete mechanisms to ensure compliance. There is no mandated rollout plan, no penalties for exam bodies that fail to adapt, and crucially, no infrastructure is currently in place to support the use of assistive technology during exams.
Major institutions, such as the Union Public Service Commission and the National Testing Agency, have yet to develop or deploy accessible computer-based testing platforms that are compatible with screen readers like JAWS or NVDA. The prevailing computer interfaces remain largely graphical and inaccessible to visually impaired users, forcing candidates into the humiliating and inefficient option of relying on scribes. Meaningful inclusion demands investment, innovation, and urgency — none of which are evident in the guidelines.
On multiple occasions, the judiciary has intervened to ensure the basic accessibility rights of visually impaired candidates. In the landmark case of Yash Dodani v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ordered that candidates appearing for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) Postgraduate exam and the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) be provided comprehensive access to assistive technology, including JAWS screen reader software, customised keyboards, and the option to type answers directly. This ruling underscored that while scribes remain an option, candidates should not be forced to depend solely on them.
Yet, it is sobering that these advances came only through protracted litigation, not proactive executive action. Exam bodies have routinely resisted upgrading their systems, often citing logistical nightmares and security concerns.
UPSC has consistently resisted efforts to utilise screen reader technology in civil services examination before the Supreme Court, claiming that the scale of its operations — over 10 lakh candidates across 2,500 centres — makes it impossible to guarantee security and confidentiality while accommodating assistive technology. It has time and again raised concerns about the technological literacy of candidates and the capacity of exam staff to support these accommodations.
In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, where a person with writer’s cramp had approached the SC, requesting the provision of a scribe and compensatory time, the UPSC had opposed the request on the ground that the petitioner ‘s disability was not recognised under the act. One of the arguments advanced by UPSC was that providing such reasonable accommodation would hurt the purity of the exam.
The Supreme Court had then observed: “The system may be vulnerable to being gamed by able-bodied persons; however, it is the persons with disabilities who are being asked to bear the cost of maintaining the purity of the competitive examinations by giving up their legal entitlements on the presumption that there is a possibility of misuse.”
Despite the Court’s warnings four years ago, the executive continues to pursue the ableist paradigm.
Screen readers like JAWS and NVDA function as read-only tools that do not interact with or alter the exam content. Therefore, they do not pose any security risk. Accommodating visually impaired candidates does not require complex technical skills from invigilators. It simply needs to load pre-approved software on exam computers and provide compatible hardware. Nor does it require candidates to be tech experts; it only demands that exam bodies provide an environment that mirrors the accessible tools these candidates already use in their academic and professional lives. The problem is not feasibility; it is a lack of institutional will.
The August guidelines strictly prohibit candidates from bringing their own scribes, insisting instead that scribes must be selected from an official pool vetted by exam authorities. While this may be intended to prevent malpractice, it strips candidates of the crucial support and trust that comes from working with someone familiar with their needs and communication style.
Adding to this challenge, the guidelines require scribes to be academically two to three levels junior to the candidate. A law graduate, for instance, must work with someone who may have only completed high school or less. Such a wide gap in academic background is problematic in technical or specialised exams, where the scribe’s lack of subject knowledge can lead to mistakes, misinterpretations, and compromise the candidate’s performance.
Finally, the limited interaction time between candidate and scribe — just 20 minutes before the exam — makes it nearly impossible to build rapport or coordinate effectively. What should be an accommodation to level the playing field instead becomes a source of anxiety and inefficiency.
The Ministry’s continued reliance on a scribe-centric model, while superficially offering alternatives, reveals a deeper unwillingness to embrace genuine accessibility. Without concrete mandates, exam bodies are incentivised to maintain status quo rather than innovate. The December 31 deadline should not become a bureaucratic smokescreen leading to further delay. The state must make it clear that accessibility is non-negotiable, with strict accountability for exam bodies that fail to comply.
What is required is not vague encouragement but mandatory integration of assistive technologies into all computer-based exams. Exam bodies must be legally bound to provide accessible software platforms that are compatible with screen readers, along with certified, trained scribes where needed. Candidates must be allowed to test these technologies in advance to avoid unpleasant surprises on exam day. Only robust enforcement, coupled with adequate resources and training, can transform a paper promise into a reality.
The failure to provide accessible examinations is a violation of Sections 16 and 17 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which obligate exam conducting bodies to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled candidates. It also stands in violation of various judicial directives passed, which unequivocally state that the right to reasonable accommodation is a part and parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty.
In light of this robust legal and constitutional mandate, candidates with disabilities must not be forced to litigate their rights repeatedly or accept compromised accommodations as their only option. Unless the government moves beyond token gestures and implements concrete, enforceable reforms, this exclusion will continue, eroding the very foundations of inclusive education and opportunity in India.
The writer is a consultant with Mission Accessibility and the founder of QAble
