The Supreme Court has called upon the Union Government and all States to strictly enforce the principle of “upward movement” for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), making it clear that candidates who clear the general cut-off on merit cannot be pushed back into reserved slots merely because they belong to the disability category.
The direction came from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which underlined that equal opportunity loses meaning if meritorious disabled candidates are denied placement in unreserved vacancies despite outperforming the benchmark required for the general category.
The Court noted that the Centre had already framed executive instructions through the Department of Personnel and Training in 2018 and 2022. These instructions specify that PwBD candidates selected without availing relaxations must be adjusted against unreserved vacancies, while only those using concessions such as relaxed cut-offs, age limits or additional attempts would be counted within the reserved quota.
The Bench accepted the Union’s clarification and observed that the framework adequately protected both principles — merit and reservation. It stressed that reservation for persons with disabilities operates horizontally across categories and should not become a barrier against deserving candidates moving into open competition seats.
Importantly, the Court clarified that facilities like a scribe or compensatory time during examinations cannot be treated as “relaxed standards.” Similarly, a candidate’s disability itself cannot be used against them in assessing “own merit” during medical fitness evaluations.
The Bench said the policy must be implemented “in its true letter and spirit” to fulfil the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and inclusion for persons with disabilities.
The issue had earlier drawn the Court’s attention in September 2025, when concerns were raised over authorities denying general category seats to disabled candidates even after they scored above the unreserved cut-off. The Court had then remarked that such an approach undermined the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
While endorsing the Centre’s stand, the Court also expressed dissatisfaction over the patchy implementation of the RPwD Act across States and Union Territories, nearly eight years after the law came into force.
Observing that compliance still remained “elusive” in several regions, the Court directed continued monitoring of implementation measures. It also entrusted National Law University, Delhi, with overseeing compliance efforts under the broader “Project Ability Empowerment” initiative involving multiple National Law Universities across the country.
