Hello All, Read below, cudos to team who has taken up this responsibility.
COURT OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES(DIVYANGJAN) Case No: 16504/1040/2026 In the matter of: Complainant Ms. Sarah Moin (represented by Mr. Moin Ahmed Idrisi) Versus Respondent(s) The Director General, National Testing Agency 1. Gist of the Complaint 1.1 The Complainant, Shri Moin Ahmad Idrisi, has filed a representation on behalf of his daughter, Sarah Moin, a Deaf-Blind candidate appearing in Common University Entrance Test (CUET) UG 2026, alleging that the National Testing Agency (NTA) has failed to respond to repeated requests for mandated accessibility accommodations. The Complainant asserts that despite Sarah’s outstanding academic record, achieving 95% in Class X and 98.75% in Class XII with assistive support, the authorities have not yet confirmed the provision of essential facilities such as NVDA (Non-Visual Desktop Access)-enabled laptops, Refreshable Braille Displays, accessible digital papers, and compensatory time in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016. Seeking the Court’s intervention, the Complainant requests the allotment of a technologically equipped examination centre in Lucknow or permission to use calibrated assistive devices, emphasizing that the denial of these "reasonable accommodations" and the lack of communication from the NTA jeopardize the candidate’s right to an inclusive and equitable examination process. 2. Hearing Details 16504/1040/2026 I/7239/2026Unlabelled graphic2.1. A hearing was conducted on 14.05.2026 in hybrid mode, wherein the following parties/representatives were present: Sl. No. Name of the Parties / Representatives On Behalf of 1. Mr. Moin Ahmed Idrisi Complainant 2. Adv. Amar Jain Complainant 3. Mr. Salman Qazi, Special Educator, Christ Church College Complainant 4. Dr. Archana Shukla, Director Respondent 5. Mr. Anil Dhiman, Deputy Director Respondent 6. Ms. Sanjeeta Bhardwaj, Consultant Respondent 3. Record of Proceedings 3.1 During the proceedings, Advocate Amar Jain, representing the Complainant, reiterated the complaint. The Complainant’s representative emphasized that for a candidate with 100% Multiple Disabilities (Deaf-Blindness), the provision of NVDA-enabled laptops, Refreshable Braille Displays, and accessible digital question papers is a statutory necessity under the RPwD Act, 2016. He further requested the allotment of a technologically equipped examination centre in Lucknow or permission to bring calibrated assistive devices for prior inspection to ensure an equitable testing environment. 3.2 The Respondent, National Testing Agency (NTA), submitted that it has successfully allotted an examination centre in Lucknow, the candidate's first choice. The NTA maintained that while standard facilities such as a scribe and compensatory time are provided as per DEPwD guidelines, the unique technical requirements of a Deaf-Blind candidate require specific administrative and technological due diligence. To this end, the Respondent informed the Court that an online meeting was convened on 13.05.2026 between NTA officials, the CBT agency, and the guardian to discuss the integration of specialized assistive devices within the examination framework, asserting its commitment to providing reasonable accommodation. 4. Respondent’s reply to the Notice of Hearing 16504/1040/2026 I/7239/20264.1 The Respondent, National Testing Agency (NTA), in its response dated 13.05.2026, submits that it has allotted an examination centre at Lucknow, the candidate's first choice, for the CUET (UG) 2026 scheduled on 21 and 29 May 2026. The NTA clarifies that while standard provisions like a scribe, compensatory time, and zoom features are available in accordance with DEPwD guidelines, it is currently conducting due diligence to address the unique technical requirements of the Deaf-Blind candidate. To facilitate these specific requests, an online meeting was held on 13.05.2026 between NTA officials, the CBT agency (M/s Tata Consulting Services), and the candidate's guardian to discuss the integration of specialized assistive devices like NVDA-enabled laptops and Refreshable Braille Displays within the Computer Based Test (CBT) framework. The NTA maintains that it is exercising due diligence to provide "reasonable accommodation" within its technological and administrative capabilities to ensure an equitable examination process. 5. Observation and Recommendation 5.1 After observing the submissions of both parties, the Court clarifies that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not matters of privilege or special consideration, but are fundamental statutory rights and essential mandates designed to ensure an equitable and convenient system for all citizens. 5.2 The Court observes that the Respondent’s actions must be evaluated against the statutory framework of the RPwD Act, 2016 as mentioned below, which mandates a transition from a welfare-based approach to a rights-based entitlement for applicants with disabilities Section 2(y) – Reasonable Accommodation: This provision mandates necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that do not impose a disproportionate burden, ensuring that persons with disabilities enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others. In the present case, this supports the candidate’s requirement for NVDA enabled laptops, Refreshable Braille Displays, and accessible digital question papers. Section 16 – Duty of Educational Institutions: This section requires institutions and examining bodies to provide inclusive and accessible environments, which includes the provision of specific assistive technology to support the learning and assessment of candidates with disabilities. 16504/1040/2026 I/7239/2026Section 17 – Specific Measures: This mandate requires modifications in the examination system to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, specifically endorsing the provision of extra time and tailored examination facilities as requested by the Complainant. Section 42 – Access to Information & Technology: This provision obligates the government and its agencies to ensure that all information and content are available in accessible formats and to promote the use of assistive devices to facilitate effective participation. 5.3 The regulatory framework governing accessibility for candidates with disabilities in national examinations is defined by several key directives from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), which mandate inclusive facilities to ensure an equitable testing environment. The (DEPwD) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2022 serves as a vital extension of these protections, stipulating that mandated benefits are not restricted to those with "benchmark disabilities" (40% or more) but apply to all persons with disabilities as defined under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016. 5.4 In the present case, the Complainant has established such eligibility through the submission of a valid UDID certificate and supporting medical records. While revised guidelines were issued on August 1, 2025, to prioritize independent writing through advanced assistive technology such as NVDA-enabled computers and Refreshable Braille Displays, a subsequent Office Memorandum issued in March 2026 has placed these revised protocols in abeyance until June 30, 2026. Consequently, all competitive public examinations notified during this interim period, including those conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), remain governed by the earlier DEPwD Guidelines dated 29.08.2018 and 10.08.2022. This ensures that while the NTA assesses its administrative preparedness for newer assistive mechanisms, candidates continue to receive established accommodations such as scribes and compensatory time to prevent any lapse in their statutory rights. 5.5 The legal landscape regarding disability rights has underwent a transformative shift through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments that redefine accessibility not as a charitable concession, but as a fundamental constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21. From the foundational ruling in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016), which established that substantive equality requires providing necessary support to ensure human dignity and full social participation, to 16504/1040/2026 I/7239/2026Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021), which recognized that the right to assistive technology is an integral component of equality regardless of arbitrary medical benchmarks, the judiciary has consistently dismantled systemic barriers. This momentum continued with Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024), which declared accessibility a mandatory and enforceable right, and Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025), which explicitly extended these protections to the digital realm, ensuring that educational and examination interfaces are inclusive of all assistive tools. Finally, Anmol v. Union of India (2025) solidified this jurisprudence by rejecting "one-size-fits-all" administrative policies in favor of individualized assessments, requiring authorities to tailor accommodations to the specific functional needs and unique circumstances of each candidate. 5.6 The Court observes that reasonable accommodation through assistive technology and accessible examination systems is a statutory, constitutional, and human rights obligation. The absence of explicit procedural provisions cannot be used to deny equal educational opportunity, particularly when the feasibility of such accommodations has been demonstrated through the candidate's prior successful implementation in other national-level examinations. The Court emphasizes that the National Testing Agency (NTA) must proactively empower and enable persons with disabilities by ensuring that the examination infrastructure and digital interfaces are fully inclusive, thereby fostering an environment where candidates can participate independently and effectively. 5.7 Having considered the outstanding academic performance and proficiency demonstrated by the Complainant through the use of assistive technology, this Court is of the considered view that adequate and effective accessibility arrangements are required to be ensured by the Respondent. Accordingly, the National Testing Agency (NTA) is directed to ensure seamless integration and operational functionality of NVDA-enabled software and Refreshable Braille Display devices at the designated examination centre at Lucknow. The Respondent shall also conduct a comprehensive pre-examination system verification in the presence of the Complainant or his authorised representative to ensure compatibility of the assistive devices and proper rendering of the digital question papers prior to commencement of the examination. 5.8. This Court is of the considered opinion that permitting the Complainant to use assistive technology in a convenient and accessible manner would advance the objectives of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Respondent/NTA may permit the Complainant to use his own laptop for the examination, subject to submission of the device before the Centre Superintendent at least one day prior to 16504/1040/2026 I/7239/202616504/1040/2026 the examination for necessary technical verification, security clearance, and compatibility checks. In the alternative, where the technical or security protocols of the Respondent agency do not permit the use of the Complainant’s personal laptop, it is recommended that the NTA provide an appropriate laptop from its own resources, duly configured with the requisite assistive software and hardware, after ensuring completion of all accessibility and system checks prior to commencement of the examination. 5.9. This Court further recommends that in the event the examination paper contains graphical, visual, image-based, or diagrammatic questions which are not accessible through the assistive technology being used by the Complainant, suitable alternative questions of equivalent standard and marking scheme may be incorporated within the same examination paper to ensure that the Complainant is not placed at any disadvantage on account of inaccessible content. Such measures would be consistent with the principles of accessibility, equality, and reasonable accommodation envisaged under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 5.10 The Respondent is advised to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR) before this Court on or before 18.05.2026 indicating the technical arrangements finalized and the accessibility measures proposed to be implemented for the Complainant's examinations scheduled on 21.05.2026 and 29.05.2026. In the event of non-submission of the ATR or non-consideration of the recommendations made herein, this Court may be constrained to examine the matter further in accordance with the provisions of Sections 78, 89, and 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 6. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. Thank you. Regards, Naresh -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CABsHoz-9XSohXFcnGQ1zKSA6UrOKBm7bdBkEV7R7%3DHs9WRSdjA%40mail.gmail.com.
