Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Supreme Court's Paves the Way for Equal Employment Opportunities for Disabled Individuals

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities, emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation. The ruling, delivered by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, sets a significant precedent in the realm of employment for individuals with disabilities.

The judgment, handed down on October 16, 2023, centers on the case of an applicant who faced color vision deficiency, which came to light after being selected for the position of Assistant Engineer (AE) in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO).

The Court's observation on the principle of reasonable accommodation resonated strongly:

 "Reasonable accommodation thus, is 'appropriate modification and adjustments' that should be taken by the employer, in the present case, without that duty being imposed with 'disproportionate or undue burden.'"

The appellant, a graduate in electrical engineering with practical experience, was denied the position by TANGEDCO on the grounds of color vision deficiency. TANGEDCO contended that the appellant did not qualify as a person with benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, the Court found that TANGEDCO's offered position as Junior Assistant was unsuitable for the appellant, and the refusal was justified.

The judgment directed TANGEDCO to appoint and continue the appellant as AE (Electrical) with appropriate responsibilities, including 50% of full arrears of salary and allowances, and full service continuity from the original date of appointment.

This landmark decision underscores the duty of employers to accommodate persons with disabilities without imposing an undue burden. It expands the scope of what constitutes a disability under the law and highlights the importance of ensuring equal opportunities and rights for individuals with disabilities in the workplace.

The judgment also builds on previous rulings emphasizing the principle of reasonable accommodation, affirming that each individual's dignity and worth must be respected, regardless of their disability. The ruling draws a clear line between formal equality and substantive equality, emphasizing that the latter aims at achieving equality of outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

This verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only in the employment sector but also in the broader context of ensuring the rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities in various facets of society.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

MOHAMED IBRAHIM vs THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/16-Oct-2023_Mohd_Ibrahim_Vs_Charman_and_Director.pdf"]

Latest Legal News