In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed that protection against disability-based discrimination must be recognized on par with fundamental rights. The decision clears the way for visually impaired candidates to enter judicial services, dismantling barriers that have long sidelined them.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underscored the necessity of “reasonable accommodation”—ensuring that individuals with disabilities receive the necessary adjustments before their eligibility is assessed. The Court held that the principle is not a privilege but a core right, integral to achieving true equality.
The verdict stemmed from a suo motu case triggered by a mother’s letter on behalf of her visually impaired son, a judicial aspirant in Madhya Pradesh. The letter challenged rules barring such candidates from appointments. Similar grievances from Rajasthan and individual petitions from other aspirants were also considered, leading to a consolidated judgment.
Emphasizing that equal opportunity requires more than just formal inclusion, the Court pointed out that “uniform treatment” often results in systemic exclusion. To illustrate, the ruling cited globally renowned visually impaired legal figures—including South African Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob, U.S. Judge David S. Tatel, and senior Indian advocate SK Rungta—who have excelled despite their disabilities.
Striking down restrictive provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services recruitment rules, the Court mandated a separate cut-off system for visually impaired candidates, ensuring they receive fair consideration. It further directed that Rajasthan’s unfilled judicial service vacancies for persons with disabilities be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle.
This ruling cements the legal standing of persons with disabilities in the judicial selection process, affirming that ability—not disability—should determine one’s place in the judiciary.