'None Should Be Excluded From Judicial Service Only Because Of Disability' : Supreme Court Quashes MP Rule Barring Blind Candidates

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 3) held that no person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities.

The Court held that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service recruitments and that the State must provide them affirmative action to ensure an inclusive framework. "Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of Person with Disabilitiess, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality," the Court pronounced.

"No candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability," the Court stated. Accommodation must be provided to them while assessing their eligibility in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Holding so, the Supreme Court struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

The Court emphatically held that "visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service.

"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."

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict in a suo motu case regarding Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules 1994.

Rule 7 of the MP Service Rules to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% was struck down by the Court. It was clarified that the said Rule will be applicable to PWD candidates in so far as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria, including the minimum aggregate of 70% but without the requirement that it should be in the first attempt or they should have three years practice.

The PWD candidates who had participated in the selection process are entitled to be considered for judicial service selection in the light of the judgment, and they can be appointed in the vacant posts if they are otherwise eligible.

Orders were reserved in the case on December 3, 2024, which is coincidentally celebrated as the International Day of Persons with Disability. The Court also considered writ petitions filed by PWD candidates who had applied for Rajasthan Judicial Service. The Court held that those PWD candidates who filed writ petitions contending that a separate cut-off was not applied in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary examinations, and consequently were not selected for the main exam, are entitled to be considered in the next recruitment in the light of this judgment, if they so applied.

The judgment, authored by Justice Mahadevan, stated that a "Right-based approach necessitated that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in the pursuit of judicial service opportunities."

Background

To recap, cognizance of this case was taken after a letter was sent to former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by the mother of one of the visually impaired candidates against the exclusion. Converting the letter petition into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, an ex-CJI-led Bench had issued notice to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India.

In March, 2024, the Court noted that the Civil Judge Class-II examination conducted in 2022 did not include reservation slots for visually impaired participants, a move that significantly contradicts the principles laid out in the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Considering that the main exam was scheduled to be held on 30-31 March 2024, it issued a slew of interim measures for the efficient facilitation of judicial aspirants with visual impairments in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Exam. However, it was clarified that the participation of the concerned candidates in the main examination was subject to the final outcome of the present proceedings before the Court, "without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties".

In May, 2024, the Court passed an interim order to the effect that candidates with various disabilities who appeared for the final examination will be allowed to appear for an interview if they had secured minimum marks as provided for SC/ST candidates.

The day orders were reserved in the case, Dr. Sanjay Jain, Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, submitted through his counsel that "Disability does not lie in my impairment but social barriers."

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal (Amicus Curiae), on the other hand, took the Court through the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 and argued that beneficial provisions such as Section 34 providing for reservation are also extended to judicial officers, officials of the High Court and the Supreme Court. He also submitted that Madhya Pradesh has adopted the Madhya Pradesh Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 which provides for a reservation of 6 percent.

When Justice Pardiwala enquired as to whether persons with disability, blind or part-vision, should undergo some special type of training when it comes to discharging duty as a judge, the Amicus submitted that training and sensitization are required not just for judicial officers but also for other judicial officers and staff working with judicial officers having disability. The Amicus also referred to an Expert Committee constituted by the Union which  concluded that persons with visual impairment including blind and those with low vision can perform judicial functions.

Further, the Amicus submitted that once persons with disability are recruited, the employer is mandated to provide reasonable accommodation for their meaningful participation. On this, Justice Pardiwala assumed that if reservation is to be provided, the High Courts will have to specify some eligibility criteria and that is a domain of policy decision.

The Amicus also gave some suggestions, which can be read here.

Also from the judgment - 'Disability No Bar To Excellence In Legal Profession' : Supreme Court Mentions Examples Of Legal Luminaries With Disabilities

Case Title: IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES v THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.,SMW(C) No. 2/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment