In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court stated on Monday that candidates with visual impairments are eligible to compete for positions within the judicial service. The court emphasized that a rights-based perspective mandates that individuals with disabilities (PwD) should not face discrimination in their pursuit of judicial roles, and that the State is obligated to take affirmative measures to foster an inclusive environment.

The Supreme Court asserted, “Visually impaired candidates cannot be deemed ‘unsuitable’ for judicial service; they are qualified to partake in the selection process for these roles.” It further clarified that “concerning the rights and entitlements of individuals with disabilities, especially in employment contexts, there should be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).”

The court ruled against Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial appointments. In a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, it was stated, “It is crucial to recognize the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), as equivalent to a fundamental right, ensuring that no candidate is overlooked solely due to their disability.”

Justice Mahadevan, who authored the judgment, noted that the case was treated as of paramount importance and dealt with constitutional frameworks as well as the jurisprudence surrounding disability. He remarked, “The principle of reasonable accommodation, rooted in international conventions, established legal precedents, and the RPwD Act, 2016, demands that accommodations be made for PwDs before assessing their eligibility.”

He added, “Any indirect discrimination leading to the exclusion of PwDs—whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural hurdles—needs to be addressed to maintain substantive equality. Our commitment to providing equal opportunities calls for a structured and inclusive method, where merit is assessed with respect to necessary reasonable accommodations, ultimately promoting judicial appointments that genuinely embody fairness and justice.”

Consequently, the Supreme Court also invalidated Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, regarding PwD candidates, to the extent that it mandated an additional requirement of a three-year practice period or achieving a 70 percent aggregate score in the first attempt.

Nevertheless, the judgment indicated that Rule 7 would still apply regarding educational and other qualifications, including the minimum aggregate score of 70 percent (with applicable relaxations similar to those for SC/ST candidates), but without the stipulations of achieving this score in the first attempt or completing three years of practice.

Further, the court stated that relaxation in evaluating the suitability of candidates could be permitted when there is an insufficient number of PwD candidates available after selections in their respective categories, as outlined in relevant paragraphs and following the existing regulations and executive orders.

The court mandated that a separate cut-off be maintained for visually impaired candidates and that selections should be made accordingly, as detailed in the judgment referencing Indra Sawhney.

By overturning Rules 6A and 7 (to a limited extent), the Supreme Court nullified the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated April 1, 2024, along with the notification issued by the High Court on November 17, 2023. Candidates with disabilities, along with the appellant Ayush Yardi and others in similar situations, are now entitled to participate in the selection process in light of this ruling.

The judgment further instructed relevant authorities to promptly continue the selection process for judicial officer appointments, ideally completing it within three months from today’s date.