Supreme Court Directs Coal India To Appoint Candidate With Multiple Disabilities

The Supreme Court today(January 13) directed the Chairman of Coal India Limited to create a supernumerary post for one person, who was denied employment after having qualified for the interview in 2016 because she suffered from multiple disabilities. The vacancy advertisement did not mention multiple disabilities, and therefore, she had applied as a visually handicapped candidate. 

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, however, clarified that the order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances and must not be treated as a precedent.

The appellant, Sujata Bora, is to be given a desk job with a separate computer and keyboard as per the universal standards of disability rights and must be posted at  NorthEastern Coal Fields, Coal India Limited, having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia, State of Assam.

Before reading the judgment, Justice Pardiwala said: "You have reminded us of a very famous quote of Stevei Wonder. You know who is Stevei Wonder? He is a very well-known singer and musician. US Citizen, an American. So he has said that lack of physical sight does not equate to a lack of vision."

Reading the order, Justice Pardiwala said: 

"The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – understood, at a minimum, has those expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Depending on circumstances, business enterprises may need to consider the additional standards. For instance, enterprises should respect the human rights of individuals belonging to specific groups or populations that may require particular attention, as they may have adverse human rights impacts on them.

In this connection, the United Nations instruments have elaborated further on the rights of indigenous people, women, national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, children, persons with disabilities and migrant workers and their families. Disability inclusion is a vital component of the social dimension in the environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework. In its 2024 Guide on "Putting the Eye in ESG," inclusion of persons with disabilities has a strategic advantage of sustainability practices for corporates and investors. 

The ILO Global Business and disability Network urged "companies and investors to view disability inclusion not just as a compliance issue but also as a strategic advantage that enhances business performance and resilience." 

Reading the operative part, the Court said: "The appellant qualified for the interview in the 2016 selection and was denied employment due to no fault of hers. Her disability exceeded the benchmark disability, and only because the notification advertising the vacancy did not provide for multiple disabilities, and Appellant applied as a visually handicapped candidate, she was denied employment." 

Keeping in mind the above principles, the Court ordered that a supernumerary post be created. "We are sure that the Chairman of Coal India will provide a suitable position, commensurate with the ability of the Appellant and in such circumstances, she may be provided a suitable desk job with a separate computer and keyboard as per universal design as defined under Section 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. We request that the Chairman of Coal India post the Appellant at the NorthEastern Coal Fields, Coal India Limited, having an office at Margherita Tinsukia, State of Assam.

We clarify that we have passed the order in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in mind Article 41 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, respectively. We make it clear that we have passed this order additionally in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

The Court discussed the concept of reasonable accommodation and has quoted its previous disability rights jurisprudence in Omkar Gonda v UOI(2024), Anmol v UOI(2025), Om Rathod v Director General of Health Science(2024) and Rajive Raturi v UOI. It has also discussed the Minera Mills judgment in terms of fundamental rights and Articles 39(a), 37 and 41 and Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Supreme Court also quoted Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barsky v. Board of Regents regarding the right to work. It also referred to its recent jurisprudence on intersectionality between disability with gender as envisaged in Jane Kaushik v UOI(2025).

The Court also thanked Advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma (for Coal India Limited) for using his good offices and bringing a happy end to this litigation. It also extended thanks to the doctors for examining the Appellant.

After pronouncing the order, Justice Pardiwala wished Sujata Bora and asked her to make the country proud. 

The Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court dated July 3, 2024. As per the brief facts, the appellant applied for the post of Management Trainee in Personnel and HR Discipline as a reserved candidate in the Visually Handicapped category.

When she had qualified for the interview, she was called for the document verification and initial medical examination. However, during the medical examination, it was found that the appellant not only suffered from visual disability but also suffered from 60% low vision in both eyes and Residual Partial Hemiparesis. She filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.

The single judge quashed the medical examination result and held that the public sector corporation could not have refused the appointment. However, since the appellant had approached the High Court after completion of the recruitment process, the single judge allowed her to participate in the 2023 recruitment process from the stage of medical examination. By an interim order, one post was ordered to be kept vacant in the cadre for her.

However, Coal India Limited filed an appeal and the division bench set aside the order. It said that the writ petition was filed after the recruitment process and it was untenable to direct the authorities to consider her in the same or next recruitment process. 

The appellant filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. During the hearing here, the Respondent contended that the Appellant suffered from 30% disability and therefore does not fall within the ambit of "persons with benchmark disability" to claim the reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act.

The Supreme Court directed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to constitute a Board, which included Dr Satendra Singh as one of the members, to assess whether she qualified the benchmark disability mark and whether she suffered from multiple disabilities. 

On January 1, the AIIMS report was submitted before the Court, according to which the appellant suffers from 57% of disability, which is above the benchmark disability of 40%.

Case Details:  SUJATA BORA Vs COAL INDIA LIMITED|C.A. No. 120/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Click here to read the judgment