Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Visually Impaired Candidates in Judicial Services, Strikes Down Discriminatory Rules

Reasonable Accommodation: The principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in the RPwD Act, 2016, mandates that accommodations be provided to PwD candidates to ensure their full and effective participation in judicial services. (Para 41)

Indirect Discrimination: Facially neutral rules that have a discriminatory effect on PwD candidates violate the equality doctrine and must be struck down. (Para 43)

Substantive Equality:The Court emphasized that substantive equality requires affirmative action to ensure that PwD candidates are not excluded from judicial services due to discriminatory rules or procedural barriers. (Para 67)

International Commitments: The Court reaffirmed India’s commitment to the UNCRPD, which mandates equal opportunities and non-discrimination for PwD candidates in all spheres of life, including employment. (Para 38)

Visually Impaired Candidates Eligible for Judicial Service: The Supreme Court held that visually impaired candidates cannot be deemed unsuitable for judicial service. Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired candidates, was struck down as unconstitutional. (Para 67.1(i))

Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules Struck Down: The proviso to Rule 7, which required either three years of practice or 70% marks in the first attempt, was struck down as it violated the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation. (Para 67.1(iii))

Relaxation in Selection Criteria Permissible: The Court held that relaxation in selection criteria is permissible when sufficient PwD candidates are not available, in line with existing rules and executive orders. (Para 67.1(iv))

Separate Cut-Off for PwD Candidates:The Court directed that a separate cut-off must be maintained for visually impaired candidates in judicial service examinations to ensure substantive equality. (Para 67.1(v))

No Distinction Between PwD and PwBD: The Court clarified that there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) for the purpose of rights and entitlements in employment. (Para 67.1(vi))

Major Acts and Sections:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 32, 335, and 41.

2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016) – Sections 3, 20, 32, 33, 34.

3. Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – Rules 6A, 7, and 19.

4. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – Rules 10, 20, 24, and 41.

5. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2006 – Articles 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, 21, 24, 27, 30, and 32.

Subjects:

• Visually Impaired Candidates – Eligibility for judicial services.

• Reasonable Accommodation – Principle under RPwD Act, 2016.

• Indirect Discrimination – Facially neutral rules with discriminatory effects.

• Horizontal Reservation – Separate cut-off for Persons with Disabilities (PwD).

• Relaxation in Selection Criteria – Permissibility for PwD candidates.

• Judicial Service Rules – Amendments struck down for violating constitutional rights.

• Substantive Equality – Ensuring equal opportunities for PwD.

• Benchmark Disabilities – No distinction between PwD and PwBD for rights and entitlements.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation:

   • The Supreme Court of India dealt with multiple writ petitions and appeals concerning the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The petitions challenged the discriminatory rules and sought equal opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in judicial appointments.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?:

   • The petitioners, including visually impaired candidates and their families, sought the court’s intervention to strike down discriminatory rules and ensure that PwD candidates are provided equal opportunities in judicial services. They also requested relaxation in selection criteria and separate cut-off marks for PwD candidates.

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

   • The petitioners argued that the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They contended that the rules were discriminatory and failed to provide reasonable accommodation as mandated by the RPwD Act, 2016.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?:

   • The High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had upheld the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services, citing medical opinions and the nature of judicial work. The Supreme Court, however, found these decisions to be in violation of constitutional principles and international commitments under the UNCRPD.

Issues:

1. Whether visually impaired candidates can be deemed unsuitable for judicial service?

2. Whether the amendment to Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, violates the Constitution?

3. Whether the proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation?

4. Whether relaxation in selection criteria is permissible when sufficient PwD candidates are not available?

5. Whether a separate cut-off should be maintained for visually impaired candidates in judicial service examinations?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioners:

   • Argued that the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services was arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights. They contended that the rules were based on outdated medical models and failed to consider the principle of reasonable accommodation.

   • Cited international jurisprudence, including the UNCRPD, to support the argument that PwD candidates should be provided equal opportunities in judicial services.

   • Requested relaxation in selection criteria and separate cut-off marks for PwD candidates to ensure substantive equality.

2. Respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Court):

   • Defended the exclusion of visually impaired candidates, citing medical opinions that such candidates would be unable to perform judicial duties effectively.

   • Argued that the rules were in compliance with the RPwD Act, 2016, and that no separate cut-off was required for PwD candidates.