Visually impaired persons cannot be denied opportunity to join judicial services: SC

In a landmark judgment on Monday, 3 March, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals with disabilities cannot be excluded from consideration for judicial service recruitment solely because of their physical impairments. The Court confirmed that persons with disabilities (PWD) must not face discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service opportunities, and that the state must take affirmative action to ensure an inclusive recruitment process.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, following a suo motu case regarding Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules 1994. Additionally, the Court struck down Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Service Rules, which required candidates to have either a three-year practice period or an aggregate score of 70 per cent.

The Court clarified that this rule should apply to PWD candidates only in relation to educational qualifications and eligibility criteria, without the need for the practice period or a 70 per cent score on the first attempt.

The ruling stressed that any indirect discrimination, such as exclusion through cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be addressed to uphold substantive equality. The Court made it clear that no candidate can be excluded purely on the grounds of disability. It further emphasised that reasonable accommodations must be made when assessing the eligibility of PWD candidates, in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Court also struck down certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, which had barred visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial service. It ruled that these individuals are eligible to participate in judicial service recruitment processes.

The Court further ruled that PWD candidates who had previously participated in the recruitment process are entitled to be considered for selection, provided they meet other eligibility criteria.

These candidates may be appointed to vacant positions in judicial service if they are otherwise qualified.

The case also involved writ petitions filed by PWD candidates who had applied for the Rajasthan Judicial Service. These candidates argued that they were unfairly excluded from the main examination due to the lack of a separate cut-off for PWD candidates in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations. The Court ruled that these candidates should be given the opportunity to be considered in the next recruitment, should they choose to apply.

The judgment, authored by Justice Mahadevan, underscored the need for a rights-based approach, which ensures that individuals with disabilities are not discriminated against in their pursuit of judicial service roles.

This case began following a letter sent by the mother of a visually impaired candidate to the then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, protesting the exclusion of her child from the

recruitment process. The letter petition was subsequently converted into a formal petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, leading to the issuance of notices to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue came to light when the 2022 Civil Judge Class-II examination did not provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, in direct contradiction to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In response, the Court issued interim measures to ensure that judicial aspirants with visual impairments were adequately facilitated for the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination. However, participation in the main exam was made subject to the outcome of the Court's final decision, without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties involved.

In May 2024, the Court issued an interim order allowing candidates with various disabilities who had secured the minimum marks required for SC/ST candidates to appear for an interview.

On the day orders were reserved in the case, Dr Sanjay Jain, a professor of law at the National Law School of India University, submitted that "disability does not lie in my impairment but in social barriers." Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, highlighted provisions from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including Section 34, which ensures reservation for PWDs in judicial positions. He also pointed out that Madhya Pradesh had adopted the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which stipulate a 6 per cent reservation for PWDs.

In response to questions from Justice Pardiwala about whether special training should be provided to visually impaired candidates, the Amicus noted that training and sensitisation were necessary not only for judicial officers but also for other court officials working alongside those with disabilities. The Amicus also referred to an expert committee set up by the Union government, which had concluded that individuals with visual impairments, including those who are blind or have low vision, are capable of performing judicial functions.