On December 6, the Supreme Court's division bench, comprised of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, stated that a visually impaired person appearing for the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) examination could not be provided with a scribe who was an LLB degree holder or a lawyer. The remark was made in the context of a case involving a visually impaired lawyer who was unable to obtain clearance for his scribe (an LLB degree holder) to assist him in the AOR examination. CJI Chandrachud expressed his displeasure with the use of an LLB-degree holder as a scribe for an AOR examination.

He said– "The scribe can't be one who is an LLB degree holder. It has to be someone else. We cannot have a lawyer as a scribe in AOR exam."

However, the bench offered to provide the petitioner with a different scribe so that he could successfully complete the AOR examination. After hearing the mention, CJI Chandrachud stated that he would issue administrative orders allowing scribe.

The petitioner in the case was a practising lawyer with total vision impairment. After passing the UPSC in 2018, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) in the Supreme Court of India's Central Agency Section. According to the RPWD Act, the said post has been identified by the Government of India as suitable for visually challenged individuals. However, due to his visual impairment, the Central Agency refused to allow the petitioner to join the military. He was then reassigned to Shastri Bhawan as an Assistant Legal Advisor. Despite having been an officer in the Indian Legal Services for over two years, the petitioner discovered that he was being denied regularisation because the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, continued to treat him as an AGA and was impeding his regularisation on the grounds that an AGA is required to pass the AOR Examination at the Supreme Court of India within two years of being appointed.