Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: 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