A recent public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court challenges the exclusion of disabled persons from being appointed as judges in the district judiciary, highlighting issues of discrimination and accessibility.
NEW DELHI: On Monday (15th April): The Supreme Court sought the Central government’s response to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the exclusion of persons with disabilities (PwDs) from being appointed as judges in the district judiciary. The petition emphasizes the need to comply with the mandated 4 percent reservation for PwDs and address inconsistencies in reservation percentages among different states.
READ ALSO: PIL filed Against CJI Chandrachud before National Human Rights Commission
Furthermore, the plea calls for the establishment of an expert body to standardize these rules and eliminate discriminatory hiring practices that contradict the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notices to all High courts and State governments.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh represented the petitioners, two academicians with disabilities. The plea was filed through advocate Shashank Singh and drafted in collaboration with advocates Prapti Shrivastava, Akash Alex, and Pulkit Tomer.
“The respondents have failed to acknowledge that advancements in technology enable individuals with benchmark disabilities to perform various tasks on par with others. A person can assess a witness’s demeanor without sight and read documents using software or other aids, even without physical vision. Similarly, a visually impaired person can listen to witness testimonies and legal arguments,” emphasized the statement.
READ ALSO: Respect PIL Guidelines: Frivolous Petitions Drain Valuable Judicial Resources – Delhi HC
The statement further highlighted that many sitting judges globally exhibit competence despite low vision or blindness. “The essential requirements for a judge’s role include understanding facts, evaluating evidence, and making decisions based on a keen judicial mind, not solely reliant on physical sight. Therefore, not designating the position of judge for individuals with benchmark disabilities, despite the central government recognizing its suitability, perpetuates discrimination based on stereotypical assumptions about their capabilities.”
READ ALSO: RTI Misuse||Calcutta High Court Rebukes University Official in Recruitment PIL
The plea emphasizes that the respondents have failed to recognize the potential of new technologies in enabling PwDs to perform various tasks on an equal basis with others. For instance, individuals with visual impairments can “see” and assess witness demeanor through alternative means and access documents using assistive software and appliances. It highlights that even individuals with low vision or blindness can competently serve as judges at all levels of the judiciary worldwide.
The plea challenges the assumption that physical sight is a prerequisite for the role of a judge. Instead, it argues that the essence of the job lies in understanding facts, evaluating evidence, and making sound decisions, which rely on a keen judicial mind rather than physical faculties.
By neglecting to identify the post of judge as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, despite the central government acknowledging its suitability, the plea asserts that such actions perpetuate stereotypical assumptions about the capabilities of PwDs.
Case Title: Dr Renga Ramanujam and anr vs Union of India and ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
