New Delhi, March 3 (UNI) In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday held that visually impaired candidates are eligible for appointment to judicial services in India.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that no person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities.
The bench emphasised that individuals with disabilities must not face discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service positions and that the State must ensure affirmative action to promote inclusivity.
The court declared that any indirect discrimination resulting in the exclusion of persons with disabilities, whether through cut-off marks or procedural barriers, must be addressed to uphold substantive equality. “No candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability,” the court stated.
It further ruled that accommodations must be provided to such candidates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The apex court was hearing a suo motu case challenging Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired and no-vision candidates from the appointment in judicial services
Orders in the case were reserved on December 3, 2024, which coincidentally marks the International Day of Persons with Disabilities
Justice Mahadevan said, “Treating this particular case as most important, we have discussed many judgements…Sunanda Bhandari’s case, Indra Sawhney…constitutional framework also…right-based claim as well as distinction approach…”
The judgement authored by Justice Mahadevan said the right-based approach necessitates that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in the pursuit of judicial service opportunities.
“There must be affirmative action on behalf of the state to provide an inclusive framework. Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PWDs, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers must be interfered with to uphold substantive equality,” Justice Mahdevan said.
The judiciary struck down Madhya Pradesh’s rules to the extent they excluded visually impaired candidates from judicial service appointments.
“Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Services Rules 1994 is struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from the appointment in judicial services,” Justice Mahadevan said.
“Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules, to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a 3-yr practice period or securing a score of 70% in the 1st round, is struck down insofar as it applies to PWD candidates. The said Rule will apply to PWD candidates insofar as it prescribes educational and other qualifications as eligible criteria, including the minimum score of 70% but without the requirement of rigour that it should be in 1st attempt, Justice Mahadevan said.
The court directed that the order of the High Court and notification issued on February 18, 2023 on Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial service was being set aside. The appellants and similarly placed persons who had participated in the selection process are entitled to be considered in the light of this decision and they may be appointed if they are otherwise eligible, the court said.
The court unequivocally held that visually impaired and low-vision candidates are entitled to participate in the selection process for judicial service posts.
The case gained attention after the former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, received a letter from the mother of a visually impaired candidate protesting the exclusion.
The letter petition was converted into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, leading to notices being issued to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.
In March 2024, the court noted that the Civil Judge Class-II examination conducted in 2022 failed to include reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, violating the principles of the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Since the main exam was scheduled for March 30-31, 2024, the court issued interim measures to facilitate judicial aspirants with visual impairments in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Exam. However, it was clarified that their participation in the examination would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.
By May, 2024, the Court passed an interim order permitting candidates with disabilities to appear for interviews if they had secured the minimum qualifying marks applicable to SC/ST candidates.
During the proceedings, Dr. Sanjay Jain, Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, submitted through counsel that “disability does not lie in my impairment but in social barriers.”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, serving as Amicus Curiae, referred to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly Section 34, which provides for reservation in judicial services. He also highlighted the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which set a 6% reservation for persons with disabilities.
Justice Pardiwala raised concerns about whether individuals with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or have low vision, should undergo special training to serve as judges.
The Amicus Curiae responded that training and sensitisation are essential not only for judicial officers with disabilities but also for their colleagues and supporting staff. The Amicus further cited an Expert Committee report that affirmed the capability of visually impaired individuals, including those who are blind or have low vision, to perform judicial functions.
Furthermore, the Amicus Curiae submitted that once persons with disabilities are recruited, their employers must provide reasonable accommodations to ensure their meaningful participation.
In response, Justice Pardiwala acknowledged that while reservations must be implemented, High Courts must establish eligibility criteria, which remains a matter of policy decision.
