Introduction
In Mission Accessibility v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court reinforced its dedication to substantive equality by tackling the systemic challenges experienced by persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) in public examinations administered by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The ruling, delivered in December 2025, by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlights issues with inflexible scribe regulations and the lack of assistive technologies, further defining what constitutes reasonable accommodation under constitutional and statutory frameworks.
Facts
Mission Accessibility, a non-governmental organization working for the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities, filed the petition contesting UPSC guidelines that compelled PwBD candidates to freeze their scribe particulars at the time of online application submission—weeks before the preliminary examination—leaving no room for flexibility as the exam approached. The petitioners also drew attention to the absence of institutional support for assistive technologies, such as screen-reader software for visually impaired candidates. They contended that these stipulations infringed upon Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
The case was heard over multiple dates before the final judgment was delivered in December2025. During the proceedings, UPSC filed an affidavit on September 2025, taking an in-principle decision to introduce screen reader software, though they cited infrastructure and logistical challenges as constraints.
Issues
The Court examined whether:
- PwBD candidates’ fundamental rights to equality and dignity were violated by rigid scribe deadlines that required freezing scribe details weeks before examinations;
- Failing to provide assistive technology constituted a denial of reasonable accommodation according to the RPwD Act; and
- Public authorities must guarantee substantive equality in competitive examinations.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that UPSC’s strict framework does not take into consideration the difficulties experienced by candidates with disabilities. It directed UPSC to permit PwBD candidates to change their scribes until at least seven days prior to the examination, with all such requests to be objectively considered and disposed of by reasoned orders within three working days.
Additionally, the Court mandated that UPSC file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two months detailing concrete plans and timelines for screen-reader software deployment. The Court further directed UPSC to coordinate with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD) to develop a robust policy framework for assistive technologies.
The Court’s emphasis that reasonable accommodation is a legal requirement deriving from constitutional safeguards and the RPwD Act rather than a matter of administrative discretion was crucial to the ruling. The Court noted that where structural disadvantages persist, treating all candidates identically does not result in equality. The judgment invoked the constitutional philosophy that genuine equality demands the removal of barriers rather than mere formal equality.
Analysis
By supporting a substantive equality approach, the ruling enhances Indian equality jurisprudence. The Court acknowledged that differential treatment might be required to attain true equality and rejected formal uniformity as insufficient. The decision also makes it clear that proactive institutional actions, as opposed to sporadic or insignificant modifications, are necessary for reasonable accommodation. Public bodies must anticipate accessibility requirements and modify systems appropriately rather than waiting for individual complaints.
The ruling indicates that administrative convenience cannot take precedence over fundamental rights, which has wider ramifications beyond UPSC examinations for all public institutions conducting competitive processes. The Court’s directive for coordination between multiple governmental bodies (UPSC, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, and NIEPVD) demonstrates a holistic approach to accessibility implementation.
The Court did not, however, mandate immediate implementation of screen-reader technology, instead requiring UPSC to submit a detailed plan within two months. This pragmatic approach recognizes infrastructure challenges while maintaining accountability through specific timelines and reporting requirements. The success of the judgment will ultimately depend on effective administrative compliance and monitoring.
Conclusion
Mission Accessibility v. Union of India represents a significant development in disability rights law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed public institutions’ duty to remove structural obstacles by recognizing accessibility as essential to equality and dignity rather than a matter of administrative convenience. The ruling confirms that meaningful participation in public procedures is a fundamental right rather than a charitable concession. By mandating specific timelines, coordination mechanisms, and reasoned decision-making for accommodation requests, the judgment provides an enforceable framework for ensuring that persons with disabilities can compete on an equal footing in India’s most competitive public examinations.
Author Name- Shubhi Priyadarshi, BA LLB (GGSIPU- graduate)
