You Can’t Deny a Blind Person a Job Reserved for the Blind by Saying ‘He Can’t See’: Delhi High Court Delivers Powerful Ruling Against Exclusionary Disability Tests

“If This Interpretation Is Accepted, Even Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta Would Be Ineligible For Public Employment” — In a deeply significant verdict Delhi High Court struck down the rejection of three visually impaired candidates selected for government posts under the disability quota, holding that once a post is identified as suitable for the blind and low vision category, a subsequent medical rejection on the ground that the candidate "cannot see" defeats the very statutory scheme of inclusion under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The judgment was delivered in the lead case of Mudit Gupta v. Airports Authority of India, along with connected matters filed by Amit Kumar and Deepak Arora, all of whom had cleared the Computer-Based Test for Junior Executive posts under AAI’s 2023 recruitment notification. The division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul declared that the approach of disqualifying these candidates through post-selection ‘clinical assessments’ violates the RPWD Act, the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent.

The Court’s opening words captured the absurdity of the case:

“We, in this batch of cases, are faced with the question – Can the blind see? A question whose very premise is flawed.”

“The Eye is Merely the Recorder, the Brain is the Viewer” — Court Holds Functional Vision Includes Assisted Perception

Rebuking the literalist interpretation of the term “seeing” as used in government notifications, the Court held that visual functionality cannot be reduced to raw biological capacity without regard to assistive tools and inclusive environments.

“The function of sight, which we otherwise attribute to the eye, is in fact largely performed by the brain… If the candidate is able to perceive what is before him using assistive devices, he must be regarded as possessing the functional attribute of sight.”

This observation lay at the heart of the Court’s conclusion that “seeing”, as a functional requirement for certain posts, must be understood not in its physiological sense but as a cognitive act capable of being performed with aids. The judgment warned that reading the notification to mean “clinical sight” would render the entire reservation policy under the RPWD Act redundant.

“Once a Post is Reserved for Blind and Low Vision Category, Saying the Blind Can’t Perform It Is a Legal Contradiction” — Court Holds AAI’s Rejection Violates the Statute Itself

The Court took strong exception to the Airports Authority of India’s action of conducting fresh medical tests and rejecting the petitioners despite the fact that the posts had already been statutorily identified as suitable for blind and low vision candidates under the 2021 Notification issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD).

“The stipulation of functional requirement must be read in conjunction with the identification of disability—not to exclude, but to include. Otherwise, it reduces the entire reservation scheme to an absurdity.”

The Court emphasized that a functional requirement like “seeing” must be read harmoniously with the declared suitability of a post for the blind, especially where the post requires cognitive and not merely visual operations. The petitioners were selected for posts such as Junior Executive (Law), Junior Executive (Common Cadre), and Junior Executive (Finance)—roles that involve administrative and legal tasks, not mechanical inspection or visual detection.

“If This Reasoning Is Accepted, Even Mr. S.K. Rungta Could Not Be Appointed to a Government Job” — Court Rebukes the Logic of the Rejection with Real-World Irony

The Court turned to a compelling real-life illustration to expose the irrationality of the rejection orders. Referring to Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta, who appeared for the petitioners and is himself visually impaired, the Bench stated:

“If the manner in which the respondents have interpreted Note 8 is accepted, Mr. Rungta, a Senior Counsel of eminence, would not be eligible to be appointed as JE (Law). The proposition, to say the least, is ridiculous in the extreme.”

The Court further invoked the Supreme Court’s own praise for Mr. Rungta in the landmark case In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, describing him as an “asset to the bar and the justice delivery system.”

“It is unconscionable that the respondents are allowed to reject the petitioners after selection, when someone like Mr. Rungta—who has argued before the highest courts—is considered ineligible for such posts.”

“Medical Reports Cannot Trump the Law—You Cannot Clinically Override a Statutory Right” — Court Rules That Functional Assessment Must Be Done in Inclusive Terms

One of the most powerful parts of the judgment came in its rejection of the idea that medical experts could override a statutory reservation by stating that a blind person cannot “see”. The Court referred to paras 41 and 42 of the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, which held:

“Suitability of the blind and low vision candidates is not to be measured by clinical assessment, but by providing reasonable accommodation and enabling environment.”

The Delhi High Court echoed this reasoning, stating:

“The RPWD Act does not permit a clinical override of a statutory right. The moment a post is declared suitable for the blind, any exclusion must be viewed with utmost suspicion.”

The Court found that AAI’s action of rejecting candidates based on medical reports—without conducting a functional assessment in the actual work environment with assistive devices—was manifestly illegal.

“There is No Estoppel Against Statutory Rights” — Court Rejects Argument That Candidates Waived Rights by Participating in Process

The AAI attempted to argue that since the petitioners had participated in the recruitment and appeared for medical tests, they were estopped from challenging the rules later. The Court dismissed this contention outright.

“Participation in the process does not prevent a candidate from challenging exclusion based on illegality, violation of statutory rights or constitutional guarantees. There is no estoppel against law.”

Citing Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, the Court held that candidates cannot be punished for asserting their rights at the stage when they are actually violated.

“The Post Is Yours, The Obstacle Is The Mindset” — Court Orders Fresh Assessment, Not Based on Clinical Tests, But Functional Capacity With Aids

In its operative directions, the High Court refused to strike down Note 8 of the 2021 Notification, but held that its interpretation and application by the AAI was patently illegal and regressive.

The Court quashed the rejection orders and directed the AAI to:

“Conduct a fresh assessment of the petitioners, keeping in view their ability to perform the job with the help of assistive devices, not based on medical reports, but actual functional compatibility.”

If found suitable, the petitioners were to be appointed within four weeks, with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, though back wages were denied.

“At all times, the attempt must be towards inclusivity, not exclusion. The approach of ‘let us see if he fits the bill’ has to be sedulously eschewed.”

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025