In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared that the right of persons with disabilities (PwDs) against discrimination must be recognized as a fundamental right. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on March 3, 2025, underscores the necessity of reasonable accommodation in judicial services and affirms the eligibility of visually impaired candidates for judicial appointments.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suo motu petition by the Supreme Court, prompted by a letter from the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant in January 2024. The letter challenged a rule in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules that barred visually impaired candidates from judicial appointments.
Additionally, a visually impaired law student from Rajasthan approached the Court, highlighting the Rajasthan High Court’s failure to implement fair selection criteria for PwDs in judicial exams. The student argued that while disability reservations existed, the absence of separate cut-offs and merit lists led to systemic exclusion.
Two other candidates, Alok Singh and Ayush Yardi, also filed petitions challenging their exclusion from Madhya Pradesh’s judicial selection process due to disability-based barriers and the lack of reasonable accommodations. The Supreme Court consolidated these matters to examine whether excluding visually impaired candidates from judicial services violated constitutional and statutory rights.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Supreme Court held that:
- Right Against Disability-Based Discrimination as a Fundamental Right: The Court emphasized that the right against discrimination based on disability, as recognized in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, must be treated as a fundamental right. This ensures that no candidate is denied consideration solely due to their disability.
- Mandate for Reasonable Accommodation: The Court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is not a privilege but a legal necessity. It directed that before assessing the eligibility of candidates with disabilities, all necessary accommodations must be provided.
- Indirect Discrimination and Equal Opportunity: The Court ruled that uniform treatment of unequals can lead to injustice. The principle of indirect discrimination was affirmed, highlighting that denying PwDs reasonable accommodations effectively bars their participation.
- Success of Visually Impaired Professionals as Precedent: The judgment cited several accomplished visually impaired legal professionals worldwide, including:
- Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob (South African Constitutional Court)
- Justice David S. Tatel (U.S. Court of Appeals)
- David Lepofsky (Canadian lawyer with 30+ Supreme Court cases argued)
- SK Rungta (Senior Advocate in India and disability rights leader)
- Tomer Rosner (Blind legal advisor to Israel’s Parliament)
- Jack Chen (Google’s blind patent attorney)
These examples reinforced that disability is not a barrier to excellence in the judiciary.
Key Legal Directives
- Striking Down Discriminatory Rules: The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, declaring it unconstitutional.
- Modification of Selection Criteria: Rule 7, which mandated either three years of practice or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks in the first attempt for judicial service eligibility, was struck down for PwD candidates.
- Reassessment of Denied Candidates: The Court directed that visually impaired candidates who were previously denied selection in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examination due to the lack of a separate cut-off will be reconsidered in the next recruitment cycle. Unfilled disability-reserved seats will be carried forward.
- Mandatory Separate Cut-Offs for PwDs: Aligning with the Indra Sawhney judgment, the Court mandated a separate cut-off for PwD candidates in judicial service examinations.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling establishes a landmark precedent, affirming that disability rights are not merely statutory but fundamental in nature. By recognizing reasonable accommodation as a legal mandate rather than a discretionary measure, the judgment ensures the substantive equality of PwDs in the legal profession. It also directs courts and public institutions to actively facilitate inclusivity rather than passively comply with minimal reservation requirements.
This judgment is a significant step toward dismantling systemic barriers faced by PwDs in the legal field and ensuring a judiciary that reflects the diversity of Indian society.
