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
<https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CABsHoz-9XSohXFcnGQ1zKSA6UrOKBm7bdBkEV7R7%3DHs9WRSdjA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
