PIL to ban coaching teachers, former aspirants as scribes in civil service exams: Delhi HC seeks UPSC response

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Central government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the eligibility criteria for scribes in civil service examinations. Filed by the Deepstambh Foundation, the PIL argues that allowing coaching centre faculty and former UPSC aspirants to act as scribes for candidates with disabilities creates an unfair advantage and compromises exam integrity. The petition contends that such 'conflicted scribes' possess extensive knowledge of the exam, potentially influencing answers beyond mere transcription. The Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, issued notice to UPSC, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, highlighting the need to balance reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, with maintaining the fairness of competitive examinations.

The integrity and fairness of competitive examinations, particularly those as prestigious as the Civil Services Examination (CSE) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), are paramount. A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Delhi High Court has brought into sharp focus a critical aspect of examination accessibility for persons with disabilities: the qualification and potential conflict of interest of scribes. The petition, filed by the Deepstambh Foundation, an organisation dedicated to supporting disabled civil service aspirants, challenges the existing UPSC guidelines that permit individuals with extensive knowledge of the examination, such as coaching centre faculty and former aspirants, to serve as scribes.

This legal challenge underscores a fundamental tension between ensuring reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities, as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and upholding the sanctity and impartiality of the examination process. The Delhi High Court, through a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has issued notice to the UPSC, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, signalling the gravity of the issues raised. This article will delve into the legal framework governing scribe facilities, analyse the petitioner's arguments regarding 'conflicted scribes,' and explore the broader implications for examination bodies and candidates with disabilities.

The provision of scribes for persons with disabilities in competitive examinations is a crucial aspect of ensuring equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation, firmly rooted in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). Section 17 of the RPwD Act mandates suitable modifications in the examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities, including the facility of a scribe and extra time. In compliance with the Act and various Supreme Court directives, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) have issued guidelines to facilitate scribe services.

Historically, these guidelines have evolved, with significant pronouncements from the Supreme Court, such as in *Vikas Kumar v. UPSC* (2021), which affirmed the right to a scribe even for candidates with less than 40% disability if they face functional limitations in writing. The current framework generally allows candidates to arrange their own scribes, with certain stipulations. For instance, the qualification of the scribe is typically required to be one step below the qualification of the candidate taking the examination. However, for examinations where the minimum qualification is graduation, this rule can lead to situations where scribes are themselves graduates, potentially including those with prior experience in the same examination or coaching.

The core of the Deepstambh Foundation's PIL lies in the argument that while the facility of a scribe is a vital reasonable accommodation, the current UPSC guidelines, which permit scribes to possess qualifications up to the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the examination (graduation for CSE), create a loophole. This allows individuals such as former UPSC aspirants or coaching centre faculty to act as scribes. The petitioner contends that such 'conflicted scribes' possess an intimate knowledge of the UPSC syllabus, examination patterns, and answer-writing techniques, which goes beyond mere transcription.

The concern raised is that these highly knowledgeable scribes may not merely write down dictated answers but could subtly influence the content, structure, and quality of responses, effectively transforming the examination into a collaborative exercise rather than an assessment of the candidate's individual merit. This alleged misuse, the PIL claims, is widespread, with informal 'scribe services' reportedly flourishing in coaching hubs, thereby distorting the level playing field for all candidates. The petitioner seeks a directive requiring scribes to furnish an undertaking declaring they have neither appeared in the CSE nor coached aspirants, with penal consequences for false declarations.

This challenge highlights a critical dilemma for examination bodies: how to balance the imperative of providing reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act with the need to maintain the integrity and fairness of competitive examinations. While the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to a scribe as a non-discriminatory measure, the specific qualifications and potential for undue advantage remain a nuanced area. Existing guidelines from various bodies, including the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and other examination authorities, often stipulate that a scribe should not be a candidate for the same examination. Some guidelines also specify that the scribe's qualification should be 'one step below' the candidate's. The current UPSC rule, allowing qualification up to the minimum educational qualification of the exam, appears to be the point of contention when the minimum is a graduate degree. The Delhi High Court's response will likely shape future policy on scribe qualifications, potentially leading to more stringent checks to prevent conflicts of interest while preserving accessibility.

The Delhi High Court's decision to issue notice on the Deepstambh Foundation's PIL marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding examination accessibility and integrity in India. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the evolving interpretation of 'reasonable accommodation' under the RPwD Act, 2016, and its practical application in high-stakes competitive environments. The outcome could lead to a re-evaluation of scribe eligibility criteria across various examination bodies, potentially mandating stricter declarations and qualifications to prevent any perceived or actual unfair advantage.

Practitioners advising educational institutions, recruitment agencies, or disability rights organisations should closely monitor the Delhi High Court's proceedings. The eventual ruling may necessitate a review of existing policies to ensure they not only comply with the spirit of the RPwD Act but also safeguard the fairness and transparency of examinations. This case serves as a crucial reminder that while accessibility is a fundamental right, its implementation must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the meritocratic principles of public service recruitment. The balance struck by the court will have lasting implications for both candidates with disabilities and the integrity of India's competitive examination system.