Supreme Court Declares Rights Of Persons With Disabilities As Fundamental

Contents

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the right against disability-based discrimination should be recognized as a fundamental right.
The ruling came in the case Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the judgment on March 3, 2024.
The Court affirmed that visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial services in India.

The Court stated: “Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability.”
It directed the State to take affirmative action and establish an inclusive framework for equal opportunities.

The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodations must be provided to persons with disabilities before evaluating their eligibility for jobs.
The judgment stated: “The spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016 would reveal that the principle of reasonable accommodation is a concept that not only relates to affording equal opportunity to the PwD but also it goes further as to ensuring the dignity of the individual by driving home the message that the assessment of a person’s suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment of the same but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere.”

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of a letter written by the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant in January 2024.
The petition challenged a rule in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules that barred visually impaired candidates from applying.
The Court combined similar petitions, including one from a visually impaired law student from Rajasthan, who alleged unfair selection criteria.

The Supreme Court struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 1994, which barred visually impaired candidates.
It also invalidated Rule 7 that mandated:
- Three years of practice or
- A minimum 70% aggregate marks in the first attempt for judicial candidates with disabilities.

The Court recognized indirect discrimination, stating: “Unequals cannot be treated the same, as uniform treatment can sometimes result in unjust outcomes.”
The Court emphasized that separate cut-offs must be maintained for visually impaired candidates in line with the Indra Sawhney case.

Candidates previously denied selection due to lack of separate cut-offs in Rajasthan will be considered in the next recruitment cycle.
Unfilled seats for persons with disabilities will be carried forward.

The case had representation from several senior and experienced advocates, including:
- For the Petitioners: Nishit Agrawal, Sarthak Rastogi, Kanishka Mittal, Shrey Kapoor, Upasna Agrawal, Siddhartha Iyer, and more.
- For the Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, Senior Advocate SK Rungta, and other legal experts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures judicial service opportunities for visually impaired candidates.
The judgment upholds the constitutional right to dignity and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.
The State must now implement inclusive measures for fair access to judicial services.