Visually Impaired Candidates Eligible To Participate In Selection For Judicial Service Posts: Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule 6A Of MP Judicial Service Recruitment Rules
The Supreme Court had taken a suo-motu cognizance of a Letter Petition addressed to the CJI by the mother of a judicial aspirant who was a visually impaired candidate.
The Supreme Court has struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.
The Court held that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service.
The Court had taken a suo-motu cognizance of a Letter Petition in March 2024, which was addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the mother of a judicial aspirant who was a visually impaired candidate.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service and hence, Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 is struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.”
The Bench also struck down Rule 7 of the said 1994 Rules to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, insofar as it applies to PwD (Persons with Disabilities) candidates.
Senior Advocates Gaurav Agrawal (Amicus Curiae) and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra represented the Petitioners while ASG Archana Pathak Dave, DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta, and AOR Arjun Garg represented the Respondents.
Background
On March 7, 2024, the Supreme Court had taken a suo motu cognizance of a Letter Petition dated January 15, 2024, which was addressed to the CJI by the mother of a judicial aspirant who was a visually impaired candidate, challenging the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, whereby Rule 6A excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service. According to the letter Petitioner, the action of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the spirit of the Constitution.
Hence, she requested the Apex Court to examine the matter and protect the interests of visually impaired candidates ensuring their right to equal opportunity and a dignified life, as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court took cognizance of another case which arose from a Letter Petition sent by a visually impaired law student to the CJI, requesting to take necessary steps to ensure transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity for PwD candidates in judicial service examination in Rajasthan. The Court heard other connected cases as well.
Issues That Arose For Consideration
The following issues arose before the Supreme Court for consideration in the cases –
i. Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service?
ii. Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution?
iii. Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation?
iv. Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available, after selection in their respective category?
v. Whether a separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection conducted accordingly for visually impaired candidates?
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above issues, noted, “… reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure, but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for PwD, forming part of the right to dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also worthy to mention that the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution of India made it a Constitutional obligation for the State to make provisions for safeguarding the interest of the weaker section of the society, including ‘handicapped and mentally retarded’.”
The Court said that the principle of reasonable accommodation is a concept that not only relates to affording equal opportunity to the PwD but also it goes further as to ensuring the dignity of the individual by driving home the message that the assessment of a person’s suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment of the same but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere.
The Court further elucidated that once a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments, assignments whether public or private, would automatically make them eligible to participate for selection to the same.
“… visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service and Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution”, it held.
The Court remarked that the principle of indirect discrimination has its basis in the fundamental principle that unequals cannot be treated equally, and sometimes equal treatment may lead to unequal results.
“… the impugned Rule will be applicable to PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates) but without the requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years’ practice. This issue stands answered in the said terms”, it also held.
The Court was of the opinion that relaxation in minimum cut off marks is permissible, especially when there is a specific power of relaxation available to the appointing authority.
“… we hold that relaxation of cutoff marks is permissible in respect of persons with disabilities’ candidates appearing for the judicial service examinations”, it added.
The Court was of the view that maintaining and operating a separate cut-off list is mandatory for each category, which axiomatically includes PwD category as well and non-declaration of cut-off marks affects transparency and creates ambiguity, and candidates being not informed about the basis of their results.
“… we direct the authorities concerned to declare separate cut-off marks and publish separate merit list for the PwD category at every stage of the examination and proceed with the selection process accordingly”, it directed.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that for the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment, there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). It clarified that any such technical distinction sought to be made by the authorities cannot be sustained in law.
“… accomplished individuals who are blind or visually impaired and part of the interview series, have excelled in the legal profession and beyond, showcasing that visual impairment does not preclude one’s ability to make significant contributions to the field of law”, it remarked while taking note of the distinguished individuals in the legal profession.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court emphasised that a rights-based approach necessitates that PwDs must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service opportunities, and instead, there must be affirmative action on behalf of the State to provide an inclusive framework.
“… it is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability”, it observed.
The Court, therefore, directed that the respective authorities proceed with the selection process for appointment of the judicial officers, in the light of its decision and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of all the cases.
Cause Title- In Re: Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 300)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Gaurav Agrawal (Amicus Curiae), Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AORs Nishit Agrawal, Siddhartha Iyer, Ravi Raghunath, Advocates Kanishka Mittal, Utkarsh Sonkar, Shrey Kapoor, Upasna Agrawal, Aparna Mehrotra, Jabar Singh, Pramod Kumar, Apoorva Srivastava, Vishvajeet Vijaykumar Shinde, Manan Daga, Nakul Patwardhan, Karan Singh, Kaarunya Lakshmi, and Sejal Jain.
Respondents: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta, AORs Arjun Garg, Mukul Kumar, Sunny Choudhary, Sarad Kumar Singhania, N. Visakamurthy, Shyam Gopal, Sameer Shrivastava, Dhananjay Garg, Susmita Lal, Gautam Narayan, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocates Kriti Gupta, Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Brahma Prakash Soni, Vijaya Singh, Alabhya Dhamija, Bhuvan Kapoor, Madhav Sinhal, Prashant Singh, D.K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Ravi Kumar S., Kamakhya Srivastava, Nishant Sharma, Savadikar Ankur Shirish, Selvaraj Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan P.V., and C. Kavin Ananth.
