HomeBlogs

Plea in the Supreme Court Claiming CLAT, AIBE to Be Violative of Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act

RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
25 November 20242 min read
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court by a group of visually impaired students and graduates alleging that CLAT and AIBE are violative of the Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act. 
In the case of Yash Dodani v. Union of India, the group of students have alleged that there is systemic discrimination and non-compliance with the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act in the way the exams are conducted.
The plea contends that these exams lack appropriate accommodations for individuals with disabilities, violating their constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
The plea filed in the Supreme Court highlights several barriers faced by visually impaired candidates during exams like the AIBE and CLAT due to the lack of reasonable accommodations.
It argues that visually impaired individuals are denied essential tools such as the option to use computers or access digital formats of Bare Acts during examinations, which are crucial for their preparation and performance.
The petition also addresses the ambiguity surrounding scribe eligibility criteria, insufficient provisions for accessible examination centers, and the absence of standardized measures to meet the needs of disabled candidates. These gaps increase the difficulties faced by visually impaired individuals and create significant disparities in their ability to compete on an equal footing.
Additionally, the plea points to instances where invigilators have displayed a lack of sensitivity or awareness regarding the specific needs of disabled candidates, leading to experiences of harassment and discrimination.
Such practices, the petition contends, violate the fundamental rights of disabled persons under the Constitution and impede their right to a fair and dignified examination process.
To address these systemic challenges, the petitioners have urged the Court to direct the implementation of specific accommodations, including the provision of computers, soft copies of Bare Acts, clear guidelines on scribe eligibility, and fully accessible exam centers. They have also sought mandatory sensitization programs for examination staff to ensure a more inclusive and respectful environment for candidates with disabilities.
These measures, the petitioners argue, are essential to bring examinations in line with the provisions of the RPWD Act, 2016, ensuring equitable opportunities for all participants.

Read More: Public Interest Litigation in India

Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
On this page
Read More: Public Interest Litigation in India
Related reading
BlogsSupreme Court Eases 3 Year Practice Rule To 1 Year: Judiciary Aspirants Get Major Relief BlogsCan Police Upload Photos of Accused Persons on Social Media? BlogsSupreme Court Eases 3 Year Practice Rule To 1 Year: Judiciary Aspirants Get Major Relief
RU
Written by
Ruchika Mohapatra
MahindraPrism AI
CLATalogue
Notes
PYQs
Case Law Updates
Mocks
Ask a Doubt
Blogs
CLATAILETLegal UpdatesLawctopus Law School
Life at Law School
Contribute
Sign in
CLATalogue
For submitting a Postshruti.chauhan@lawctopus.com
For banner ads & admission campaignsrohit.bhutani@lawctopus.com
Office hours: 10.30 AM – 7 PM
Useful LinksAbout UsAdvertiseContact UsAsk a QuestionMoot Suite
We are Hiring
Lawctopus Law School

The law school you always wanted! Learn practical legal skills.

For LLS Coursescourses@lawctopus.comVisit site
Connect
© 2026 CLATalogue. All rights reserved.|Privacy Policy|Terms of Service
Subscribe to our newsletter