Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu writ petition and connected matters, addressed the issue of recruitment of persons with disabilities (PwD) in judicial services. The background involves a letter petition from the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant challenging the amendment to Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment. Similar issues were raised regarding the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which did not provide separate cut-off marks or merit lists for persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD). The Court also considered appeals from Alok Singh and Ayush Yardi, who challenged the denial of relaxation in selection criteria under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The legal issues included whether the exclusion of visually impaired candidates is constitutional, whether PwBD candidates are entitled to separate cut-off marks and relaxation of selection criteria, and whether the Rajasthan Rules violate Articles 14, 16, and 21. The Court heard submissions from various parties, including the intervenor Dr. Sanjay Jain, who argued for a rights-based approach. The Court analyzed the constitutional framework, international disability jurisprudence, and the provisions of the RPwD Act, emphasizing that the Act adopts a rights-based approach and mandates reasonable accommodation. The Court held that failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes indirect discrimination. It further held that PwBD candidates are entitled to separate cut-off marks and relaxation of selection criteria, as they constitute a separate class. The Court directed the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan to amend their rules to provide for separate merit lists and cut-off marks for PwBD candidates, and to reconsider the exclusion of visually impaired candidates. The Court also directed that the benefit of Section 34 of the RPwD Act be granted to the appellants in the connected appeals. The decision was in favor of the PwD candidates, upholding their right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Non-Discrimination on Ground of Disability - Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that disability-based discrimination is a form of discrimination that violates the fundamental rights to equality and life with dignity, and that the Constitution mandates equal opportunity for persons with disabilities. (Paras 33-36) B) Disability Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Rights-Based Approach - Sections 3, 20, 34 - The Court held that the RPwD Act, 2016 adopts a rights-based approach, requiring the State to provide reasonable accommodation and ensure equal participation of PwBD in all spheres, including employment. (Paras 39, 41-42) C) Disability Law - Indirect Discrimination - Reasonable Accommodation - Sections 2(s), 2(t), 2(zc) of the RPwD Act, 2016 - The Court held that failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes indirect discrimination, and that separate cut-off marks and relaxation of selection criteria are permissible forms of reasonable accommodation. (Paras 43-46, 47-62) D) Judicial Services - Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities - Separate Cut-Off Marks - Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 - The Court held that PwBD candidates constitute a separate class and are entitled to a separate merit list and relaxed cut-off marks at each stage of selection, as per the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 and the Act. (Paras 47-62) E) Judicial Services - Exclusion of Visually Impaired - Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 - The Court held that the exclusion of visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial services is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21, and the RPwD Act, 2016. (Paras 9, 67-69)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the exclusion of visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial services under Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 is valid; whether persons with benchmark disabilities are entitled to separate cut-off marks and relaxation of selection criteria in judicial service examinations; whether the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 are violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 for not providing separate merit lists for PwBD candidates.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and writ petitions. It held that the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services is unconstitutional and directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the amendment to Rule 6A. It further held that PwBD candidates are entitled to separate cut-off marks and relaxation of selection criteria, and directed the High Court of Rajasthan to amend its rules accordingly. The Court also directed that the benefit of Section 34 of the RPwD Act be granted to the appellants in the connected appeals.
Law Points
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016
- Section 34
- Section 20
- Section 3
- Section 2(s)
- Section 2(t)
- Section 2(zc)
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Article 21
- Article 32
- Article 226
- indirect discrimination
- reasonable accommodation
- separate cut-off marks
- relaxation in selection criteria
- reservation in promotion
- equality and non-discrimination
- rights-based approach
