On December 11, the Supreme Court issued a stern warning regarding the upcoming All India Bar Examination (AIBE), stating that if adequate provisions are not made for five visually impaired law students to answer the exam on a Word document on a computer, it will not permit the exam to take place. The Court further warned the Bar Council of India (BCI), the organizing body for the AIBE, of contempt proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the directions.

The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing the plea of three law students seeking specific accommodations for their participation in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) Postgraduate exam for 2024-25 and the AIBE.

Petitioner 1 is a law graduate with 90 percent low-vision disability from NALSAR University of Law. He had requested accommodation from the BCI to use a computer during the AIBE-XIX exam. Petitioner 2 is a completely blind law student from Government Law School, Mumbai, seeking permission to use a computer and clarify the scribe eligibility criteria for visually disabled students. Petitioner 3 is also a completely blind law graduate from Auro University, Surat, who requested access to soft copies of Bare Acts and the use of a computer for the AIBE-XIX exam.

In an interim relief order, the Court granted scribe assistance to Petitioner 1. However, the issue with the AIBE exams involved the petitioners' request to take the exams on a computer, using a Word document, along with soft copies of Bare Acts and a Job Access With Speech (JAWS) screen reader, at the BCI's expense. The petitioners also sought permission to carry their own keyboards. The Court had allowed these prayers in its order dated December 5, but BCI’s counsel, Akshay Amritanshu, insisted on taking instructions regarding the request to allow visually impaired students to answer the exam on a computer.

When the matter was taken up again, Amritanshu reiterated that it would not be possible to allow visually impaired students to take the exam on a computer, as the AIBE is an offline paper-based exam. However, Rahul Bajaj, representing the petitioners, clarified that the issue was not about the exam being online or offline, but rather about allowing the petitioners to use a Word document on a computer to write their answers.

Despite the clarification, Amritanshu argued that the BCI may not be able to accommodate the request. The Court reiterated its previous order, insisting that all necessary arrangements should be made. Just before the bench was about to rise for lunch, Amritanshu informed the Court that the BCI was willing to conduct a separate exam for visually impaired students a week later. He explained that the exam paper would be opened only on the day of the exam, which made it difficult to allow the petitioners to use computers during the examination.

Bajaj responded that the petitioners were not requesting an online exam, but simply wanted to write their answers on a Word document on the computer. He suggested that a soft copy of the paper could be provided to the petitioners on a pen drive. In response, Justice Kant remarked: "After it is open [question paper] and it is distributed, then you give them the soft copy. That will take 10-15 minutes. Give them 15 minutes extra time. What is the problem?...We will stop you from holding this examination. Then you are in contempt to hold this exam."

The Supreme Court's strong stance emphasizes the need to ensure equal access for visually impaired candidates, reinforcing the principle that such accommodations are essential for a fair and just examination process.

Cause Title: YASH DODANI AND ORS. v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 785/2024

Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan