Supreme Court holds: Visually Impaired Candidates to be Eligible for Judiciary

Introduction

In a recent matter of suo – motu cognizance taken via letter petitions written by numerous visually impaired candidates while challenging the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994 along with Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules 2010, a two – judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Justices J.B Pardiwala and RR Mahadevan noted that there is no bar to visually impaired candidates from participating in the judicial services examination.

Brief Factual Background

In the present matter, the appellants challenged 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 that the 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.

Because Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 does not specifically exempt people with disabilities, the appellants challenged the MP High Court’s order dated 01-04-2024, which rejected their challenge to the amendment. The High Court also issued a consequential notification on November 17, 2023, which directed the respondent authorities to grant the appellant a relaxation of Rule 7. The appellants also contested the MP High Court’s order dated 11-01-2024, in which they prayed to have the notification dated 18-02-2023 regarding the appellant’s non-selection for the open position of physically handicapped quota under the unreserved category for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division.

It was further prayed at last by the Appellants that the Hon’ble Court may issue a declaration that the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules 2010 are violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India since they do not have any provision pertaining to declaration of any separate list for merit and/or cut off pertaining to individuals with disabilities/benchmark disabilities even though the candidates constitute a distinct class which competes within themselves.

Court’s Analysis

The Court stated that, aside from related issues and ancillary principles regarding the application of the equality doctrine read with the principle of reasonable accommodation as recognized and specifically provided for in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the “RPwD Act, 2016”), the primary question to be addressed is whether visually impaired individuals qualified with a law degree are suitable to be appointed as judicial officers. The Court looked at the rules that prevent people with visual impairments from directly or indirectly participating in the selection of judges, as well as the non-selection of candidates for open positions under the unreserved category of the physically handicapped, when they were allowed to do so.

Following its review and consideration of application of the RPwD Act of 2016, the Court also emphasized that the Act is a significant legislative change that aims to increase the rights of people with disabilities and broaden the categories of disabilities that are recognized. This historic law aims to remove obstacles in a variety of domains, including community life, education, employment, and access to justice. It also guarantees equality and nondiscrimination and requires the provision of reasonable accommodations. In order to improve opportunities for PwDs, the RPwD Act also includes significant provisions for social security measures, inclusive education, and reservations in higher education and employment. Those who are disabled are also protected from abuse and exploitation by the Act. Notably, it places explicit obligations on the State and other pertinent parties, demanding that they guarantee the efficient exercise of these rights.

While adjudicating upon the question as to whether the visually impaired candidates are deemed to be ‘not – suitable’ for the judicial services, the court noted that in violation of the RPwD Act, 2016’s guarantee of substantive equality and the principle of reasonable accommodation outlined therein, the contested rule—Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994, which expressly excludes visually impaired candidates from participating in the selection process for judicial officers—was replaced by an amendment in accordance with India’s international obligation. The Court made the point that after being accepted into a law program, a person would be automatically eligible to apply for selection for any other opportunities, including practice, appointments, and assignments, both public and private employment. Therefore the visually impaired candidates cannot be barred from applying or being selected into judicial services.

Applying the indirect discrimination principle to the facts of this case, wherein disabled and visually impaired attorneys are attempting to be treated on an equal basis with their able-bodied counterparts when it comes to the application of certain requirements for participation in the selection process for judicial officer positions, the Court ruled that the ease of practice and the ability to obtain marks cannot be considered equal conditions for both groups of citizens, namely, disabled and able-bodied attorneys, because the environment in which they operate cannot be said to be the same.

Conclusion

The present case is a perfect example wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has acted as the guardian and protector of Fundamental Rights of those who are blind and/or physically disabled. The Court in the present case has carefully struck a balance between the rights of the society, the profession as well as the applicants and brought in the notion that unequals must be sought to be treated equally and the principle of substantive equality must be upheld.

Moreover, the Court has also noted that in order to provide an equality in true sense in matters of public employment, it is vitally important to provide for affirmative privileges to those who are under – privileged to bring them at par with others.

The copy of the present judgment can be accessed here.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com