New Delhi, April 18 (IANS) The Supreme Court has disposed of a writ petition raising concerns about the absence of assessment mechanisms for diagnosing specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, in adults, while noting that research is underway to develop appropriate testing tools for adult assessment. ​

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan was hearing a petition filed by N. Sai Balaji under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions on the absence of effective mechanisms for identifying and certifying specific learning disabilities in adults. ​

At the outset, the apex court recorded that several reliefs sought in the petition had already become infructuous in light of fresh guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on March 12, 2024. ​

The Justice Misra-led Bench took note of the petitioner’s surviving grievance that the existing framework for determining specific learning disability is “limited to children and is not designed to deal with adults”.

​Referring to its earlier order, the apex court recorded that the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) had been directed to clarify the progress made in developing appropriate tools for assessing dyslexia in adults. ​

In its affidavit, NIMHANS acknowledged that the currently prescribed assessment tools are designed primarily for children. However, it informed the top court that research is underway to develop suitable testing mechanisms for adults, and that such tools are expected to be published within 3 years. ​

Taking this on record, the Justice Misra-led Bench said, “We deem it appropriate to close these proceedings by recording the stand of NIMHANS that they are working on assessment tools/tests for determining specific learning disability amongst adults and would be able to publish the requisite tests within 3 years from now.” ​

In its order, the Supreme Court also took note of the petitioner’s academic achievements, observing that he had successfully obtained a Ph.D degree, indicating that the alleged disability had not significantly impeded his progress. ​

“From the own stand of the petitioner, we find that he has been able to obtain a Ph.D degree. Thus, apparently, his professed disability has not hampered his progress in life,” the Justice Misra-led Bench remarked. ​

Dismissing the petition, the apex court granted the petitioner liberty to seek the revival of the proceedings if no progress is made within the stipulated timeframe. ​

“In case there is no development in that regard in the next 3 years, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek revival of these proceedings,” the order clarified. ​

–IANS

pds/dan