Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders and notifications that excluded visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial appointments. It ruled that these candidates are entitled to participate in the selection process with appropriate accommodations. The Court directed authorities to maintain separate cut-offs and ensure full compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Facts
The case arose from challenges to recruitment rules in judicial services that either outrightly excluded visually impaired candidates or imposed stringent eligibility criteria. Petitioners argued that these provisions were discriminatory and violated constitutional principles and statutory rights under the RPwD Act, 2016. The matter involved candidates from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh who were denied fair opportunities due to restrictive policies.
Issues
- Whether visually impaired candidates can be deemed unsuitable for judicial service.
- Whether Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 is unconstitutional.
- Whether the proviso to Rule 7 violates the principles of equality and reasonable accommodation.
- Whether candidates should be granted relaxation in selection criteria when sufficient PwD candidates are not available.
- Whether a separate cut-off should be maintained for visually impaired candidates.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- Exclusionary recruitment rules violate Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
- The RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation for PwDs, which was ignored.
- International conventions such as the UNCRPD obligate the State to ensure full participation of PwDs in all sectors, including the judiciary.
- Previous judicial precedents emphasize substantive equality and non-discrimination.
- Visually impaired judges have served effectively in various jurisdictions, proving their competence when provided necessary support systems.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, primarily the High Courts of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, argued that:
- Judicial duties require unimpaired vision for document scrutiny and in-court proceedings.
- The recruitment rules ensure judicial efficiency and are not discriminatory.
- Reasonable accommodations in judicial roles may lead to practical challenges in execution.
- The existing rules provide sufficient relaxation for PwDs.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 14, 15, and 16, affirming equality and non-discrimination.
- International Law: UNCRPD principles and India’s obligation to ensure inclusive opportunities.
- RPwD Act, 2016: Mandates equal opportunity, reasonable accommodation, and non-exclusion of PwDs from public service.
- Judicial Precedents: Decisions affirming the right of PwDs to fair opportunities in employment.
Precedent Analysis
- Vikash Kumar v. UPSC: Established the right to reasonable accommodation.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: Provided clarity on reservations and relaxation of selection criteria.
- Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India: Emphasized equality and the need for an inclusive approach to disability rights.
- Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu: Initially upheld restrictions but later overruled in favor of an enabling approach.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- Blanket exclusion of visually impaired candidates is unconstitutional and violates fundamental rights.
- Reasonable accommodation is an enforceable right, not a discretionary benefit.
- The judiciary must embrace inclusivity and provide necessary adjustments for PwD candidates.
- The RPwD Act, 2016, is binding and must be fully implemented in judicial service recruitment.
- A separate cut-off for visually impaired candidates is necessary to ensure fair representation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court struck down discriminatory provisions and directed authorities to:
- Allow visually impaired candidates to participate in the selection process.
- Implement reasonable accommodations in judicial recruitment.
- Maintain a separate cut-off for PwDs.
- Complete the selection process within three months.
Implications
This ruling sets a precedent for:
- Strengthening the rights of PwDs in employment and public services.
- Requiring authorities to actively implement the RPwD Act.
- Ensuring that all future recruitment processes are inclusive and non-discriminatory.
- Encouraging systemic changes in judicial administration to accommodate PwD officers effectively.
This judgment reinforces the commitment of the judiciary to uphold the principles of equality and substantive justice, ensuring that persons with disabilities are given their rightful place in the legal system.