Supreme Court Holds Visually Impaired Cannot Be Declared ‘Unsuitable’ for Judicial Services Solely on the Basis of Disability

Assessment of suitability must be made after providing reasonable accommodation, not merely by clinical medical reports — In a pathbreaking judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, while deciding Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024 and other connected matters, struck down Rule 6A and the proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which had either excluded or placed disproportionate conditions on visually impaired candidates from participating in judicial service recruitment. The Court categorically held that "visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service" and declared that such exclusion violates the doctrine of substantive equality, the principle of reasonable accommodation, and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The ruling not only settles the constitutional validity of these restrictive provisions but also affirms that any denial of access to employment or public office on the sole ground of disability is unsustainable under the Indian constitutional framework and international disability jurisprudence.

The dispute originated from rules framed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which through Rule 6A, outright excluded visually impaired candidates from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Rule 7 further imposed indirect barriers by mandating either three years of prior practice or achieving 70% aggregate marks in the first attempt for consideration under the Unreserved Physically Handicapped category.

Visually impaired candidates who were otherwise qualified challenged these rules before the Supreme Court, contending that the restrictions were unconstitutional, discriminatory, and contrary to the mandate of the RPwD Act, 2016. Similar issues were also raised regarding non-declaration of separate cut-offs for PwD candidates in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations.

The Court stressed that equality, as guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, is not merely formal but substantive, requiring positive measures to ensure the effective participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of public life. The Court categorically observed, "It is high time that an anti-discrimination clause be included in the Constitution with a specific provision that the State shall not discriminate on the grounds of mental or physical disability."

Rejecting the argument that medical incapacity alone could determine exclusion, the Bench observed, “Assessment of suitability must be made after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere, and not merely by clinical medical reports.”

The Court found that the impugned rules were based on an outdated, medicalised understanding of disability, ignoring the social model now entrenched in Indian law through the RPwD Act, 2016 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory.

“A Suspicion-Ridden Medical Model is Incompatible with Inclusive Equality” — Court
The Court minced no words in condemning the reliance on medical assessments to justify exclusion of visually impaired persons. It held, “The suspicion-ridden medical expertise-driven model is directly opposed to the principle as laid down by this Court and also the spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016.”

Drawing from Vikash Kumar v. UPSC and Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, the Court clarified that the principle of reasonable accommodation is not a concession, but a binding obligation on the State. The Court held, “For a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not given this additional support.”

Indirect Discrimination Recognised — Unequal Impact Even from Neutral Rules
In a significant finding, the Court held that Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Rules, while facially neutral, constituted indirect discrimination. It quoted Col. Nitisha v. Union of India, stating, “Facially equal application of laws to unequal parties is a farce when the law is structured to cater to an able-bodied standpoint.”

The Court reasoned that the requirement of securing 70% marks in the first attempt or the requirement of three years’ practice adversely impacts disabled candidates due to systemic barriers they face, which their able-bodied counterparts do not. It reaffirmed that equality cannot be limited to formal equality, but must account for the real-life context in which disadvantaged groups function.

Requirement of Separate Cut-Offs for Disabled Candidates
The Court directed all authorities, including the Rajasthan High Court, to maintain and declare separate cut-offs for PwD candidates. The Court held that "the non-disclosure of cut-off marks would lead to a situation where such candidates may not be adequately represented in judicial service, which is against the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016."

It was made clear that PwD candidates must be treated as a distinct category like SC/ST candidates, entitling them to the same procedural safeguards and relaxations. "Merely because other horizontal categories were given relaxations, but not PwD, amounts to discrimination," the Court stated.

The Right to Reasonable Accommodation as a Constitutional Imperative
Importantly, the Court observed, “The rights-based model of disability has now become part of the national and normative structure of anti-discrimination regime of this country,” thereby giving constitutional force to the concept of reasonable accommodation.

It also observed that after the decision in Vikash Kumar, and the issuance of guidelines by the Department of Disability Affairs, no selection process can now proceed without providing for reasonable accommodation and necessary relaxations for disabled candidates.

Exclusion of Visually Impaired Candidates Cannot Be Sustained
The Court categorically struck down Rule 6A and part of Rule 7, declaring, “Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service,” and directed that they must be allowed to participate in all future and pending recruitment processes without being subjected to the impugned discriminatory conditions.

“We Are Only Demanding Justice, Not Charity” — Inspiring Global Examples Cited
The Court took judicial notice of inspiring examples of blind judges and advocates globally, including Justice Zak Yacoob (South Africa), Justice David Tatel (U.S.), Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta (India), and Haben Girma (first deafblind Harvard Law graduate), reinforcing that disability is no bar to judicial competence.

The Court held that:

•    Rule 6A excluding visually impaired candidates from selection is unconstitutional and struck down.

•    Rule 7 to the extent it mandates a three-year practice period or securing 70% marks in the first attempt is also unconstitutional and struck down as it applies to PwD candidates.

•    All authorities must declare separate cut-offs and maintain separate merit lists for PwD candidates.

•    Reasonable accommodation is mandatory, and candidates with disabilities are entitled to relaxations on par with SC/ST candidates.

The Court directed, “The respective authorities are directed to proceed with the selection process for appointment of judicial officers, in the light of this decision and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from today.”

A Shift Toward Inclusive Constitutionalism
In conclusion, the judgment asserts that substantive equality and reasonable accommodation are not optional, but constitutional commands. "Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right," the Court declared.

By this ruling, the Court has set a binding precedent ensuring that judicial service and other public employments across India become more inclusive, fair, and accessible to persons with disabilities.

Date of Decision: 3 March 2025