Supreme Court: In a suo motu cognizance of a letter petitions by the visually impaired candidates, challenging the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (‘Rules, 1994’), as amended on 23-06-2023, and Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (‘Rules 2010’) the two judge Bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ. held that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service.
Background
In the present matter, the appellants challenged the the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, as amended on 23-06-2023, whereby Rule 6A excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service. They contended thatthe action of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of the spirit of the Constitution. Hence, they requested this Court to examine the matter and protect the interests of visually impaired candidates ensuring their right to equal opportunity and a dignified life, as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The appellants challenged the order dated 01-04-2024 passed by MP High Court whereby, the High Court rejected the challenge to the amendment in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 and the consequential notification dated 17-11-2023 issued by the High Court as they do not provide a specific exemption for persons with disabilities, and consequential direction to the respondent authorities to give relaxation of Rule 7 to the appellant.
The appellants also challenged the order dated 11-01-2024 passed by MP High Court , wherein the prayer of the appellant that to set aside the notification dated 18-02-2023 as far as it relates to non-selection of the appellant on the vacant post of physically handicapped quota under the unreserved category on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) was rejected.
The appellants further prayed to issue a declaration that the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India insofar as they do not provide for the declaration of a separate merit list and/or cut-off for persons with benchmark disabilities’ candidates despite the candidates constituting a separate class of candidates competing amongst themselves.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that the main question to be addressed relates to the suitability of visually impaired persons qualified with a degree in law to be appointed as judicial officers, apart from allied issues and ancillary principles as to the application of the equality doctrine read with the principle of reasonable accommodation as has been recognised and specifically provided for in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act, 2016’).
The Court examined the validity of the Rules that bar visually impaired persons from participating in the selection of judicial service both directly and indirectly, and on the other hand, the non-selection of the candidates (where they were permitted to participate) to the vacant posts under the unreserved category of the physically handicapped quota for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level).
The Court mentioned that RPwD Act, 2016 has acquired the status equal to that of a ‘super-statute’ and hence, contains the ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law.
After examining the RPwD Act 2016, the Court also emphasised that the RPwD Act, 2016 represents a significant legislative shift aimed at expanding the rights of persons with disabilities and broadening the recognized categories of disabilities. This landmark law ensures equality and non-discrimination, mandates the provision of reasonable accommodations, and works towards eliminating barriers in areas such as community life, education, employment, and access to justice.
In addition, the RPwD Act provides important provisions for social security measures, inclusive education, and reservations in higher education and employment, aiming to enhance opportunities for PwDs. The Act also safeguards individuals from cruelty and exploitation. Notably, it imposes clear responsibilities on the State and other relevant stakeholders, requiring them to ensure the effective implementation of these rights and protections.
The Court further some of the provisions contained in United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007, where all member states and signatories, including India, and noted that this convention is intended to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities.
After taking note of various judgments, the Court underscored that reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure, but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for PwD, forming part of the right to dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also mentioned that the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution made it a Constitutional obligation for the State to make provisions for safeguarding the interest of the weaker section of the society, including ‘handicapped and mentally retarded’.
Further, reiterated that the State has an obligation to apply the Directive Principles of securing a social order in promotion of the welfare of the people.
Highlighting the spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016 the Court said that:
“the principle of reasonable accommodation is a concept that not only relates to affording equal opportunity to the PwD but also it goes further as to ensuring the dignity of the individual by driving home the message that the assessment of a person’s suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment of the same but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere.”
Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service? Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution?
The Court said that the impugned rule, viz., Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 specifically excluding visually impaired candidates from participation for selection as judicial officers, came to be substituted by way of amendment, which is against the guarantee of substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act, 2016, and the principle of reasonable accommodation as set out therein, pursuant to India’s international obligation.
The Court pointed out that once a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments, assignments whether public or private, would automatically make them eligible to participate for selection to the same.
Thus, the Court concluded that visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service and Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution.
Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the Madh Rules, 1994 violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation?
Applying the principle of indirect discrimination to the facts of the present case, where disabled/visually impaired legal practitioners are sought to be equated with their able-bodied counterparts in the matter of application of certain conditions for participation for selection to the post of judicial officers, the Court said that the ease of practice as well as the securing of marks cannot be said to be an equal condition to both classes of citizens, viz., disabled and able bodied lawyers, given that the atmosphere in which they operate cannot be said to be the same.
The Court remarked that “this is is also a perfect example of how unequals are sought to be treated equally, and that itself would be a negation of the principle of substantive equality”.
In view of the same, the Court held that Rule 7 of Rules, 1994, to the extent it prescribes the additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, is liable to be struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates. Accordingly, the impugned Rule will be applicable to PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates) but without the requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years’ practice.
Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available, after selection in their respective category?
In light of the decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, the Court held that relaxation of cutoff marks is permissible in respect of persons with disabilities’ candidates appearing for the judicial service examinations. Relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category, in the light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this regard, as in the present case.
The Court also opined that relaxation in minimum cut off marks is permissible, especially when there is a specific power of relaxation available to the appointing authority.
Whether a separate cut-off is to be maintained, and selection conducted accordingly for visually impaired candidates?
The Court further opined that maintaining and operating a separate cut-off list is mandatory for each category, which axiomatically includes PwD category as well. Non-declaration of cut-off marks affects transparency and creates ambiguity. Such candidates are left uninformed about the last mark scored by the qualifying candidate belonging to the particular category, to be able to get through to the next stage of selection process. In effect, it compels PwD candidates to compete with other category candidates on unequal terms.
Thus, the Court directed the authorities concerned to declare separate cut-off marks and publish separate merit list for the PwD category at every stage of the examination and proceed with the selection process accordingly.
Concerning the contention that separate cut-off was not applied in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations, and consequently the appellants were not selected for the main examination, the Court directed the authorities to consider them in the light of this decision in the next recruitment, if they so apply to the post notified along with the post unfilled now and carried forward to the next recruitment by maintaining a separate cut off and merit list for PwDs.
The Court also clarified that for the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment, there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned orders dated 01-04-2024 and 11-01-2024 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the consequential notification dated 17-11-2023 and 18-02-2023, issued by the High Court and directed the authorities to consider the appellants and the similarly placed person for participating in the selection process in the light of this decision.
The Court also directed the respective authorities to proceed with the selection process for appointment of the judicial officers, in the light of this decision and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months, from the date of this judgment.
[In Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in judicial services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481, decided on 03-03-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice R Mahadevan
