Right Against Disability-Based Discrimination Under RPwD Act Has To Be Viewed As A Fundamental Right: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court remarked that it is high time that an anti-discrimination clause be included in the Constitution with a specific provision that the State shall not discriminate on the grounds of mental or physical disability in line with the principles under the RPwD Act.
The Supreme Court while striking 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, emphasised that it is high time that the right against disability-based discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), be viewed as a fundamental right.
The Court also remarked that it is high time that an anti-discrimination clause be included in the Constitution with a specific provision that the State shall not discriminate on the grounds of mental or physical disability in line with the principles as stated in the RPwD Act, 2016.
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 of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “… 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. Now, 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.”
The Bench held that any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality.
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.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “… the principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility.”
The Court added that the commitment to ensuring equal opportunity necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where merit is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflects the principles of fairness and justice.
“… 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”, it said.
The Court held that the 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.
“… we hold that relaxation of cutoff marks is permissible in respect of persons with disabilities’ candidates appearing for the judicial service examinations”, it added.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded the following points –
(i) Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service.
(ii) The amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution, and is hence, struck down to the extent that it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally qualified for the post to apply therefor.
(iii) The proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 relating to additional requirements, violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation, and is hereby struck down in its application to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service.
(iv) Relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category, to the extent as stated in the relevant paragraphs above, and in the light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this regard, as in the present case.
(v) A separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made accordingly for visually-impaired candidates as has been indicated in the relevant paragraphs in line with the judgment in Indra Sawhney.
(vi) 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).
Moreover, the Court 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.
