Writing The Law, Yet Outside The Law: Disability Rights And India's Law Entrance Exams

Yet, despite such Constitutional guarantees, progressive legislations, and clear judicial precedents, candidates with disabilities continue to encounter significant obstacles throughout the processes. Recognising that current accommodation policies of several such exams fall short, in design and implementation, of ensuring inclusion, Authors spoke to 34 candidates with disabilities who appeared for law entrance exams between 2014 and 2023 to understand the challenges they encountered in their tryst with such entrance exams. This article documents those experiences and examines how systemic failures in examination practices continue to fall short of India's legal commitments to inclusion and dignity.

These experiences span a range of exams conducted over several years, during which some progress has undoubtedly been made in certain exams. However, the persistence of multiple accessibility barriers in some exams and unevenness of implementation highlight the need for sustained attention and reform. This piece helps foreground the perspectives of students with disabilities and opens space for a constructive, student-centred dialogue on improving access to legal education.

The Demography of Candidates

We interviewed a total of 34 candidates with disabilities who have given law entrance exams during a time period from 2014 to 2023. These candidates represent a range of disability types, reflecting the diversity of access needs and lived experiences within the law entrance exam ecosystem. Below is a breakdown of the disabilities represented among the candidates.

Of the 34 candidates interviewed^[3], 32 had appeared for Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 18 for All India Law Entrance Test (AILET), 4 for Maharashtra Common Entrance Test for Law (MHCET Law), 2 each for Symbiosis Law Admission Test (SLAT), Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and Delhi University LLB, while a smaller number had appeared for Rajasthan University Law Entrance Test (RULET), NMIMS Law Aptitude Test (NLAT), Telangana LAWSET and Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) and NALSAR University of Law entrance exam.

Our conversations with candidates covered various aspects of the lived experience of writing these entrance exams - accessing exam centres, infrastructure of the exam halls, experience with their scribes, and so on. What emerged consistently was a pattern - a pattern of exclusion, either because support does not exist on paper, or whatever exists fails in practice. Accessibility, while formally acknowledged, often appeared as an afterthought - activated too late, applied unevenly, or left to the discretion of underprepared centres and staff.

Alongside documenting these barriers, we haveAccessing Examination Centres from Candidates' Homes

Out of the 21 candidates who shared their experience on the distance of the exam centres from their home, 8 candidates said that they did not face any issue. The remaining thirteen reported difficulties in reaching their centres due to distance (20-40 kms away or 5-8 hours away) or from centres being located in outskirts or remote areas.

Several visually impaired and locomotor-disabled candidates described long-distance travel as exhausting even before the exam began. However, distance turned out to be only the beginning of the challenge. In many cases, candidates travelled long distances only to encounter inaccessible infrastructure at the exam centre, compounding the physical and mental burden of the exam day.

1. Infrastructure of centres and reaching exam halls

Authors asked candidates specifically about the accessibility of exam centres and their experience reaching exam halls. Of the sixteen respondents who answered this question, fifteen reported some form of infrastructure-related accessibility issue.^[6]

One candidate captured this succinctly:

“I have written many exams and these things are commonly seen where they don't give rooms or floors which are not accessible, there are people with disabilities who can perform with proper infrastructure, but such lacking of infrastructure will take away their opportunity.”

● Unprepared exam centres - Seven candidates reported that their exam centres were ill-prepared to accommodate candidates with disabilities. In two cases, this was despite prior intimation that a person with disability would be attending the same. Candidates described the absence of waiting spaces, lack of planning to manage crowds, and a general failure of centre staff to proactively assist.

● Lack of ramps / lifts / accessible structures - Seven candidates reported the absence of either ramps, lifts, or accessible pathways to reach exam halls. One candidate described being allotted a room on the third floor and having to be physically carried up the stairs:

“they gave me room to write the exam in the third floor and they had to carry me to the third floor.”

● Non-availability of separate rooms - Out of the eight candidates who shared information about the availability of separate rooms, six were not provided a separate room to attend the exam. This was particularly significant for candidates using scribes, who must communicate throughout the exam. One candidate spoke of deliberately lowering their voice to avoid disturbing others, while another reported being repeatedly scolded by an invigilator for speaking, despite this being essential to using a scribe. Separate rooms also play a crucial role for candidates granted compensatory time. In the absence of such arrangements, three candidates explicitly reported being disturbed when able-bodied candidates left the room during their compensatory time, defeating the very purpose of the accommodation. Three candidates were made to sit in corridors or common exam halls due to the lack of separate room arrangements. also included suggestions shared by candidates themselves on how law entrance exams could be transformed into spaces that genuinely respect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

Long and difficult travel, coupled with inaccessible and ill-prepared exam centres, can leave the candidates physically exhausted even before the exam begins. The lack of basic accessibility - such as ramps, lifts, or separate rooms - force candidates to depend on others, disrupt their concentration, and heightens stress and panic. These conditions could not only undermine their performance but also compromise their dignity.

The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities under the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment have over time issued comprehensive guidelines for conducting competitive written public exams. This is the 'Revised Comprehensive Guidelines for conducting competitive written public examinations (linked to employment or admission to professional or technical courses) for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, incorporating the Hon'ble Supreme Court Directives in the matter' (Revised Guidelines 2025) issued on 1st August, 2025. It is the latest and relevant Guidelines that incorporates the directions of the Apex Court in recent judicial matters.

2. Regarding Reasonable Accommodations

2.1. Scribe Facilities and Experience

Out of the 34, two people did not have the required documentation to be entitled to reasonable accommodation and hence could not avail the same.

Among the 32 candidates who were entitled to reasonable accommodation, eight did not require a scribe. From the remaining 24 who needed a scribe, we have 23 effective responses. 15 candidates arranged their own scribes; 4 were assisted by Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access to Legal Education (IDIA); two were provided scribes by CLAT Consortium, one was supported by their coaching centre, and one by another organisation.

Candidates who arranged their own scribes reported having better opportunities to practice mock tests in advance. In contrast, both candidates allotted scribes by the CLAT Consortium met their scribes only on the day of the exam, leaving little scope to build rapport or align working styles - factors that can significantly affect performance.

One candidate described the importance of this preparation:

“A friend of mine had to practice with his scribe for six months for him to be in sync with his scribe to sit for the exam. In such cases, how can such training and practice, which is really important for successfully writing the exam, be done in two days? There will be a good amount of difficulty and time to understand the person who is the scribe, and the scribe needs to understand the individual taking the exam. This sync and understanding should be strong enough to write the exam properly and, therefore, need more time than two days.”

One candidate assisted by IDIA also recounted a particularly troubling experience during the LAWSET exam, where last-minute confusion and rigid rules prevented effective scribe support, despite months of follow-up with authorities.

“LAWSET was more or far worse than CLAT. We went there and till 5 minutes before the exam no one had any idea that they only have to arrange a scribe. According to the then-LAWSET rules, only the organisers of the exam should arrange the scribe and we were not allowed to bring our own. We were following up with them from 2 months, by writing mails, calling them and they haven't responded. The only information we got, that too before two weeks from the exam, is that they will only arrange for the scribe. Somehow in the last minute they arranged a person for scribe but that person wasn't the right person for my LAWSET.”

Inadequate and last-minute scribe arrangements, coupled with rigid rules and poor communication, leave candidates anxious and underprepared on the day of the exam, directly affecting their ability to perform. The absence of sufficient time to practise with scribes and confusion over responsibility for arranging support increases stress and uncertainty.

The practice of the Consortium of National Law Universities arranging scribes for candidates began in 2019. The CLAT Consortium's 'Guidelines for Persons with Disabilities' for the 2025 CLAT provide that where a candidate opts for a Consortium-identified scribe or reader, the candidate may meet the scribe or reader two days prior to the exam in order to ensure suitability.^[7] However, as the candidates have shared, this window is insufficient for candidates to assess compatibility to write such a high-stakes exam. Further, the Guidelines are silent on the procedure to be followed if the scribe is found to be unsuitable, leaving candidates without clarity or recourse in such situations.

2.2. Compensatory time

Out of the 17 effective responses, 12 candidates felt that the compensatory time provided currently in law entrance exams is insufficient while 5 felt it was sufficient. Three candidates shared that their invigilators were unaware of the rule regarding compensatory time.

One candidate who was not provided with any compensatory time described this experience:

“A major incident I faced was on the day of the exam when I reached the centre, the authorities informed me that they were not aware that it was permitted to bring our own scribe. 40 minutes were wasted trying to convince them that I was allowed to bring my scribe. Even after showing them the guidelines, they did not give me any extra time as mandated by the RPwD Act. They also did not allow me to use a scribe. This only happened for CLAT. Several petitions were filed regarding inaccessibility issues with CLAT. We had to appear for the exams through a computer, but most of the time, the servers were not working properly.”

Inconsistent implementation of compensatory time - often due to invigilators' lack of awareness - undermined the very purpose of this accommodation, adding to candidates' mental burden and sense of unfairness during an already high-pressure exam.

3. Undertrained and Insensitive Invigilators

Out of the 21 effective responses, 11 candidates described their invigilators as helpful and cooperative. Among the remaining ten, five reported unhelpful or intimidating behaviour. These included repeated instructions to speak softly while using scribes, and suspicion regarding the authenticity of disability. In this case, the invigilator made comments suggesting that the candidate is a “fake PWD”. They were further angry that the candidate had not brought the scribe to meet with them a day before even though no rules require this. When the scribe was reading out a paragraph, the invigilators passed comments such as “Aap to kuch kar hi nahi rahe”, implying that the candidate was cheating by taking help to find answers.

One candidate reported receiving no support during a 40-minute technical delay in a computer-based exam, while four candidates described disruptions caused by invigilators seeking signatures or scribe verification mid-exam. As noted earlier, three candidates also reported invigilators being unaware of compensatory time rules and hence having to repeatedly ask for additional time which the invigilators were not happy to provide. A candidate noted how stressful all this was in the middle of such a highly competitive exam.

4. Inaccessible Question Paper Pattern

Authors asked all candidates about question paper patterns and the sections they found most inaccessible. Of the 23 candidates with visual disabilities, 20 responded. Nineteen of them identified two categories of questions as most challenging:

● Visually intensive questions, such as those involving figures, diagrams, graphs, or draw diagrams such as seating arrangements etc (primarily in Mathematics and Logical Reasoning)

● Long comprehension passages (Mostly in English; at times in Logical Reasoning and Legal Aptitude)

Candidates also pointed out the cognitive burden of remembering lengthy answer options with subtle differences. Some candidates also highlighted difficulties in revisiting specific parts of long passages through a scribe and eye strain from extended reading (for candidates with low vision).

The difficulty with these categories of questions does not stem from their subject matter, but from the mode in which information is presented and required to be processed. Visually intensive questions are inherently dependent on visual perception, which can get lost or distorted when mediated through a scribe. The description of these question by the scribe ends up being extremely time-consuming and even then, imprecise, placing such candidates at a structural disadvantage unrelated to their reasoning ability

Similarly, long comprehension passages require sustained reading, frequent back-and-forth reference to the text, and the retention of large amounts of information. Revisiting specific portions of the passage becomes difficult when attempted through a scribe, increasing memory burden rather than testing analytical or conceptual skills.

Reflecting on the broader implications of such exam design, one candidate shared how an easier 2019 CLAT paper resulted in better diversity in law schools and further said:

“CLAT's “elitist” English creates barriers not only for disabled candidates but also for those less proficient in English. Such a “meritocracy” approach that has reduced diversity in recent years.”

As documented in analyses of the 2021 CLAT examination, the paper contained none of the visually intensive formats discussed above and was widely regarded as significantly more accessible to visually impaired candidates, without compromising the competitive nature of the exam.^[8] This demonstrates that accessibility is a matter of design choices.

Therefore, several entrance exams should be systematically reviewed against accessibility criteria and designed in ways that do not disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. Such an approach benefits a wide range of candidates - those with disabilities, those from diverse linguistic backgrounds, and those who may struggle with speed-heavy, memory-intensive formats - while preserving the integrity of the examination.

Recommendations for Improvement

This section brings together the key recommendations shared by candidates on how law entrance exams can be made more accessible for persons with disabilities. Rather than advocating a single, uniform solution, candidates repeatedly emphasised the need for flexible and alternative modes of access that recognise the diversity of disabilities and learning needs.

Highlighting that accessibility cannot be reduced to compliance on paper, they stressed the importance of training and sensitisation of those who operationalise the exam - particularly invigilators, scribes, and centre staff - so that accommodations are implemented with understanding rather than suspicion.

At the heart of these recommendations is a broader question about what competitive exams are meant to assess.

As a candidate aptly asked:

“a person with disability needs a good amount of time to understand the question. Therefore, a slower pace is needed. The question should really be about what is important: to test the speed or the knowledge of the student? Speed is also important, but a reasonable amount of time is required.”

This question reflects a central concern: whether current exam structures meaningfully measure aptitude and understanding, or whether they inadvertently privilege speed at the cost of equity.

a. On Reasonable Accomodation

a.1. Time to meet and practice with the scribe

● All the candidates agreed that meeting the scribe one day or two days before the exam is insufficient time to practice.

● Therefore, they suggested that the candidates should meet the scribe well in advance to have sufficient time to practice multiple mock tests with the scribe (suggestions ranged from 3 mocks to 10 mocks).

a.2. Qualification and background of scribes

● Finding a scribe with whom you can work well might be difficult, therefore there should not be too many restrictions and rules on who a scribe should be.

● The rules should be relaxed and invigilation can be made strict.

● Some candidates suggested that the academic background of the scribe matters and therefore, the scribes should preferably:

○ have liberal arts background, or

○ have basic legal terminology knowledge.

● Some other candidates were of the opinion that reading skills and sensitivity matters as much, and therefore recommended providing training and sensitising the scribe.

● Scribes should be trained and assessed for:

○ clear reading,

○ appropriate reading speed,

○ correct pronunciation,

○ explain diagrams, charts, and logical reasoning questions etc.

a.3. Choice between scribe and technology

● Different candidates would prefer different ways of writing the exam, so most candidates suggested candidates should surely be given a choice between:

○ scribe, or

○ computer-based exam with assistive technology such as screen readers.

a.4. Compensatory time

● 20 minutes per hour was repeatedly stated as insufficient and the candidates interviewed recommended additional time being provided.

● Extra time should be reflected in the system/software so that exams do not end prematurely.

● Compensatory time should account for:

○ reading load,

○ long paragraphs,

○ diagram-based questions etc.

a.5. Other Suggestions

● Bold lettering should be used in exam papers.

● Invigilators and other staff in exam centres should be trained to assist PWD candidates.

● There was also a suggestion to incentivise the scribe in some way to attract a good pool of scribes.

● Do not ask for scribe details until closer to the exam date.

b. On question paper patterns

b.1. Length and structure of questions

● Paragraph-heavy comprehension questions were repeatedly identified as difficult.

● Long comprehension passages, in English or Legal Reasoning sections, should be:

○ shortened,

○ broken into smaller parts,

○ reduced in complexity and made simpler, etc.

● Suggestions also included:

○ headings and sub-headings,

○ better categorisation, etc

● Some candidates suggested that the exam should not be conducted in only one language.

b.2. Maths and Logical Reasoning section

● Since diagram-based and visualization-heavy questions are inaccessible, suggested changes included a reconsideration of such questions.

● Candidates asked for reconsideration / removal / replacement of the following kind of questions in these two sections:

○ arrangement-based questions,

○ family-tree type questions,

○ diagram-based questions, etc.

c. Other suggestions and system-level recommendations

c.1. Regarding computer-based exams

● Use formats similar to Google Forms (checkbox-based) for MCQs.

● Avoid formats where questions disappear quickly.

● Allow candidates to adjust screen reader speed.

c.2. Centre-level and administrative suggestions

● Train invigilators and centre staff on:

○ Disability etiquette,

○ Reasonable accommodations, etc.

● Ensure PwD candidates are seated in:

○ Separate rooms so that their compensatory time is not disrupted when able-bodied candidates leave the exam halls,

○ Well-lit areas,

○ Quiet rooms,

○ Basic amenities such as washrooms, drinking water should be available.

● Avoid interruptions (e.g., signatures) during exam time.

c.3. Policy and process improvements

● Use information already collected during registration to plan accommodations.

● Avoid sudden exam pattern changes without adequate notice.

● Conduct accessibility checks at the exam centers beforehand.

● Develop both paper-based and digital options for candidates with disabilities.

Toward Examinations That Include