Supreme Court Orders UPSC to Introduce Screen Reader Software for Visually Impaired Candidates
Image Source: Internet
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark directive to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to introduce screen reader software for visually impaired candidates in competitive examinations. The court has given the commission a two-month deadline to submit a detailed plan outlining the timeline, modalities, and protocols for implementing the software. The court emphasized that accessibility in examinations cannot be just a "paper promise" and must translate into reality through proper technological infrastructure, standardization, and uniformity across examination centers. The bench, comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, stressed that true inclusivity in governance lies not just in formulating progressive policies but in their effective implementation. The court's judgment was based on a petition filed by Mission Accessibility, a non-governmental organization advocating for disability rights. The NGO had sought the introduction of screen reader software, accessible digital question papers, and flexibility in scribe registration timelines for visually impaired candidates. As part of its order, the court directed the UPSC to incorporate a clear provision in every examination notification allowing eligible candidates to request a change of scribe up to seven days before the exam date. The commission was also ordered to submit a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two months, detailing its roadmap for introducing the software and standardizing its use across exam centers. The court further directed the UPSC to frame uniform guidelines and protocols for the use of assistive technologies, in coordination with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities. The court noted that the UPSC had already taken an in-principle decision to introduce screen reader software but had not implemented it due to lack of necessary examination infrastructure. The court emphasized that the petition sought "parity, not privilege; rightful fulfillment of the constitutional vision of equal opportunity, not indulgence.
