The Supreme Court of India on March 3 held that no candidate can be denied consideration for recruitment into judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities. The verdict ensures that persons with disabilities (PWDs) receive equal treatment and necessary accommodations, in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Court firmly stated:

"No candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability."

It emphasized that any indirect discrimination—whether through eligibility cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be struck down to uphold substantive equality. The ruling called for affirmative action to ensure an inclusive judiciary.

A significant outcome of the ruling was the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate a provision of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, which barred visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial service. The Court held:

"Visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service."

Read Also:- Supreme Court's Stance on Conflicting Judgments and High Court's Duty to Reconcile Rulings

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict in a suo motu case challenging Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994.

Additionally, the Court struck down Rule 7 of the MP Service Rules, which imposed an additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70%. The Court clarified that while educational qualifications and a minimum aggregate score of 70% remain valid eligibility criteria, they cannot be restricted to first-attempt candidates or those with prior practice experience.

PWD candidates who participated in the selection process are now entitled to be considered for judicial service. If found eligible, they can be appointed to vacant posts in accordance with this judgment.

Moreover, PWD candidates from Rajasthan Judicial Service who had filed writ petitions—arguing that a separate cut-off was not applied in preliminary examinations—will now be entitled to reconsideration in the next recruitment cycle.

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the issue following a letter sent to former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by the mother of a visually impaired candidate who had been excluded from the recruitment process. The Court treated the letter as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and issued notices to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

In March 2024, the Court observed that the Civil Judge Class-II examination conducted in 2022 lacked reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, violating the provisions of the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. As an interim measure, the Court facilitated the participation of visually impaired candidates in the 2024 Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Exam while keeping their selection subject to the final ruling.

Read Also:- Freedom of Satire Upheld: Karnataka High Court Dismisses FIR Against Students Over Alleged Offensive Skit

In May 2024, an interim order allowed candidates with various disabilities who cleared the final examination to proceed to the interview stage if they had secured the minimum marks required for SC/ST candidates.

On the day the orders were reserved, Dr. Sanjay Jain, Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, argued before the Court:

"Disability does not lie in my impairment but social barriers."

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal (Amicus Curiae) presented the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, highlighting Section 34, which provides for reservations for PWDs, including judicial officers. He also pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, mandate a 6% reservation.

Justice Pardiwala raised a crucial question on whether persons with visual impairments require specialized training for judicial duties. The Amicus responded that training and sensitization are essential not only for PWD judicial officers but also for their colleagues and support staff.

An Expert Committee constituted by the Union affirmed that individuals with visual impairments, including blindness and low vision, can perform judicial functions effectively.

The Amicus submitted that once recruited, PWD candidates must be provided with reasonable accommodations for their meaningful participation. Justice Pardiwala noted that while reservations are crucial, High Courts will need to determine specific eligibility criteria—a policy matter that must be carefully structured.

Case Title: IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.,SMW(C) No. 2/2024