Holding

The appellant was wrongfully deprived of the compensatory hour of time, violating her rights under the RPwD Act, and the NTA must take remedial steps, though a fresh examination is not ordered.

Summary

The appellant, a student with dysgraphia (a specified disability of 40 % under the RPwD Act), appeared for the NEET (UG) 2021 and was denied the one‑hour compensatory time mandated for persons with disability. The designated examination centre collected her answer sheet after the regular three‑hour duration, and the National Testing Agency (NTA) failed to provide the relief despite the Guidelines for Written Examinations and the NEET Bulletin 2021. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a fresh examination with all relaxations; the High Court dismissed it, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the denial of compensatory time violated the appellant’s rights under Sections 17(i) and 3 of the RPwD Act and whether the NTA could be held accountable for the procedural lapse. Relying on the distinction between PwD and PwBD and on the principle of reasonable accommodation, the Court held that the appellant was wrongfully deprived of her entitlement. While the Court refused to order a re‑examination, it directed the NTA to take steps within a week to rectify the injustice and to amend the NEET Bulletin to remove ambiguities. The judgment underscores the State’s positive duty to ensure inclusive education and the accountability of public authorities in enforcing disability rights.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of one‑hour compensatory time to a PwD candidate under the RPwD Act and the NEET Bulletin constitutes a violation of her statutory rights.
Whether the NTA, as a public authority, can be held liable for failing to implement the Guidelines for Written Examinations and the NEET Bulletin provisions.
Whether the distinction between ‘person with disability’ (PwD) and ‘person with benchmark disability’ (PwBD) limits the entitlement to reasonable accommodation at the examination stage.

Legislation cited

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 17(i), s. 2(m), s. 2(r), s. 2(s), s. 3, s. 32, s. 4

Subjects

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Actreasonable accommodationinclusive educationcompensatory timeNEET examinationbenchmark disabilitydisability discriminationpublic authority accountabilityadministrative law

Judgment

[2021] 11 S.C.R. 891 891

AVNI PRAKASH A
v.
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016:
ss. 2(r), 17(i), 32, Schedule Entry 2(a) – Person with C
disability(PwD) – Compensatory time of one hour to write entrance
exam – Claim of – Appellant student sufferring from Dysgraphia
with disability of 40 per cent, appeared for the NEET (UG) – Claim
of additional one hour of compensatory time owing to her PwD
status – Initially assurance by the designated centre that if the rules
D
prescribed, facilities for PwD would be provided, however,
compensatory time of an hour not granted, and her paper forcibly
collected after three hours – Writ petition by appellant seeking
direction to the National Testing Agency-first respondent to hold a
fresh examination for the appellant while accommodating her with
all relaxations and benefits – Dismissed by the High Court – On E
appeal, held: Individual injustices originating in a wrongful denial
of rights and entitlements prescribed under the law cannot be sent
into oblivion on the ground that these are a necessary consequence
of a competitive examination – All authority under the law is subject
to responsibility, and to a sense of accountability – Appellant
F
wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while
appearing for the NEET without any fault of her own, despite her
entitlements as a PwD and a PwBD – Appellant denied her
entitlement to reasonable accommodation and the State failed to
fulfil its positive duty of protecting her right to inclusive education
– Appellant suffered injustice by a wrongful denial of these G
relaxations which first respondent was bound to scrupulously
enforce – Lack of remedy would cause irretrievable injustice to the
life of the appellant – Though the relief sought for holding a
re-examination for the NEET (UG) is denied since it would cause
uncertainty and chaos, however, issuance of directions to first
H
891
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A respondent to consider steps to be taken to rectify the injustice –
First respondent to ensure that provisions made at the NEET in terms
of the rights and entitlements available under the Act are clarified
in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity – Owing to the confusion
between the authorities, persons working for the first respondent
and the exam centres to be sensitised and trained, on a regular
B
basis.
Object of the 2016 Act – Held: Effective participation of the
students with disabilities in the society is the beneficial object of
the legislation – Safeguards provided by the law must be duly
enforced and any breach of entitlement must be answerable at law
C – Responsibility and power without accountability are anathema to
the Constitution.
ss. 2(r), (s) – Persons with disabilities and Persons with
benchmark disabilities – Distinction between – Stated.
D s. 2(m) – Inclusive Education – Right to Inclusive Education
– Held: Inclusive education is indispensable for ensuring universal
and non-discriminatory access to education – Convention on Rights
of Persons with Disabilities recognises that inclusive education
systems must be put in place for a meaningful realisation of the
right to education for PwD – Thus, a right to education is essentially
E a right to inclusive education – 2016 Act provides statutory backing
to the principle of inclusive education – Right to inclusive education
is realised through the provision of reasonable accommodation,
denial of which to a PwD amounts to discrimination – On facts, the
appellant was denied her entitlement to reasonable accommodation
F and the State failed to fulfil its positive duty of protecting her right
to inclusive education.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The relief sought by the appellant for holding a
re-examination for the NEET (UG) is denied. The appellant was
G wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while
appearing for the NEET without any fault of her own, despite her
entitlements as a PwD and a PwBD. The first respondent is
directed to consider what steps could be taken to rectify the
injustice within the stipulated period. Further, it should take
necessary consequential measures under intimation to the
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 893

Directorate General of Health Service. In the future, the first A
respondent should ensure that provisions which are made at the
NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under
the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 are clarified in the
NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity. Having due regard to the
decision of this Court in Vikash Kumar’s case and the statutory
B
provisions contained in the 2016 Act, facilities which are provided
by the law to PwD would not be constricted by reading in the
higher threshold prescribed for PwBD. It is clarified that for the
purpose of availing of the reservation under Section 32 of the
Act or an upper age relaxation as contemplated in the provisions,
the concept of benchmark disability continues to apply. The second C
respondent was ignorant about the facilities to which the appellant
was entitled. There was an evident confusion between the
authorities working at the first respondent as well. The persons
working for the first respondent and exam centres like that of
the second respondent should be sensitised and trained, on a
D
regular basis, to deal with requirements of reasonable
accommodation raised by PwDs. [Para 57][935-C-H; 936-A-B]
2. Dysgraphia is contemplated as a specified disability in
Entry 2(a) of the Schedule to the Act. Dysgraphia causes impaired
handwriting and demonstrates inconsistent handwriting, poor
spelling and spacing, transcription difficulties and difficulties in E
coherence. Through the appellant’s certificates, it is evident that
she is a PwBD having dysgraphia, for the purposes of Section
2(r) of the RPwD Act 2016. [Para 20][914-G; 915-D]
3.1 The first respondent, as a testing agency, has been
assigned specific functions which are clarified in the NEET F
Bulletin 2021. The instant case demonstrates that the appellant
who suffers from dysgraphia with a disability of 40 per cent has
suffered a tragedy of errors in the process leading up to admissions
for the graduate medical courses in 2021, over which she had no
control. The first respondent, was duty-bound to comply with the G
Guidelines on Written Examination, prescribed by the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment. The grievance of the
appellant is that she was deprived of the compensatory additional

H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A one hour for attempting the examination, simply because the
second respondent (the designated centre) was unaware of the
rights of PwD candidates and the corresponding obligations on
the second respondent. This state of affairs reflects the
responsibility of the first respondent to ensure that personnel at
examination centres are trained and provided with clear guidelines
B
for the implementation of the provisions made for PwD. In the
absence of adequate training, rights conferred on candidates with
“specified disabilities” by Parliament, are set at nought.
[Paras 30, 31][920-F-H; 921-A-B]
3.2 On 11 October 2021, the first respondent’s counsel
C informed the High Court that the appellant was not entitled to
get an additional one hour of compensatory time because of a
failure to obtain a disability certificate in Appendix VIII-A from a
centre designated in Appendix VIII-B. In the face of this
statement, the counsel for the appellant agreed to produce a
D certificate from an authorized agency in Appendix VIII-B of the
NEET Bulletin 2021, within a week. The High Court accordingly
directed the first respondent to consider the certificate within a
week of its production by the appellant. It is unfortunate that the
first respondent issued such instructions to its counsel. The
statement of the first respondent before the High Court on 11
E October 2021 was plainly contrary to the provisions of the NEET
Bulletin 2021. Para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021 indicates
that the appellant was entitled to compensatory time of one hour
for an examination of three hours, irrespective of her reliance on
a scribe. Para 5.3 indicates that the requirement of a certificate
F in Appendix VIII-A applies after the results are declared. If this
were not so, there is no purpose in requiring the candidate to
disclose the rank which is obtained in the NEET. It is as clear
from paras 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 that a certificate issued by
a designated centre under Appendix VIII-B is to be considered
only at the stage of admission. Yet, in the teeth of the specifications
G in paras 5.3.1, 5.3.3 and 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021, the
High Court was led to believe that an Appendix VIII-A certificate
from a designated centre specified in Appendix VIII-B was
required to seek an extra hour of compensatory time. There is

H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 895

evident confusion between the authorities working at the first A
respondent, which has led to a tragedy affecting the legitimate
rights and entitlement of a student who suffers from a specified
disability. [Paras 32, 33][921-C-H]
3.3 The expression ‘person with benchmark disability’ is
defined in Section 2(r). The concept of benchmark disabilities is B
thus specifically with reference to the provisions of Chapter VI
of the RPwD Act 2016. In contrast with the definition in Section
2(r), the expression ‘person with disability’ is defined in Section
2(s). The rights and entitlements conferred upon PwD are
specified in Chapter II. Among those rights, Section 3 embodies
the duty of the appropriate government to ensure that PwD enjoy C
the right to equality, a life with dignity and respect for their
integrity equally with others. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 requires
the appropriate government to take necessary steps to ensure
reasonable accommodation for PwD. Section 4 requires the
appropriate government and all local authorities to take measures D
to ensure that women and children with disabilities enjoy rights
equal with others. These rights and entitlements which are
conferred upon PwD cannot be constricted by adopting the
definition of benchmark disability as a condition precedent or as
a condition of eligibility for availing of the rights. Benchmark
disability, as defined in Section 2(r), is specifically used in the E
context of Chapter VI. Undoubtedly, to seek admission to an
institution of higher education under the 5 per cent quota, the
candidate must, in terms of Section 32(1), fulfil the description of
a PwBD. But equally, where the statute has conferred rights and
entitlements on PwD, which is wider in its canvass than a F
benchmark disability, such rights cannot be abrogated or diluted
by reading into them the notion of benchmark disability. It is
evident that despite the clarification of the position in law in Vikash
Kumar’s case, the law continues to be violated and NTA has
continued to restrict the grant of facilities only to PwBD. By way
of abundant caution, it is reiterated that the facility of reservation G
in terms of Section 32 is available to PwBD. Other facilities
contemplated by the RPwD Act 2016 for PwD cannot be so
restricted by an administrative order which would be contrary to
the provisions of the statute. [Paras 35, 36, 37][922-E, F-G;
923-A-B, D-G; 924-A, H; 925-A-B] H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 4.1 Education plays a key role in social and economic
inclusion and effective participation in society. Inclusive education
is indispensable for ensuring universal and non-discriminatory
access to education. The Convention on Rights of Persons with
Disabilities recognises that inclusive education systems must be
put in place for a meaningful realisation of the right to education
B
for PwD. Thus, a right to education is essentially a right to inclusive
education. The RPwD Act 2016 provides statutory backing to
the principle of inclusive education. Section 2(m) defines inclusive
education. [Para 38][925-C-D]
4.2 The RPwD Act 2016 contains provisions mandating
C reasonable accommodation. The expression “reasonable
accommodation” is defined in Section 2(y). The right to inclusive
education is realised through the provision of reasonable
accommodation. It has been emphasised that reasonable
accommodation is at the heart of the principle of equality and
D non-discrimination espoused under the RPwD Act 2016. The
denial of reasonable accommodation to a PwD amounts to
discrimination. It is the positive obligation of the State to create
the necessary conditions to facilitate the equal participation of
disabled persons in society. [Para 41][926-B, C-E]
E 4.3 The appellant was denied her entitlement to reasonable
accommodation and the State failed to fulfil its positive duty of
protecting her right to inclusive education. The Guidelines for
Written Examination dated 29 August 2018 issued as an Office
Memorandum by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
hold the field insofar as the written examinations for PwD
F candidates are concerned. [Para 42][926-G-H; 927-A]
4.4 In terms of the provisions of RPwD Act 2016, there is a
clear distinction between the rights available to a candidate such
as the appellant at the stage of the examination (in terms of the
provisions of Section 17(i) falling under Chapter III) and the rights
G applicable at the stage of admission (under Section 32 falling under
Chapter VI) of the RPwD Act 2016. There was a gross miscarriage
of justice in this case by the High Court directing the appellant,
who is aggrieved by the denial of a compensatory one hour, to
seek a certificate in terms of Appendix VIII-A, on the basis of a
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 897

statement made by the counsel for the first respondent. The A
confusion has also arisen because of the manner in which NEET
Bulletin 2021 has been drafted. A clear-eyed information bulletin
must provide a distinction between the rights that are available
to PwD candidates at the stage of the examination and the rights
which are available in terms of reservation after the results of
B
the NEET are declared. As a result of the ambiguity in the NEET
Bulletin 2021, and the absence of adequate training to the second
respondent which was allotted as the appellant’s centre, the
appellant lost the benefit of a compensatory hour during the course
of the entrance examination. This injustice was compounded by
the manner in which the proceedings took place before the High C
Court where the instructions given to the counsel for the first
respondent were in the teeth of the rights and entitlements
available in terms of the Guidelines for Written Examination dated
29 August 2018 and para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021. The
Guidelines for Written Examination hold the field for all
D
examinations attempted by PwDs. As a matter of fact, it would
appear that para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021 seeks to enforce
and implement this requirement. As a consequence of these
compounding errors, the appellant has suffered a grave injustice.
[Paras 43, 44][928-C-H]
5.1 The line of submissions by the first respondent seems E
to suggest that besides the provisions under Para 5.3 and 5.4 of
the NEET Bulletin 2021, it proposes to issue further guidelines
to stakeholders, especially to candidates; invigilators; centre
supervisors; observers; and city coordinators. However, this
does not address the issue at hand, which is the steps that the F
first respondent must take to deal with cases such as that of the
appellant where the student has been made to suffer. This
suffering was, firstly, a consequence of inadequate knowledge at
the designated centre (the second respondent), in regard to the
facilities available to PwD students; and secondly, by an element
of ambiguity in the instructions framed in the NEET Bulletin G
2021. [Para 45][929-A-C]
5.2 One way of looking at the matter, as the first respondent
would have the Court do, is to accept that in a competitive

H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A entrance examination such as the NEET, a large body of candidates
appears across the country. According to the viewpoint espoused
by the first respondent, individual cases of prejudice caused by
an improper application of the norms governing the examination
constitute an acceptable, though unfortunate, consequence. The
other way of looking at the problem is that while the first
B
respondent must utilise the experience gained in conducting the
NEET process to proactively take steps to fill up deficiencies,
the examination process must continue to account for the need
to rectify injustice caused to a student, who played no role in
causing such injustice. The number of cases where such injustices
C take place maybe a few or more than that; but it cannot be ignored
that for a student who is made to suffer, the consequence is indeed
serious. The entire course of a career depends upon the proper
conduct of the NEET and, the application of a binding norm
prescribed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
for the benefit of students suffering from disabilities. An authority
D
bound by the dicta of law and the Constitution, cannot throw up
its hands in despair, instead of attempting to remedy the injustice
which is caused to a student. A judge cannot ignore that behind
the statistics is a human face, reflecting the aspirations, joy and
tears of a student and her family. [Para 46][929-C-H]
E 5.3 In the instant case, the appellant does not claim
misfeasance on the part of the first respondent but plain and simple
negligence in complying with the rights and entitlements provided
to PwDs under the RPwD Act 2016. For effective participation of
the students with disabilities in the society, which undoubtedly is
F the salutary object of the legislation, the safeguards which are
provided by the law must be duly enforced and any breach of
entitlement must be answerable at law. Responsibility and power
without accountability are an anathema to our Constitution.
[Para 47][929-H; 930-A-B]
G 5.4 The first respondent is justified in taking the stance
that a re-examination cannot be ordered for one student. The
option of a re-examination for a single student would also stand
eschewed by the decision in Vaishnavi Vijay’s case. Holding a
fresh examination will delay medical admissions and cause

H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 899

uncertainty and chaos. To that extent, the denial of the relief A
sought for conducting a fresh examination for the appellant is not
disturbed. At the same time, the first respondent must factor in
the possibility of such errors occurring in the process of conducting
the NEET. The manner in which the first respondent deals with
cases of serious prejudice, as in the instant case, has to be decided
B
by it as an expert agency. [Paras 48, 50][930-B-C; 932-B-D]
5.5 This Court would eschew the course of dictating the
manner in which the grievance should be rectified, leaving it to
the discretion of the testing agency which is entrusted with the
overall responsibility of conducting the examination. The first
respondent took certain steps as noted in Vaishnavi Vijay’s case. C
Similarly, in the instant case, this Court is of the categorical view
that the first respondent cannot shirk or abrogate its responsibility
to rectify the injustice which has been caused to the appellant.
The first respondent may consider extrapolation of the marks
awarded to the appellant or grant compensatory marks. Similar D
to the steps in Vaishnavi Vijay’s case, the first respondent could
also consider adopting a ‘no negative marks’ scheme. The first
respondent is not restricted to only the above options and will
leave the decision on the modalities of remedying the injustice
caused to the appellant to the first respondent. The injustice which
has resulted is clearly due to a breach in observing the E
entitlements due to the appellant under the RPwD Act 2016.
[Para 51][932-D-G]
5.6 The given statement indicates that the appellant has
secured an All India Rank of 1721 out of 2684 candidates qualified
in the PwD category. In relation to the State of Maharashtra, the F
appellant has secured rank 249 out of 390 candidates in the PwD
category. The first respondent has stated that approximately
15.4 lakh candidates appeared at the NEET (UG) 2021 on
12 September 2021 for which the result was declared on
1 November 2021 and the All India Rank was forwarded on G
9 November 2021 to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India to conduct counselling for admission. It was
submitted that alteration of the result at this stage would
prejudicially affect other candidates who are ranked above the

H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A appellant. In essence, the above submissions boils down to the
first respondent informing the Court that in an examination of
such large proportions where over 16 lakh students registered
and over 15 lakh students appeared, it would not be possible to
undo the injustice which has been done to a single candidate.
The first respondent must remember that all authority under the
B
law is subject to responsibility, and above all, to a sense of
accountability. The first respondent is governed by the rule of
law and by the constitutional requirement of observing fairness.
Behind the abstract number of ‘15 lakh students’ lie human lives
that can be altered due to the inadvertent, yet significant errors
C of the first respondent. [Paras 53, 54][934-C-G]
5.7 The first respondent, as an examining body, was bound
to scrupulously enforce the Guidelines for Written Examinations
which provides for specific relaxations. The appellant has suffered
injustice by a wrongful denial of these relaxations and a lack of
D remedy by this Court would cause irretrievable injustice to the
life of the student. The RwPD Act 2016 prescribing beneficial
provisions for persons with specified disabilities would have no
meaning unless it is scrupulously enforced. The all authority under
the law is subject to responsibility, and above all, to a sense of
accountability. Individual injustices originating in a wrongful denial
E of rights and entitlements prescribed under the law cannot be
sent into oblivion on the ground that these are a necessary
consequence of a competitive examination. [Paras 55, 56]
[934-G-H; 935-A, B-C]
National Testing Agency v. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale SLP
F (C) 17027 of 2021; Vikash Kumar v. Union Public
Service Commission (2021) 5 SCC 370 – relied on.
Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 10
SCC 20 : [2019] 12 SCR 821 – referred to.

G Case Law Reference
(2021) 5 SCC 370 relied on Para 37, 41, 57
[2019] 12 SCR 821 referred to Para 42

H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 901

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7000 of A
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No. 21578 of 2021.
Rushabh Vidyarthi, Manjeet Singh Rathor, Vikas Jain, Advs. for
the Appellant. B

Rupesh Kumar, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
C
A Introduction ................................................................... 3*
B Applicable laws and guidelines .................................. 9*
B.1 Guidelines for Written Examination .......................... 9*
B.2 NEET Bulletin 2021 .................................................. 10*
D
C Submissions ................................................................. 14*
D Analysis ........................................................................ 19*
D.1 Obligations under the NEET Bulletin 2021 ..... 20*
D.2 Applicability of the RPwD Act 2016 ................28*
E
D.2.1 Distinction between PwD and PwBD ............... 28*
D.2.2. Right to Inclusive Education ........................... 32*
E Redressing the injustice ........................................... 37*
F Conclusion ................................................................... 45* F
Introduction
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 29 October 2021. The High
G
Court dismissed the appellant’s petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
3. The appellant suffers from Dysgraphia, which is a specified
disability listed in Entry 2(a) of the Schedule to the Rights of Persons
Ed. Note - *denotes the actual pagination in the Original Judgment. H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A with Disability Act 20161. The appellant has been diagnosed with a 40
per cent permanent disability, falling within the statutory definition of a
‘person with benchmark disability’2 under Section 2(r) of the RPwD
Act 2016. The appellant claims that as a person with disability3, she is
entitled to reasonable accommodation and certain relaxations. Among
them is the benefit of “inclusive education” by a suitable modification to
B
the examination system, as mandated by Section 17(i) of the RPwD
Act, 2016. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued
guidelines for conducting “Written Examination for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities” on 29 August 20184. These guidelines govern
the examinations of all students covered by the RPwD Act 2016. They
C are to be followed by all examining authorities and educational institutions
conducting regular or competitive examinations. The National Testing
Agency – the first respondent, is responsible for conducting the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test5 for admission to under-graduate medical
courses. The appellant urges that the Guidelines on Written Examinations
are referenced in clauses 5.3 and 5.4 of the Information Bulletin of the
D
National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)-20216 issued by the first
respondent, and are hence binding on them.
4. The appellant appeared for the NEET on 12 September 2021.
Given her PwD status, she claimed a relaxation in terms of an additional
hour of compensatory time, as against the total time of three hours
E prescribed for regular candidates. The appellant was allotted the second
respondent (Thakur College of Engineering and Technology, Kandivali
[East], Mumbai) as her centre for undertaking the NEET. The appellant
averred that the second respondent was ignorant of the grant of special
facilities that had to be provided to PwD candidates. The grievance of
F the appellant is that the second respondent had initially assured her that
facilities for PwD, if prescribed in the rules, would be provided to her.
However, towards the end of the scheduled duration of three hours, her
answer sheet was “forcibly” collected together with the category of
regular students appearing for the examination depriving her of
compensatory time.
G
1
“RPwD Act 2016’’
2
“PwBD’’
3
“PwD’’
4
“Guidelines on Written Examinations’’
5
“NEET’’
6
H “NEET Bulletin 2021’’
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 903
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

5. On 23 September 2021, the appellant moved a writ petition A
under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay. Among other alternative reliefs, she sought a direction to the
first respondent to hold a fresh examination for the appellant while
accommodating her with all relaxations and benefits to which she was
entitled under the rules and regulations.
B
6. On 11 October 2021, the High Court passed the following interim
order:
“1. The petition seeks an order and direction against the respondent
no.1 to re-appear for NEET Entrance Test by providing her with
compensatory time and all other relaxations/ benefits that she is C
entitled to by virtue of her “person with disability” status.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she obtained disability
certificate on 6th June 2021 from Sion Hospital certifying that the
petitioner was suffering from Dysgraphia and recommending the
remedial measures. The petition obtained another certificate of D
learning disability on 15th September, 2021 issued by the Sion
Hospital.
3. The petitioner produced these certificates with the respondent
no. 2 college, who conducted the said NEET test on behalf of the
respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner E
being disabled, could not complete the paper within three hours
assigned for the said test and had been requesting for an additional
hour time to complete the said test. The respondent no.2 however
did not grant additional hour. By ad-interim order dated 30th
September 2021, this Court directed the respondent nos.1 and 3
not to declare the result of the petitioner. F
4. Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the
other hand strongly placed reliance on the information Bulleting
issued by the respondent no.1 for NEET (UG-21) and more
particularly clauses 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4(b) and Appendix
XIII-A and Appendix-B. He submits that the petitioner not having G
obtained disability certificate as per the format prescribed in
Appendix XIII-A and Appendix-B read with the above referred
clauses of the said information Bulletin, the petitioner was not
entitled to get additional one hour compensatory time for the
examination of three hours assigned for examination under clause
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 5.4 of the said information Bulletin. It is submitted by the learned
counsel on instruction that if the petitioner produces the disability
certificate from one of the centres recognized by the respondent
no. 1 referred in Appendix VIII-B, the case of the petitioner would
be considered.
B 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 college permitted
the petitioner to appear for the said NEET test though the petitioner
had produced the learning disability certificate issued by the Sion
Hospital without raising any objection. It is the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner had made a request to give the benefit of clause
5.4(b) for compensatory time of one hour for the examination of
C three hours. The petitioner had not used the facility of any scribe.
6. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and in view of the fact that the petitioner has
already appeared in the said test without raising any objection by
the respondent no.2, we direct the respondent no.1 to take
D appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for re-
appearing in the said test keeping in mind the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vikash Kumar vs.
Union Public Services Commission & Others, (2021) 5 SCC
370 i.e. of reasonable accommodation by making adjustments to
E enable disabled person to effectively counter the barriers posed
by disability person and sympathetically. Learned counsel for
the petitioner agrees to produce the certificate from one of
the agency prescribed in the said Information Bulletin at
Appendix VIII-B within one week from today. The
respondent no.1 shall consider the certificate obtained by
F the petitioner from one of the agency prescribed Appendix
VIII-B within one week from the date of the petitioner
producing such certificate and shall communicate the
decision that would be taken by the respondent no.1 to the
petitioner within two days the date of taking a decision. It is
G made clear that this order shall not be used as a precedent in any
other matter.
7. Place the petition on board for admission first on board on 28th
October, 2021. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.”
H (emphasis supplied)
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 905
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

7. In furtherance of the interim order of the High Court, the A
appellant stated that she approached the Grant Government Medical
College, Mumbai (the sixth respondent) on 12 October 2021, but was
informed that the certificate in the format prescribed under Appendix
VIII-A is applicable at the time of admission when a PwD candidate is
claiming reservation and not for claiming relaxation and benefits during
B
the examination. For further clarification, the appellant approached the
Directorate of Medical Education and Research (the fifth respondent).
The fifth respondent reiterated that the certificate under Appendix
VIII-A cannot be issued before the declaration of results.
8. On 26 October 2021, an additional affidavit was filed by the
C
appellant placing relevant material to indicate that a certificate conforming
to Appendix VIII-A is issued only after the declaration of results and
was required only at the time of seeking admission. By the impugned
judgment dated 29 October 2021, a Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. While dismissing the petition, the
High Court has noted that the statement which was made on behalf of D
the first respondent that the appellant’s case would be considered if a
certificate is produced from one of the centres referred in Appendix
VIII-B was incorrect and was made by the counsel due to a
“miscommunication”. Despite noting the appellant’s contention that she
is not required to obtain any such certificate from the agency prescribed
E
in Appendix VIII-B, the High Court declined to entertain the petition for
the following reasons:
“7. It is not in dispute that the certificate produced by the petitioner
from Sion Hospital was not from one of the designated agency
prescribed in Appendix-Vlll-B. lt is also not in dispute that even
F
pursuant to the opportunity granted by this Court on 11 th October,
2021 to the petitioner to produce the certificate in terms of the
statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner has not produced the certificate from the said agency
prescribed in Appendix Vlll-8 even at this stage.
G
8. We are therefore not inclined to grant prayer clause (a) thereby
allowing the petitioner to appear for the NEET Entrance Test by
providing her with the compensatory time, and all other relaxations/
benefits that she is claiming to be entitled to by virtue of her person
with the purported disability status…..”
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 9. Nonetheless, the Division Bench observed that if the appellant
submits a representation to the first respondent, that would be duly
considered within four weeks. The High Court has also adverted to an
ad-interim order dated 28 October 2021 of this Court in a Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution instituted by the first
respondent (National Testing Agency v. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale7).
B
This Court has stayed an interim order of the High Court directing a
fresh examination in that case. Relying on the interim order of this Court
dated 28 October 2021, the High Court vacated its interim order and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

C 10. We have heard Mr Rushabh Vidyarthi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the first respondent, who has appeared on caveat. Since the dispute
essentially concerns the appellant and the first respondent, notice to the
other respondents is dispensed with.

D B Applicable laws and guidelines
B.1 Guidelines for Written Examination
11. On 29 August 2018, the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disabilities) issued guidelines for conducting a written examination for
E PwBD. The Guidelines for Written Examinations underscore the need
for a comprehensive policy. In this regard, Paragraph 1, Clause II
stipulates:
“II. There should be a uniform and comprehensive policy across
the country for persons with benchmark disabilities for written
F examination taking into account improvement in technology and
new avenues opened to the persons with benchmark disabilities
providing a level playing field. Policy should also have flexibility to
accommodate the specific needs of case-to-case basis.”
Paragraph 1, Clause III provides that there is no need to stipulate
G separate criteria for regular and competitive examinations. The remaining
guidelines prescribe several facilities by way of reasonable
accommodation. Broadly, they provide for the following entitlements:

7
H Special Leave Petition (C) 17027 of 2021
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 907
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(i) The facility of Scribe/Reader/Lab Assistant to a PwBD A
who has limitation in writing including that of speed, at their
option;
(ii) An option of choosing the mode for taking the examinations
such as Braille, computer, or large print; and
(iii) Compensatory time for appearing in the examination. B

12. Paragraph 1, Clause XII of the Guidelines for Written
Examinations provides for compensatory time in the following terms:
“The word “extra time or additional time” that is being currently
used should be changed to “compensatory time” and the same C
should not be less than 20 minutes per hour of examination for
persons who are allowed use of scribe/reader/lab assistant. All
the candidates with benchmark disability not availing the facility
of scribe may be allowed additional time of minimum of one hour
for examination of 3 hours duration. In case the duration of the
examination is less than an hour, then the duration of additional D
time should be allowed on pro-rata basis. Additional time should
not be less than 5 minutes and should be in the multiple of 5.”
Paragraph 2 of the notification issuing the guidelines stipulates
that they should be “scrupulously followed”. All recruitment agencies,
academic/examination bodies etc. under the administrative control of E
each ministry or department were to be advised to ensure compliance.
B.2 NEET Bulletin 2021
13. Chapter V of the NEET Bulletin 2021, issued by the first
respondent, deals with “Counselling And Reservation For Admission To
F
MBBS And BDS Courses”. In compliance with the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment’s Guidelines for Written Examination, Clause
5.4 deals with the facilities to be provided to PwBD candidates while
appearing in the examination. Clause 5.4 is extracted below:
“5.4 Facilities for PwBD candidates to appear in the exam
G
As per the Guidelines issued by the Department of Empowerment
of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangian) under the Ministry of
Social Justice & Empowerment from time to time on the subject
“Written Examination for Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities”, a candidate with one of the benchmark disabilities
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A (as defined in Section 2(r) of RPwBD Act, 2016) holding a
Disability Certificate in the format prescribed in Appendix-VIII-
A is entitled to the following facilities:
a. The facility of Scribe, in case he/she has a physical limitation
and a scribe is essential to write the Examination on his/her
B behalf, being so certified by a CMO/Civil Surgeon/Medical
Superintendent of a Govt. Health Care Institution in the format
given at Appendix-VIII-C. However, as a measure of caution
and due to the prevailing circumstances of COVID-19
Pandemic, such candidate is required to bring his/her own
Scribe alongwith a Letter of Undertaking given at Appendix-
C VIII-D, for using own scribe in the format.
b. Compensatory time of one hour for the Examination of three
hours duration, whether such candidate uses the facility of Scribe
or not.
D [……..]
Note:
1. The minimum degree of disability should be 40% (Benchmark
Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for
persons with specified disability (For details refer to Appendix-
E VIII).
2. The extent of “specified disability” in a person shall be assessed
in accordance with the “Guidelines for the purpose of assessing
the extent of specified disability in a person included under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)”
F notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of Persons
with Disabilities (Divyangjan)] on 4th January 2018.
3. No change in the category will be entertained after the last
date specified by NTA for NEET(UG)-2021 Registration and
G no subsequent changes will be effective after the declaration
of NTA NEET (UG) Score 2021.”
14. Appendix VIII-A of the NEET Bulletin 2021 provides for the
format for a certificate of disability. The relevant portion of the prescribed
form for such a certificate is extracted below:
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 909
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“Appendix-VIII-A A
CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY
(As per Gazette Notification No MCI-18(1)/2018-Med./187262
dated 5th Feb 2019/13th May-2019 for Admission to Medical
Courses in All India Quota)
B

[….]

Certificate No. __________ Dated ________
C
Name of the Designated Centre (as per Appendix-VIII-B) ____
This is to certify that Dr./Mr./Ms.
_______________________________________________
Aged __________ Years Son/Daughter of Mr.
______________________________________ D

R/o_____________________________________________
______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
E
NEET Application No. __________________ NEET Roll No.
_______________ Rank No.___________has the following
Disability (Name of the Specified Disability)
__________________ in (percentage) of ______________
(in words) ___________________ (in Figures)
F

• Please tick on the Specified Disability
[Assessment to be done in accordance with the Gazette
Notification No. S076(E) dated 4th January 2018 of the
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disability G
(Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment]:

H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A

B

C

D

[…..]”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Appendix VIII-B provides for a list of authorised centres for
the issuance of disability certificates. Appendix VIII-C provides for a
E
format for a certificate regarding the physical limitation of an examinee
to write the examination. The relevant portion of this certificate is
extracted below:
“ Appendix-VIII-C
F CERTIFICATE REGARDING PHYSICAL LIMITATION IN AN
EXAMINEE TO WRITE
This is to certify that I have examined Mr/Ms/Mrs
_________________ (name of the candidate with disability),
a person with ______________ (nature and percentage of
G disability as mentioned in the certificate of disability), S/o /
D/o___________________a resident of _________________
(Village/District/State) and to state that he/she has physical
limitation which hampers his/her writing capabilities owing to his/
her disability.

H [….]”
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 911
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

C Submissions A
16. Mr Rushabh Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has urged the following submissions:
(i) In 2017, the appellant’s school teachers suspected her to
have a typical case of learning disabilities and advised her
to seek an urgent diagnosis. The appellant was referred to B
LTMG Sion Hospital, Paediatric Neurodevelopment Centre
where she was diagnosed with “Dysgraphia”, popularly
known as a “writer’s cramp”;
(ii) On 6 June 2017, a certificate of disability was issued to the
appellant by the LTMG Sion Hospital, Paediatric C
Neurodevelopment Centre. In March 2019, the appellant
appeared for the class 10 CISCE examination where she
was allowed the facility of a scribe. The appellant passed
the class X examination with an aggregate of 92.5 per cent
marks; D
(iii) In September 2021, the appellant passed her class XII
examinations with an aggregate of 87.4 per cent marks and
a best-of-four special score of 90.25 per cent;
(iv) In anticipation of appearing for the NEET, the appellant
approached Grant Medical College on 28 July 2021. She E
was directed to Cooper Hospital Mumbai and thereafter to
LTMG Sion Hospital for carrying out requisite tests and for
renewal of her earlier certificate dated 6 June 2017. The
LTMG Sion Mumbai provided the appellant with a disability
certificate dated 7 September 2021. However, they misspelt F
the name of her mother and the certificate was sent back
for correction. The corrected certificate was issued on 15
September 2021 and uploaded by the Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, on the website
of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, on 23
September 2021; G
(v) The admit card for the NEET required her to state her
PwD status, which she answered in the affirmative;
(vi) On 12 September 2021, the allotted examination centre did
not grant her the compensatory hour on the ground that the
H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A centre was not informed of such a rule and “forcibly”
collected her answer sheet along with the general category
students; and
(vii) The appellant lodged a protest with the first respondent by
an email dated 12 September 2021 to which she received
B an auto-generated reply dated 13 September 2021.
17. Aggrieved by this, the appellant instituted a writ petition before
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The following submissions
were urged to assail the impugned judgement:
(i) Initially, when the appellant’s writ petition came up before
C the Division Bench of the High Court on 30 September
2021, the first respondent requested for an adjournment to
seek instructions on the grievance of the appellant and to
make a statement on whether she could re-appear for the
NEET;
D (ii) On 11 October 2021, the counsel for the first respondent
stated before the High Court that since the appellant did
not have a disability certificate in the prescribed format,
she would be entitled to a compensatory hour only if she
produced a disability certificate from one of the centres
E recognized by the first respondent in Appendix VIII-B to
the NEET Bulletin 2021. The counsel for the first respondent
stated that her case could be considered upon production
of a valid certificate. It was in this backdrop that the High
Court directed the first respondent to take an appropriate
decision on the application of the appellant for re-appearing
F in the NEET;
(iii) Since the fifth and sixth respondents refused to issue the
certificate in the format prescribed in Appendix VIII-B, the
appellant approached the High Court with permission to
file an affidavit and implead the fifth and sixth respondents.
G On 25 October 2021, the High Court permitted the appellant
to file an affidavit for placing this development on the
record. The appellant thereupon filed an affidavit;
(iv) In the hearing held before the High Court on 11 October
2021, the first respondent urged that the appellant had not
H obtained a certificate in terms of Appendix VIII-A. The
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 913
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

appellant responded by submitting that the certificate A
prescribed in Appendix VIII-A is applicable only at the stage
of counselling and admission, and not at the stage of the
examination. This is evident from the format which
mandates that the candidate has to fill their rank secured in
the examination which evidently is not available until a
B
candidate appears in an examination and the results are
declared. Furthermore, the certificate requires the candidate
to mention a NEET roll number which is notified only four
days prior to the date of the examination. Hence, it would
be impractical to presume that a candidate would be able
to secure an Appendix VIII-A certificate within a time gap C
of mere four days. Yet, the Division Bench incorrectly
dismissed her petition for failure to produce the Appendix
VIII-A certificate on the day of the NEET;
(v) The first respondent has misunderstood the different stages
and distinct relaxations which are granted to a student with D
a specified disability. The grant of compensatory time is an
intrinsic element of the requirement of an inclusive
education under Section 17(i) of the RPwD Act 2016. In
distinction from this, reservation in higher educational
institutions is provided in Section 32 of the RPwD Act 2016.
The former is comprised in Chapter III while the latter is E
prescribed in Chapter VI; and
(vi) The Guidelines for Written Examination dated 29 August
2018, formulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, have to be followed by all examining bodies,
including the first respondent. F

18. Mr Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the first respondent has urged the following submissions:
(i) The appellant had appeared in NEET and attempted 84 out
of 180 questions. She answered 50 questions correctly and G
34 incorrectly, and was awarded 166 marks out of 720
marks;
(ii) The appellant secured Rank 1721 in the PwD category,
Rank 206003 in the General category, and her All India
Rank for counselling is 661699;
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A (iii) The first respondent considered the case of the appellant
and deliberated over whether some relief could be granted
to the appellant, such as by awarding proportionate marks.
However, a total of 15,44,275 candidates appeared for the
examination, for whom the All India Rank list has been sent
to the Directorate UR of Health Services to conduct
B
counselling for admission. Any alteration in the result at
this stage would cause prejudice to the candidates ranked
above the appellant;
(iv) The alteration of the rank list may also cause further delays
in the completion of the admission process; and
C
(v) To bring more clarity and sensitization towards the
requirement of Scribe and ‘compensatory time’ for the
NEET (UG) 2022, guidelines would be issued to all
stakeholders (such as candidates, invigilators and
superintendents). The candidate would have to declare their
D disability status, type of disability and whether they would
be requiring compensatory time in the application form.
Along with this, the application form would require the
certificate of disability to be uploaded at the time of
registration. Further, the admit card of the candidate would
E reflect these details. In addition to this, several guidelines
would be issued to the invigilators, centre superintendents
and city coordinators to avoid the present situation.
19. The rival submissions come up for analysis.
D Analysis
F 20. The grievance of the appellant, as we have noted in the
prefatory part of this judgment, is that on 12 September 2021, the allotted
examination centre did not grant her the compensatory hour on the ground
that the centre was not informed of such a rule. As noted earlier,
Dysgraphia is contemplated as a specified disability in Entry 2(a) of the
G Schedule to the RPwD Act, 2016 which is as follows:
“Specified Disability
2. Intellectual disability, a condition characterised by significant
limitation both in intellectual functioning (reasoning(sic), learning,
problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour which covers a range
H of every day, social and practical skills, including—
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 915
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(a) “specific learning disabilities” means a heterogeneous group A
of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to
comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical
calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities,
dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental
B
aphasia;
(b) “autism spectrum disorder” means a neuro-developmental
condition typically appearing in the first three years of life that
significantly affects a person’s ability to communicate, understand
relationships and relate to others, and is frequently associated with
unusal or stereotypical rituals or behaviours.” C

(emphasis supplied)
Dysgraphia causes impaired handwriting and demonstrates
inconsistent handwriting, poor spelling and spacing, transcription
difficulties and difficulties in coherence. Through the appellant’s D
certificates dated 6 June 2017 and 23 September 2021, it is evident
that she is a PwBD having dysgraphia, for the purposes of Section
2(r) of the RPwD Act 2016.
21. The crux of the matter urged before this Court is whether the
appellant was entitled to an hour’s worth of compensatory time owing to E
her PwD status under the NEET Bulletin 2021 and the Guidelines for
Written Examination issued by the Ministry of Social Empowerment and
Justice on 29 August 2018.
D.1 Obligations under the NEET Bulletin 2021
22. The roles, powers and functions of the first respondent are F
specified in the NEET Bulletin 2021. Para 2.3 of the NEET Bulletin
2021 contains necessary disclaimers and clarifies the functions of the
first respondent. The relevant sub-clauses are extracted below:
“2.3.1. The responsibility of NTA is limited to inviting online
applications, the conduct of the entrance test, declaration of the G
result, and providing All India Rank (AIR) to the Directorate
General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India.
2.3.2. The Information contained in this Information Bulletin
relating to the pattern of exam, syllabus, eligibility criteria for H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A appearing in NEET (UG), the quota of seats, reservation, PwBD,
admission norms /procedure pertaining to the concerned courses
are as per the norms set out by the respective Regulatory Bodies.
2.3.3 The Result and All India Rank of NEET (UG) will be prepared
/notified by NTA as per the norms/criteria fixed by the NMC /
B DGHS (for MBBBS/BDS) and by CCIM (for BAMS/BSMS/
BUMS) and by CCH (for BHMS).
2.3.4 Hence, in case of any doubt/ dispute; the Information in
respect of the above-mentioned subject matters, as provided in
the respective regulations/notifications of the concerned Regulatory
C Bodies, shall be considered as authentic and final.”
The above extract indicates that the role of the first respondent is
to notify online applications, conduct an entrance test, declare the result
and provide the All India Rank to the Directorate General of Health
Services8. The information which is specified in the NEET Bulletin 2021,
D including in regard to the pattern of examination, syllabus, eligibility, quotas
of seats for reservation, PwBD, and admission norms/procedures are in
accordance with the norms prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies.
Consequently, in the event of doubt or dispute, the information provided
by the regulations/notifications of the regulatory bodies are to be treated
as authentic and final.
E
23. Para 5.3 of the NEET Bulletin 2021 specifically provides
guidelines for PwD candidates. They are in the following terms:
“5.3 Guidelines for PwD Candidates
5.3.1. The candidates with a Disability shall be considered
F for admission in medical course against 5% of the total
seats, in accordance with the criteria prescribed under the
Regulation on Graduate Medical Examination (1997) as amended
upto 13.05.2019 (Please see Appendix-VIII). The PwBD
Certificate for this purpose shall be in the format as given
at Appendix-VIII-A and from the designated Centres as
G
given at Appendix-VIII-B
5.3.2. For AIIMS: In accordance with RPwD Act 2016, PwD
Reservation on a Horizontal & Category basis will be followed

8
H “DGHS’’
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 917
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

subject to evaluation by the Medical Board of Institute to determine A
eligibility.
5.3.3 Candidates who consider themselves eligible for this
category are advised to ensure their eligibility by getting
themselves examined at any Government Medical College/
District Hospital/Government Hospital. Such Government B
Medical College/District Hospital/Government Hospital
shall issue a Disability Certificate in reference with Chapter
VII of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.
Such a Disability Certificate is issued as per the Schedule
to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the
Guidelines for the purpose of assessing, the extent of C
specified disability in a person included under the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 notified in the Gazette
of India by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
[Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
(Divyangjan)] on 4th January 2018 and does not confer any D
right on any candidate to seek admission in a medical course
under PwBD Quota. The aforesaid Certificate shall be to
ascertain whether a candidate can apply to NTA for
appearing in NEET (UG) – 2021 under the PWBD Quota
only.
E
5.3.4. Thereafter, the candidates, upon selection under
PWBD Category, shall have to produce a Disability
Certificate issued by the Disability Assessment Board,
which shall have assessed the candidate in reference with
criteria prescribed under the Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997 as amended upto 14.05.2019. F
Thus, it is relevant that the candidates after a declaration
of the result have to appear before the Disability
Assessment Board so as to determine whether they may
register or participate in the common online Counselling
towards admission in medical courses. In case candidates G
are found to be Ineligible by the Disability Assessment
Board, in reference with criteria prescribed under the
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 as
amended on 14.05.2019, they may not register or
participate in the common online Counselling and any online
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A provisional allotment of the medical college shall be entirely
fraudulent on the part of the candidate. It is relevant that
physical verification of various certificates including academic as
well as Disability Certificate is only upon reporting for admission
to the medical college.
B 5.3.5. It is further clarified that the certificates issued by
the authorized Centres (Appendix-VIII-B) designated for
the purpose of DGHS, shall only be considered for admission
to the medical courses and no other certificate issued by any
other Government Medical College/District Hospital/Government
Hospital will be accepted.
C
5.3.6. The Disability Certificate to be issued in the format given in
Appendix-VIII-A (vide DGHS Notice Ref. No. U-11011/04/2020/
05-MEC dated 26.10.2020) has to be issued by the designated
Centres (Appendix-VIII-B) as per the criteria prescribed under
the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (1997) as amended
D upto 14.05.2019 w.r.t. common counselling conducted by MCC /
DGHS for All India Quota seats and for Medical Institutions that
are subject to common counselling of MCC/ DGHS.
5.3.7. Likewise, the designated Counselling Authorities of State/
UT Governments shall constitute Disability Assessment Boards/
E Centres for assessing the suitability of the candidate in reference
with criteria prescribed under the Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (1997) as amended upto 14.05.2019 and shall notify
the same on their respective websites.
5.3.8. The reservation policy, as prescribed by the government
F from time to time will be followed by the admitting institutes. The
candidates are advised to look for the details at the time of
admission.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Para 5.3.1 clearly indicates that a PwD shall be considered
G
for admission to the medical courses for five per cent of the total seats
in accordance with the criteria specified in the Regulations on Graduate
Medical Education 1997 as amended up to 13 May 2019. The PwBD
certificate for this purpose is to be prepared in the format prescribed in
Appendix VIII-A and from a designated centre specified in Appendix
H VIII-B.
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 919
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

25. Appendix VIII contains the Graduate Medical Education A
Regulations (Amendment) 2019. The amendment provides that Appendix
H of the ‘Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997’, dealing
with the admission of students with “specified disabilities” under the
RPwD Act 2016 with respect to MBBS admission, would be substituted
with “Appendix H-1”. Appendix H-1 specifies the following notes:
B
“Appendix “H-1”
Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified
Disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 with respect to admission in M.B.B.S. Course.
Note: 1. The “Certificate of Disability” shall be issued in C
accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Rules, 2017 notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment [Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)]
on 15th June 2017. D
2. The extend of “specified disability” in a person shall be
assessed in accordance with the “Guidelines for the purpose of
assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included
under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of
2016)” notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Social E
Justice and Empowerment [Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan)] on 4th January 2018.
3. The minimum degree of disability should be 40%
(Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing
reservation for persons with specified disability. F
[…..]”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Appendix VIII-A contains a format of the certificate of
disability. Significantly, this certificate provides for the rank obtained by
the candidate in the NEET examination and the roll number. Evidently, G
the certificate at Appendix VIII-A cannot be issued at a stage before
the candidate appears for the NEET examination and the declaration of
results. In fact, the certificate bears an endorsement that it has to be
issued as per the Gazette notification dated 5 February 2019 / 13 May
2019 for admission to medical courses in the All India Quota. H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 27. Para 5.3.3 of the NEET Bulletin 2021 requires candidates
who consider themselves to be eligible for this category (PwD) to ensure
their eligibility by getting themselves examined at a government medical
college/district hospitals/ government hospitals which would issue a
disability certificate with reference to Chapter VII of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017. Such a certificate is issued in
B
pursuance of the schedule to the RPwD Act 2016 and the guidelines
notified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 4 January
2018. Para 5.3.3 clarifies that this certificate does not confer a right to
seek admission in a medical course under the PwBD quota.

C 28. Upon selection under the PwBD category, the candidate has
to produce a disability certificate issued by the Disability Assessment
Board as per the specific guidelines under Para 5.3.4. The Board would
assess the candidates with reference to the criteria prescribed under the
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997, as amended up to 14
May 2019. Hence, after the declaration of the result, PwBD candidates
D have to appear before the Disability Assessment Board to determine
whether they may register or participate in the common online counselling
for admission to a medical course.
29. Para 5.3.5 specifies that the certificates (Appendix VIII-B)
issued by centres authorized by the DGHS shall only be considered for
E admission to the medical courses. Para 5.3.6 also stipulates that the
disability certificate issued in the Appendix VIII-A format, by a centre
designated under Appendix VIII-B, shall be issued in terms of the criteria
regulating common counselling.
30. The above discussion indicates that the first respondent, as a
F testing agency, has been assigned specific functions which are clarified
in the NEET Bulletin 2021. The present case demonstrates that the
appellant who suffers from dysgraphia with a disability of 40 per cent
has suffered a tragedy of errors in the process leading up to admissions
for the graduate medical courses in 2021, over which she had no control.
G
31. The first respondent, as a testing agency, was duty-bound to
comply with the Guidelines on Written Examination dated 29 August
2018, prescribed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
The grievance of the appellant is that she was deprived of the
compensatory additional one hour for attempting the examination, simply
H because the second respondent (the designated centre) was unaware of
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 921
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the rights of PwD candidates and the corresponding obligations on the A
second respondent. This state of affairs reflects the responsibility of the
first respondent to ensure that personnel at examination centres are trained
and provided with clear guidelines for the implementation of the provisions
made for PwD. In the absence of adequate training, rights conferred on
candidates with “specified disabilities” by Parliament, are set at nought.
B
32. The tragedy of errors that has taken place in the present case
is compounded by the manner in which the case proceeded before the
High Court. On 11 October 2021, the first respondent’s counsel informed
the High Court that the appellant was not entitled to get an additional
one hour of compensatory time because of a failure to obtain a disability C
certificate in Appendix VIII-A from a centre designated in Appendix
VIII-B. In the face of this statement, the counsel for the appellant agreed
to produce a certificate from an authorized agency in Appendix VIII-B
of the NEET Bulletin 2021, within a week. The High Court accordingly
directed the first respondent to consider the certificate within a week of
its production by the appellant. D

33. It is unfortunate that the first respondent issued such
instructions to its counsel. The statement of the first respondent before
the High Court on 11 October 2021 was plainly contrary to the provisions
of the NEET Bulletin 2021. Para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021
(extracted above) indicates that the appellant was entitled to E
compensatory time of one hour for an examination of three hours,
irrespective of her reliance on a scribe. Para 5.3 indicates that the
requirement of a certificate in Appendix VIII-A applies after the results
are declared. If this were not so, there is no purpose in requiring the
candidate to disclose the rank which is obtained in the NEET. It is as F
clear as daylight from paras 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 that a certificate
issued by a designated centre under Appendix VIII-B is to be considered
only at the stage of admission. Yet, in the teeth of the specifications in
paras 5.3.1, 5.3.3 and 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021, the High Court
was led to believe that an Appendix VIII-A certificate from a designated
centre specified in Appendix VIII-B was required to seek an extra hour G
of compensatory time. There is evident confusion between the authorities
working at the first respondent, which has led to a tragedy affecting the
legitimate rights and entitlement of a student who suffers from a specified
disability.
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A D.2 Applicability of the RPwD Act 2016
D.2.1 Distinction between PwD and PwBD
34. In the decision in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service
Commission9, this Court categorically observed that the concept of
benchmark disability is applicable in the context of the provisions
B contained in Chapter VI of the RPwD Act 2016, which is titled ‘Special
Provisions for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities’. These provisions
include:
(i) Section 31- free education for children with benchmark
disabilities;
C
(ii) Section 32- reservation in higher educational institutions;
(iii) Section 33- identification of posts for reservation;
(iv) Section 34- reservation;
(v) Section 35- incentives to employers in the private sector;
D
(vi) Section 36- special employment exchange; and
(vii) Section 37- special schemes and development programmes.
35. The expression ‘person with benchmark disability’ is defined
in Section 2(r) as follows:
E
“Section 2 (r) “person with benchmark disability” means a person
with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where
specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and
includes a person with disability where specified disability has
been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying
F authority;”
The concept of benchmark disabilities is thus specifically with
reference to the provisions of Chapter VI of the RPwD Act 2016. In
contrast with the definition in Section 2(r), the expression ‘person with
disability’ is defined in Section 2(s) as follows:
G
“(s) “person with disability” means a person with long term
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in
interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation
in society equally with others;”
9
H (2021) 5 SCC 370 [“Vikash Kumar’’]
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 923
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

36. The rights and entitlements conferred upon PwD are specified A
in Chapter II. Among those rights, Section 3 embodies the duty of the
appropriate government to ensure that PwD enjoy the right to equality, a
life with dignity and respect for their integrity equally with others. Section
3 provides as follows:
“3. Equality and non-discrimination.—(1) The appropriate B
Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy
the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her
integrity equally with others. (2) The appropriate Government shall
take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by
providing appropriate environment. (3) No person with disability
shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown C
that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim. (4) No person shall be deprived of his
or her personal liberty only on the ground of disability. 8 (5) The
appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.” D
Sub-section (5) of Section 3 requires the appropriate government
to take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for PwD.
Section 4 requires the appropriate government and all local authorities to
take measures to ensure that women and children with disabilities enjoy
rights equal with others. E
37. These rights and entitlements which are conferred upon PwD
cannot be constricted by adopting the definition of benchmark disability
as a condition precedent or as a condition of eligibility for availing of the
rights. Benchmark disability, as defined in Section 2(r), is specifically
used in the context of Chapter VI. Undoubtedly, to seek admission to an F
institution of higher education under the 5 per cent quota, the candidate
must, in terms of Section 32(1)10, fulfil the description of a PwBD. But
equally, where the statute has conferred rights and entitlements on PwD,
which is wider in its canvass than a benchmark disability, such rights
cannot be abrogated or diluted by reading into them the notion of
G
10
Section 32 reads as follows:
32. Reservation in higher educational institutions.—(1) All Government institutions of
higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the
Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark
disabilities. (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age
relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A benchmark disability. This has been clarified in the judgment of this Court
in Vikash Kumar (supra) where it was observed thus:
“37. Both as a matter of textual construction and bearing in mind
the purpose and object underlying the term, it is necessary to
emphasise that the definition in Section 2(s) cannot be constricted
B by the measurable quantifications tagged with the definition under
Section 2(r).
….
39. The concept of benchmark disabilities under the 2016 RPwD
Act has specifically been adopted in relation with the provisions
C of Chapter VI and Chapter VII. Chapter VI contains special
provisions for persons with benchmark disabilities. Among those
provisions is Section 31 (free education for children with benchmark
disability), Section 32 (reservation in higher educational institutions),
Section 33 (identification of posts for reservation), Section 34
D (reservation), Section 36 (Special Employment Exchange) and
Section 37 (Special Schemes and Development Programmes).
Chapter VII contains special provisions for persons with
benchmark disabilities in need of high support. Thus, the concept
of benchmark disabilities has been adopted by the legislation
bearing in mind specific provisions which are contained in the law
E for persons meeting this description.
40. Conflating the rights and entitlements which inhere in
persons with disabilities with the notion of benchmark
disabilities does disservice to the salutary purpose
underlying the enactment of the 2016 RPwD Act. Worse
F still, to deny the rights and entitlements recognised for
persons with disabilities on the ground that they do not
fulfil a benchmark disability would be plainly ultra vires the
2016 RPwD Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
G
In Vikash Kumar (supra), the UPSC placed reliance on the Civil
Services Examination Rules 2018 to submit that only PwBD can be
provided with the facility of a scribe. This Court held that the petitioner
was entitled to reasonable accommodation in the form of being provided
with the facility of a scribe for writing the UPSC examination even if he
H did not suffer from a benchmark disability. It is evident that despite the
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 925
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

clarification of the position in law in Vikash Kumar (supra),the law A
continues to be violated and NTA has continued to restrict the grant of
facilities only to PwBD. By way of abundant caution, we reiterate that
the facility of reservation in terms of Section 32 is available to PwBD.
Other facilities contemplated by the RPwD Act 2016 for PwD cannot
be so restricted by an administrative order which would be contrary to
B
the provisions of the statute.
D.2.2. Right to Inclusive Education
38. Education plays a key role in social and economic inclusion
and effective participation in society. Inclusive education is indispensable
for ensuring universal and non-discriminatory access to education. The C
Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises that inclusive
education systems must be put in place for a meaningful realisation of
the right to education for PwD. Thus, a right to education is essentially a
right to inclusive education. In India, the RPwD Act 2016 provides
statutory backing to the principle of inclusive education. Section 2(m)
D
defines inclusive education as:
“(m) “inclusive education” means a system of education wherein
students with and without disability learn together and the system
of teaching and learning is suitably adapted to meet the learning
needs of different types of students with disabilities;”
E
39. The RPwD Act 2016 contains salutary provisions on the rights
of PwD to inclusive education in Chapter III. Section 17, which forms a
part of Chapter III, entails specific measures to promote and facilitate
inclusive education for students with disabilities. Among other inclusive
measures in Section 17, is sub-section (i) which prescribes a duty to F
make suitable modifications in the curriculum and examination system
to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This duty can be fulfilled
by providing extra time for the completion of examination papers and/or
the facility of a scribe. The provision of inclusive education is not limited
to children with disabilities but extends to adults with disabilities. Section
18 provides that the government and local authorities are duty-bound to G
take measures to promote, protect and ensure participation of PwD in
adult education and continuing education programmes on an equal footing
with others. Chapter VI prescribes special provisions for persons with
benchmark disabilities, including reservations in higher educational
institutions of not less than 5 per cent seats under Section 32.
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A 40. The provisions for reservation in Chapter VI specifically for
PwBD are distinct from the provisions in Chapter III for PwD. PwD
encompasses a wider group of which PwBD is a sub-set. This distinction
extends to efforts under Section 17 to promote inclusive education.
41. Above all, the RPwD Act 2016 contains provisions mandating
B reasonable accommodation. The expression “reasonable accommodation”
is defined in Section 2(y), which reads as under:
“2(y)reasonable accommodation” means necessary and
appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a
disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to
C persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally
with others;”
The right to inclusive education is realised through the provision
of reasonable accommodation. In Vikash Kumar (supra), this Court
emphasised that reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the principle
D of equality and non-discrimination espoused under the RPwD Act 2016.
The denial of reasonable accommodation to a PwD amounts to
discrimination. It is the positive obligation of the State to create the
necessary conditions to facilitate the equal participation of disabled persons
in society. This Court observed thus:

E “44. The principle of reasonable accommodation captures the
positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide
additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full
and effective participation in society. The concept of reasonable
accommodation is developed in section (H) below. For the present,
suffice it to say that, for a person with disability, the constitutionally
F guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and
the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not
given this additional support that helps make these rights real and
meaningful for them. Reasonable accommodation is the
instrumentality—are an obligation as a society—to enable the
G disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-
discrimination…”
42. It is clear in the present case that the appellant was denied
her entitlement to reasonable accommodation and the State failed to
fulfil its positive duty of protecting her right to inclusive education. The
Guidelines for Written Examination dated 29 August 2018 issued as an
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 927
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, A
hold the field insofar as the written examinations for PwD candidates
are concerned. In Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. State of Gujarat11 a
three judge Bench of this Court observed that the certificate under
Appendix VIII-A is applicable while seeking admission to medical courses:
“The relevant essential eligibility criteria is required to be considered B
when the petitioners were to get admission in the MBBS course
under PwD quota. It is required to be noted and so stated in the
reply affidavit filed on behalf of the MCI that the Expert Committee
submitted the report – “Guidelines for admission of persons with
Specified Disabilities”, which was placed before the Executive
Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 5.6.2018 wherein C
after due discussion and deliberations it was decided to approve
the same. It was also decided that the said Expert Committee
Report should be communicated to the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare in view of the schedule for counselling for admission to
MBBS course for the academic year 20181-19. However, for D
admission for the academic year 2018-19, it was at the stage of a
draft notification and the Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
1997 were not amended in light of the recommendations of the
Expert Committee constituted by the MCI which has issued the
Disability Guidelines, this Court directed to give admission as per
the unamended Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. E
However subsequently and before the admission for the
academic year 2019-20 are given, notification dated 04.02.2019
has been published and the Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 1997 have been amended, as above. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said F
that ‘Rules of the game are changed midway’, as sought to
be contended on behalf of the petitioners. As observed
hereinabove, the essential eligibility criteria as per
Appendix ‘H’ is required to be considered at the time when
the candidates were seeking admission in the medical
course under PwD category. It is also required to be noted G
that even the candidates seeking admission in PwD quota
are required to appear before the concerned Medical Board
at the time of actually seeking admission and after NEET

11
(2019) 10 SCC 20 H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A result is declared.Therefore, the relevant date for
considering the essential eligibility criteria as per Appendix
‘H’ shall be the date on which the candidates – petitioners
sought admission in the MBBs course under PwD quota.
Much prior thereto, notification dated 4.2.2019 has been issued
and published and therefore the respective petitioners shall be
B
governed by notification dated 04.02.2019.”
(emphasis supplied)
43. In terms of the provisions of RPwD Act 2016, there is a clear
distinction between the rights available to a candidate such as the appellant
C at the stage of the examination (in terms of the provisions of Section
17(i) falling under Chapter III) and the rights applicable at the stage of
admission (under Section 32 falling under Chapter VI) of the RPwD
Act 2016. There was a gross miscarriage of justice in this case by the
High Court directing the appellant, who is aggrieved by the denial of a
compensatory one hour, to seek a certificate in terms of Appendix
D
VIII-A, on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the first
respondent. It is noteworthy that the confusion has also arisen because
of the manner in which NEET Bulletin 2021 has been drafted. A clear-
eyed information bulletin must provide a distinction between the rights
that are available to PwD candidates at the stage of the examination
E and the rights which are available in terms of reservation after the results
of the NEET are declared. As a result of the ambiguity in the NEET
Bulletin 2021, and the absence of adequate training to the second
respondent which was allotted as the appellant’s centre, the appellant
lost the benefit of a compensatory hour during the course of the entrance
examination.
F
44. This injustice was compounded by the manner in which the
proceedings took place before the High Court where the instructions
given to the counsel for the first respondent were in the teeth of the
rights and entitlements available in terms of the Guidelines for Written
Examination dated 29 August 2018 and para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin
G
2021. The Guidelines for Written Examination hold the field for all
examinations attempted by PwDs. As a matter of fact, it would appear
that para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021 seeks to enforce and implement
this requirement. As a consequence of these compounding errors, the
appellant has suffered a grave injustice.
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 929
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

ERedressing the injustice A
45. The line of submissions urged before this Court by the first
respondent seems to suggest that besides the provisions under Para 5.3
and 5.4 of the NEET Bulletin 2021, it proposes to issue further guidelines
to stakeholders, especially to (i) candidates; (ii) invigilators; (iii) centre
supervisors; (iv) observers; and (v) city coordinators. However, this does B
not address the issue at hand, which is the steps that the first respondent
must take to deal with cases such as that of the appellant where the
student has been made to suffer. This suffering was, firstly, a
consequence of inadequate knowledge at the designated centre (the
second respondent), in regard to the facilities available to PwD students;
and secondly, by an element of ambiguity in the instructions framed in C
the NEET Bulletin 2021.
46. One way of looking at the matter, as the first respondent would
have the Court do, is to accept that in a competitive entrance examination
such as the NEET, a large body of candidates appears across the country.
According to the viewpoint espoused by the first respondent, individual D
cases of prejudice caused by an improper application of the norms
governing the examination constitute an acceptable, though unfortunate,
consequence. The other way of looking at the problem is that while the
first respondent must utilise the experience gained in conducting the
NEET process to proactively take steps to fill up deficiencies, the E
examination process must continue to account for the need to rectify
injustice caused to a student, who played no role in causing such injustice.
The number of cases where such injustices take place maybe a few or
more than that (the Court has not been apprised of the statistical figure);
but it cannot be ignored that for a student who is made to suffer, the
consequence is indeed serious. The entire course of a career depends F
upon the proper conduct of the NEET and, as in the present case, the
application of a binding norm prescribed by the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment for the benefit of students suffering from disabilities.
It is no answer for an authority bound by the dicta of law and the
Constitution, to throw up its hands in despair, instead of attempting to G
remedy the injustice which is caused to a student. A judge cannot ignore
that behind the statistics is a human face, reflecting the aspirations, joy
and tears of a student and her family.
47. In the present case, the appellant does not claim misfeasance
on the part of the first respondent but plain and simple negligence in H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A complying with the rights and entitlements provided to PwDs under the
RPwD Act 2016. For effective participation of the students with disabilities
in the society, which undoubtedly is the salutary object of the legislation,
the safeguards which are provided by the law must be duly enforced
and any breach of entitlement must be answerable at law. Responsibility
and power without accountability are an anathema to our Constitution.
B
48. The first respondent is justified in taking the stance that a
re-examination cannot be ordered for one student. The option of a
re-examination for a single student would also stand eschewed by a
decision of a two judge Bench of this Court in National Testing Agency
v. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale12. on 12 November 2021. The Court had
C dealt with a case where a petition had been filed before the High Court
for a direction to the first respondent to re-examine certain students by
conducting a separate NEET examination, before the declaration of
results, for admission to under-graduate medical courses for 2021-2022.
The first and second respondents, in that case, had appeared in the NEET
D on 12 September 2021 and were in the same examination room. At the
time of distribution of the question papers and the answer booklet, there
was a mix-up and different booklets and answer sheets that did not
match the code were given to them. In accordance with the instructions
to students, the respondents reported the mix up between the answer
sheet and the booklet to the invigilators. The invigilators did not rectify
E the mistake pointed out by the respondents and within the short time
which remained, the respondents answered as many questions as they
could. In pursuance of an interim order of the High Court dated 7 October
2021, the first respondent suggested that the answer key would be
implemented for scoring/evaluation of the 6 candidates in whose cases
F there was a mix up in the distribution of the test booklet code and OMR
sheets as per the sequence of questions given in the test booklet code.
However, the High Court on 20 October 2021 directed the NTA to hold
a fresh examination for the two candidates. On 28 October 2021, this
Court stayed the judgment of the High Court and requested the Solicitor
General to suggest a course of action to be adopted in respect of the two
G students “who have suffered due to the fault of the invigilators”. When
the proceedings were taken up by this Court, on 12 November 2021, the
Solicitor General informed the Court that the results of the NEET (UG)
had been declared and that the answer sheets of the two candidates had

H 12
SLP(Civil) No.17027 of 2021 [“Vaishnavi Vijay’’]
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 931
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

been corrected on the basis of the suggestion which was given by the A
first respondent to the High Court. The concession made by NTA was
recorded by this Court in its order dated 12 November 2021:
“The Ld. Solicitor General submitted that the answer sheets of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been corrected on the basis of the
suggestion that was given by the petitioner to the High Court. B
Without insisting on the test booklet code and OMR sheets being
different, the answers given by the petitioners have been
evaluated.’’
Against this backdrop, the Bench consisting of Justice L
Nageswara Rao and Justice B R Gavai set aside the order of the High C
Court directing the holding of a fresh examination. The Court observed
thus:
“There is no dispute that there was a mix up in distribution of the
answer sheets and the test booklet where the code is different.
Realising that a wrong answer given to a question would attract D
negative marks and also relying upon the instructions given to the
candidates, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pointed out to the invigilators
that the correct answer sheet with a proper code has to be provided
to them.
We have perused the answer sheets of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 E
and the marks given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the material
furnished by the learned Solicitor General on 28.10.2021. They
have attempted most of the questions. No negative marks have
been given to them. We find substance in the submissions of
Mr. Choudhary that due to the loss of precious time, respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 could not answer all the questions and we also F
appreciate the mental state of mind of respondent Nos. 1 and 2
due to the confusion. Though, we sympathize with the cause of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, we find it difficult to direct re-examination
for them alone. Therefore, we set aside the direction given by the
High Court to the petitioner to conduct re-examination for G
respondent Nos.1 and 2.”
49. The above extract indicates that during the course of the
proceedings before the High Court, the first respondent having realized
that the mistake had occurred due to the fault of the invigilators which
was not rectified, took steps to alleviate the hardship to the two students
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A to the extent that was practical. In view of the benefit extended by the
first respondent to the students, this Court held that the direction to conduct
a fresh examination could not be sustained.
50. In the present case, the appellant had sought a re-examination
where she would be allowed compensatory time as mandated by the
B Guidelines for Written Examination and the NEET Bulletin 2021. We
are in agreement with the view in Vaishnavi Vijay (supra) that holding
a fresh examination is neither practicable nor proper. Holding a fresh
examination will delay medical admissions and cause uncertainty and
chaos. To that extent, the denial of the relief sought for conducting a
fresh examination for the appellant is not disturbed. At the same time,
C we are of the view that the first respondent must factor in the possibility
of such errors occurring in the process of conducting the NEET. The
manner in which the first respondent deals with cases of serious prejudice,
as occasioned in the present case, has to be decided by it as an expert
agency.
D
51. This Court would eschew the course of dictating the manner
in which the grievance should be rectified, leaving it to the discretion of
the testing agency which is entrusted with the overall responsibility of
conducting the examination. The first respondent took certain steps as
noted above in Vaishnavi Vijay (supra). Similarly, in the present case,
E we are of the categorical view that the first respondent cannot shirk or
abrogate its responsibility to rectify the injustice which has been caused
to the appellant. The first respondent may consider extrapolation of the
marks awarded to the appellant or grant compensatory marks. Similar
to the steps in Vaishnavi Vijay (supra), the first respondent could also
consider adopting a ‘no negative marks’ scheme. We are not restricting
F the first respondent to only the above options and will leave the decision
on the modalities of remedying the injustice caused to the appellant to
the first respondent. The injustice which has resulted is clearly due to a
breach in observing the entitlements due to the appellant under the RPwD
Act 2016.
G
52. During the course of the hearing, the first respondent urged
that sixteen lakh students appeared for the NEET and hence injustice to
a “one-off” student cannot be remedied. In the written submissions which
have been filed on behalf of the first respondent, the following statement
has been submitted in regard to the candidature of the appellant vis-à-
H vis, other candidates.
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 933
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“3. Re (a): A
The Petitioner had appeared in NEET (UG) 2021 on
12.09.2021 as a candidate in General (UR)-PwD Category. She
had attempted 84 out of 180 questions. She has answered 50
questions correctly and 34 questions incorrectly and, accordingly
she has been awarded 166 marks out of 720 marks during the B
result declared on 01.11.2021. Accordingly, she has qualified in
NEET (UG) 2021 and has secured the following Ranks for
admission to MBBS/BDS Courses:
• All India Rank for Counselling- 661699
C
• General (UR)- 206003
• PwD- 1721
The Rank of the Petitioner has been juxtaposed with the other
PwD Candidates of NEET (UG) 2021, as follows: D

E

F

G
The Respondent No.1 has duly considered the case of the Petitioner
to try to find out some solution including awarding the additional
proportionate marks. However, it has been observed that there
are in total 15,44,275 candidates (out of total registered candidates
16,14,777) who had appeared in NEET(UG) 2021 on 12.09.2021
for which result has already been declared on 01.11.2021 and All H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A India Rank has already been forwarded on 09.11.2021 by the
Respondent No.1 to the Directorate UR of Health Services, M/o
Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India to conduct counselling
for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses for the academic year
2021-21. Therefore, any alteration in the result, at this stage, will
cause serious prejudice to the numerous candidates who are
B
presently ranked above the Petitioner but, would have to be placed
below her, thereby disturbing the Ranks of other candidates. None
of such students are before this Hon’ble Court and, may result in
further complications/litigations. Further, it may also affect the
counselling process which may result into delay in the completion
C of admission process.”
53. The above statement indicates that the appellant has secured
an All India Rank of 1721 out of 2684 candidates qualified in the PwD
category. In relation to the State of Maharashtra, the appellant has secured
rank 249 out of 390 candidates in the PwD category. The first respondent
D has stated that approximately 15.4 lakh candidates appeared at the NEET
(UG) 2021 on 12 September 2021 for which the result was declared on
1 November 2021 and the All India Rank was forwarded on
9 November 2021 to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India to conduct counselling for admission. It was
submitted that alteration of the result at this stage would prejudicially
E affect other candidates who are ranked above the appellant.
54. In essence, the above submissions boils down to the first
respondent informing the Court that in an examination of such large
proportions where over 16 lakh students registered and over 15 lakh
students appeared, it would not be possible to undo the injustice which
F has been done to a single candidate. The first respondent must remember
that all authority under the law is subject to responsibility, and above all,
to a sense of accountability. The first respondent is governed by the rule
of law and by the constitutional requirement of observing fairness. Behind
the abstract number of ‘15 lakh students’ lie human lives that can be
G altered due to the inadvertent, yet significant errors of the first respondent.
55. The first respondent, as an examining body, was bound to
scrupulously enforce the Guidelines for Written Examinations dated 29
August 2018 which provides for specific relaxations. The appellant has
suffered injustice by a wrongful denial of these relaxations and a lack of
remedy by this Court would cause irretrievable injustice to the life of the
H
AVNI PRAKASH v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) 935
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

student. The RwPD Act 2016 prescribing beneficial provisions for persons A
with specified disabilities would have no meaning unless it is scrupulously
enforced.
56. In our view, the first respondent cannot be allowed to simply
get away when confronted with the situation in hand whereby injustice
has been caused to a student by standing behind the situation of a large B
competitive examination. Individual injustices originating in a wrongful
denial of rights and entitlements prescribed under the law cannot be sent
into oblivion on the ground that these are a necessary consequence of a
competitive examination.
F Conclusion C
57. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we conclude
and direct as follows:
(i) The relief sought by the appellant for holding a re-
examination for the NEET (UG) is denied;
(ii) The appellant was wrongfully deprived of compensatory D
time of one hour while appearing for the NEET without
any fault of her own, despite her entitlements as a PwD
and a PwBD. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed
to consider what steps could be taken to rectify the injustice
within a period of one week. Further, it shall take necessary
E
consequential measures under intimation to the DGHS;
(iii) In the future, the first respondent shall ensure that provisions
which are made at the NEET in terms of the rights and
entitlements available under the RPwD Act 2016 are
clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity, as
noticed in the present case; F

(iv) Having due regard to the decision of this Court in Vikash
Kumar (supra) and the statutory provisions contained in
the RPwD Act 2016, facilities which are provided by the
law to PwD shall not be constricted by reading in the higher
threshold prescribed for PwBD; G
(v) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that for the purpose
of availing of the reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD
Act 2016 or an upper age relaxation as contemplated in the
provisions, the concept of benchmark disability continues
to apply; and H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R.

A (vi) It was brought to our notice that the second respondent
was ignorant about the facilities to which the appellant was
entitled. There was an evident confusion between the
authorities working at the first respondent as well. The
persons working for the first respondent and exam centres
like that of the second respondent should be sensitised and
B
trained, on a regular basis, to deal with requirements of
reasonable accommodation raised by PwDs.
58. The steps taken by the first respondent in furtherance of
direction (ii) above in Paragraph 57 must be communicated to the Registry
of this Court by filing a status report within a period of two weeks from
C the date of this judgment.
59. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
60. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

D
Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of.

E

F

G

H