Yash Dodani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 – Supreme Court Of India
Introduction
In a significant step for disability rights in legal education, the Supreme Court of India has held that visually impaired candidates appearing in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) cannot be restricted to scribes possessing only a 10+2 qualification.
The Court recognised a simple but powerful truth:
fairness in an examination is not achieved by handicapping the disabled — it is achieved by removing the handicap.
The ruling marks a major shift from formal equality to substantive equality in professional examinations.
Background Of The Case
The petition was filed by visually impaired candidates who wished to pursue legal education and the legal profession. They challenged examination rules framed by:
- Bar Council of India (BCI) — governing AIBE
- Consortium of National Law Universities — governing CLAT
The Impugned Rule
The authorities required that a scribe assisting a visually impaired candidate:
- must not have educational qualification higher than 10+2.
In practice, this created serious problems:
- Candidates struggled to find scribes
- Available scribes lacked writing accuracy
- Technical legal terms were frequently misunderstood
- Exam performance suffered for reasons unrelated to merit
The petitioners argued the restriction violated:
| Provision | Right Affected |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality |
| Article 19(1)(g) | Right to profession |
| Article 21 | Dignity and life |
| Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 | Statutory protections |
Core Issue Before The Court
Whether limiting the qualification of a scribe to 10+2 level in professional competitive examinations is a valid method to ensure fairness, or whether it constitutes discrimination against persons with disabilities.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
1. A Scribe Does Not Compete — The Candidate Does
The Court rejected the assumption that a better-educated scribe gives unfair advantage.
- A scribe merely writes what is dictated.
- He or she does not think, analyse or answer.
Therefore:
qualification of the scribe is unrelated to merit of the candidate.
Instead, the restriction actually distorted evaluation because it increased writing errors.
2. Equality Means Enabling Participation
The Court relied on the doctrine of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act.
- Equality is not identical treatment.
- Equality is removing barriers.
The Court observed that disability jurisprudence has moved beyond charity — it is now about participation and dignity.
3. Artificial Restrictions Are Discriminatory
The 10+2 cap had:
- no rational nexus with exam integrity
- no empirical justification
- severe practical consequences
Hence, it failed the Article 14 test of reasonableness.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court directed:
- Visually impaired candidates may engage scribes with qualifications higher than 10+2
- However, the scribe must not be studying law or humanities subjects to prevent academic assistance
- Exam authorities must modify rules accordingly
Constitutional Foundations Of The Judgment
The decision builds upon established disability jurisprudence:
| Case | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|
| Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370 | The Court held reasonable accommodation is part of equality and denial violates Article 14. |
| Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761 | Dignity of persons with disabilities is part of Article 21. |
| Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 543 | Accessibility is a legal obligation, not a concession. |
The present ruling extends these principles into professional licensing and legal education.
Why This Judgment Matters
1. Entry Into Legal Profession Becomes Realistic
- AIBE is mandatory to practice law.
- Without accommodation, visually impaired law graduates were effectively excluded from the Bar.
2. Law Schools Become Accessible
- CLAT controls admission into national law universities.
- The decision directly impacts thousands of future students.
3. Substantive Equality Strengthened
The Court clarified:
- fairness in competition requires removing disadvantage, not preserving it.
Broader Impact On Examination Law
The ruling will likely influence:
- UPSC and State PSC examinations
- Universities and professional bodies
- Recruitment tests
- Digital examination frameworks
It establishes a guiding principle:
Examination integrity cannot be defended by creating disability barriers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Yash Dodani is not merely about scribes.
It is about redefining merit in a constitutional democracy.
Merit cannot be measured when a candidate is forced to overcome artificial obstacles unrelated to knowledge.
By allowing better-qualified scribes, the Court has affirmed that the Constitution protects the right to compete fairly, not to struggle unfairly.
The judgment reinforces an evolving constitutional philosophy —
equal opportunity sometimes requires unequal support.
And in that support lies true equality.
