Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016: ss. 2(r), 17(i), 32, Schedule Entry 2(a) – Person with disability(PwD) – Compensatory time of one hour to write entrance exam – Claim of – Appellant student suffering from Dysgraphia with disability of 40 per cent, appeared for the NEET (UG) – Claim of additional one hour of compensatory time owing to her PwD status – Initially assurance by the designated centre that if the rules prescribed, facilities for PwD would be provided, however, compensatory time of an hour not granted, and her paper forcibly collected after three hours – Writ petition by appellant seeking direction to the National Testing Agency-first respondent to hold a fresh examination for the appellant while accommodating her with all relaxations and benefits – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Individual injustices originating in a wrongful denial of rights and entitlements prescribed under the law cannot be sent into oblivion on the ground that these are a necessary consequence of a competitive examination – All authority under the law is subject to responsibility, and to a sense of accountability – Appellant wrongfully deprived of compensatory time of one hour while appearing for the NEET without any fault of her own, despite her entitlements as a PwD and a PwBD – Appellant denied her entitlement to reasonable accommodation and the State failed to fulfil its positive duty of protecting her right to inclusive education – Appellant suffered injustice by a wrongful denial of these relaxations which first respondent was bound to scrupulously enforce – Lack of remedy would cause irretrievable injustice to the life of the appellant – Though the relief sought for holding a re-examination for the NEET (UG) is denied since it would cause uncertainty and chaos, however, issuance of directions to first respondent to consider steps to be taken to rectify the injustice – First respondent to ensure that provisions made at the NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under the Act are clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity – Owing to the confusion between the authorities, persons working for the first respondent and the exam centres to be sensitised and trained, on a regular basis. Object of the 2016 Act – Held: Effective participation of the students with disabilities in the society is the beneficial object of the legislation – Safeguards provided by the law must be duly enforced and any breach of entitlement must be answerable at law – Responsibility and power without accountability are anathema to the Constitution. ss. 2(r), (s) – Persons with disabilities and Persons with benchmark disabilities – Distinction between – Stated. s. 2(m) – Inclusive Education – Right to Inclusive Education – Held: Inclusive education is indispensable for ensuring universal and non-discriminatory access to education – Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises that inclusive education systems must be put in place for a meaningful realisation of the right to education for PwD – Thus, a right to education is essentially a right to inclusive education – 2016 Act provides statutory backing to the principle of inclusive education – Right to inclusive education is realised through the provision of reasonable accommodation, denial of which to a PwD amounts to discrimination – On facts, the appellant was denied her entitlement to reasonable accommodation and the State failed to fulfil its positive duty of protecting her right to inclusive education.