The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, has struck down discriminatory barriers in judicial recruitment, affirming equal opportunity for visually impaired aspirants.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed its commitment to progressive jurisprudence by expanding the ambit of fundamental rights to include the right against disability-based discrimination. In a historic ruling, the apex court has unequivocally declared that
“discrimination against persons with disabilities must be viewed through the same lens as any other violation of fundamental rights”
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in India’s legal landscape, reinforcing the principle that justice must not only be administered but also exemplified by the very system that upholds it.
The age-old adage, “Justice is blind,” symbolizes the ideal of impartiality in the law. However, what happens when the justice system itself fails to look beyond physical limitations?
In a watershed moment that redefines inclusivity within the judiciary, the Supreme Court, in In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. The Registrar General, The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, has emphatically held that merit is not contingent on sight but rather on intellect, reason, and integrity.
By striking down discriminatory recruitment provisions, the Court has underscored the importance of equality in judicial appointments, ensuring that the judiciary not only dispenses justice but also embodies its highest ideals.
Genesis of the Case: A Mother’s Plea for Equality
The case originated from a heartfelt letter-petition dated January 15, 2024, addressed to the then Chief Justice of India by the mother of Alok Singh, a visually impaired judicial aspirant. The letter challenged the
legality of a rule that categorically excluded visually impaired and low-vision candidates from being appointed to judicial service.
It argued that such an exclusion was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in direct contravention of the Constitution, particularly the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Recognizing the gravity of the issue, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, undertook an exhaustive examination of several fundamental questions central to the case. The core issue under scrutiny was whether visually impaired candidates could be inherently deemed ‘unsuitable’ for judicial service—a presumption that risks entrenching outdated stereotypes rather than evaluating merit through objective criteria.
READ ALSO: Pune Bus Rape Case: Court Sends Accused 14-days Judicial Custody
Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court
The Court’s deliberations revolved around several critical aspects of judicial inclusivity:
- The Presumption of Unsuitability: The Court rigorously examined whether visual impairment alone could justify exclusion from judicial service. It firmly rejected the notion that an individual’s ability to dispense justice is diminished due to visual impairment, affirming that judicial competence is rooted in intellect, legal acumen, and ethical integrity rather than physical ability.
- Validity of Discriminatory Recruitment Rules: The Court scrutinized certain provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules that imposed additional requirements on persons with disabilities (PwD). These rules mandated that PwD candidates either have three years of prior legal practice or attain a minimum aggregate score of 70% in their first attempt. The Court found these conditions discriminatory and violative of the principle of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, striking them down as unconstitutional.
- Affirmative Action and Relaxation of Selection Criteria: The Court explored the permissibility of modifying selection criteria in cases where adequate numbers of PwD candidates were not available within their respective categories. It held that such accommodations align with the principles of fairness and affirmative action, ensuring that opportunities are equitably accessible to all candidates.
- Equitable Standards for PwD Candidates : The Court deliberated on whether visually impaired candidates should be subjected to a distinct cut-off, ensuring a fair and inclusive selection process. It emphasized that assessments must be based on qualifications and capabilities rather than imposing additional burdens on PwD candidates.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict: A Milestone in Disability Jurisprudence
In a landmark pronouncement, the Court highlighted that the
“Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is not just a statutory framework but a ‘super-statute’—akin to a quasi-constitutional law that mandates equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodations across various domains, including judicial employment“
Most significantly, the Court held that
“the right against disability-based discrimination must be accorded the same stature as a fundamental right”
Rejecting the premise that visual impairment inherently hinders judicial competence, the Court emphasized that with appropriate accommodations, visually impaired individuals can effectively discharge judicial duties. This judgment aligns with the principles of substantive equality enshrined in the Constitution and upholds the mandate of non-discrimination in professional spheres.
A Broader Context: Strengthening Disability Rights in India
The Supreme Court’s ruling builds upon a strong foundation of disability rights jurisprudence in India. Landmark cases such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) recognized reasonable accommodation as an essential facet of equality, while Jeeja Ghosh & Another v. Union of India (2016) reinforced the dignity and participatory rights of PwD in all walks of life.
Further, the Court has actively intervened in various spheres concerning disability rights:
- Educational Access: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024) and Anmol v. Union of India (2025) upheld the rights of PwD to pursue medical education.
- Employment Rights: State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) addressed reservations for PwD in promotions.
- Defense Services: Ashish Kumar Chauhan v. Commanding Officer (2023) cautioned the armed forces on upholding disability rights within military service structures.
Beyond courtroom pronouncements, the Supreme Court has taken concrete steps toward inclusivity. In 2024, it published a Handbook on Persons with Disabilities, providing legal guidance, emphasizing respectful terminology, and advocating for more informed policy measures.
Implications of the Judgment: A Progressive Step Toward Judicial Inclusivity
The ruling in In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services is a transformative step toward dismantling systemic barriers that have long excluded PwD from judicial service.
By striking down discriminatory provisions and reaffirming the eligibility of visually impaired candidates, the Supreme Court has reinforced the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
This decision is not merely a legal milestone—it is a powerful statement on the evolving nature of justice.
By embracing inclusivity, the judiciary enriches itself with diverse perspectives, ensuring that legal adjudication remains fair, rational, and deeply rooted in the principles of equality.
As Helen Keller aptly noted,
“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”
Through this ruling, the Supreme Court has once again demonstrated the vision that justice demands—one that transcends physical limitations and embraces the boundless potential of every individual. This judgment serves as a beacon of hope, illuminating a path toward a more inclusive and just society.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
