Parties and roles: Vikash Kumar is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union Public Service Commission is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Vikash Kumar had writer's cramp that substantially impaired writing but was not certified as a benchmark disability of forty percent. UPSC rules tied scribe assistance to that threshold. The case asked whether reasonable accommodation is limited to persons eligible for reservations or instead responds to an individual's actual barrier in accessing an examination. Procedural and real-world context: 2017-2018: Civil-services candidate with writer's cramp sought a scribe. | UPSC refused because he did not meet a 40% benchmark-disability threshold. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve are reasonable accommodations confined to persons with benchmark disabilities? Can a candidate with a functional writing limitation demand a scribe? How should examination integrity and equality be balanced? The outcome mattered immediately because reasonable accommodation is a substantive equality duty owed to persons with disabilities generally, not only the benchmark-disability category. The Court allowed a scribe subject to suitable safeguards and directed the government to frame inclusive guidelines after consultation. Procedural setting: 2017-2018: Civil-services candidate with writer's cramp sought a scribe. | UPSC refused because he did not meet a 40% benchmark-disability threshold. | 11 Feb 2021: Supreme Court ordered accommodation and clarified disability law. The central problem before the Court was are reasonable accommodations confined to persons with benchmark disabilities? Can a candidate with a functional writing limitation demand a scribe? How should examination integrity and equality be balanced? The controversy was considered in the framework of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ss.2, 3, 17 and 20; examination guidelines, together with Constitution arts.14, 16 and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in reasonable accommodation; substantive equality; functional disability; inclusive design; proportionality.

Candidate: a scribe removes a functional disadvantage and is required by equality and reasonable accommodation; benchmark percentage concerns special entitlements, not all rights. | UPSC: uniform certification thresholds prevent misuse and maintain examination integrity. Competing positions in context: Vikash Kumar's position: as the appellant/applicant, Vikash Kumar sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Reasonable accommodation; substantive equality; functional disability; inclusive design; proportionality. Union Public Service Commission's position: as respondent, Union Public Service Commission resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ss.2, 3, 17 and 20; examination guidelines and Constitution arts.14, 16 and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

Reasonable accommodation is a substantive equality duty owed to persons with disabilities generally, not only the benchmark-disability category. The Court allowed a scribe subject to suitable safeguards and directed the government to frame inclusive guidelines after consultation. Failure to accommodate can itself be discrimination; standards should examine functional need rather than a rigid percentage alone. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Reasonable accommodation; substantive equality; functional disability; inclusive design; proportionality and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Civil Appeal No. 273/2021. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ss.2, 3, 17 and 20; examination guidelines. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ss.2, 3, 17 and 20; examination guidelines

Constitution arts.14, 16 and 21

Reasonable accommodation; substantive equality; functional disability; inclusive design; proportionality