A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment of a three-judge Constitution Bench in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 222 : 2025 INSC 300, addresses whether visually impaired persons may be excluded from recruitment to judicial service by administrative rule-making and whether additional procedural barriers (higher cut-offs, practice period requirements, non-declaration of separate cut-offs) violate the guarantees of equality, dignity and reasonable accommodation under the Constitution of India read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and India’s treaty obligations.

The Court holds that visually impaired candidates cannot be assumed ‘not suitable’ for judicial office; the amendment to Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules (which excluded blind/low-vision persons) is struck down insofar as it bars educationally qualified visually impaired persons from applying. The Court applies a rights-based and substantive equality approach, invokes reasonable accommodation as a pre-requisite to assessing capability, recognises the RPwD Act as a quasi-constitutional “super-statute”, and invalidates parts of Rule 7 imposing further practice/first-attempt score requirements insofar as they apply to PwD candidates.

The judgment also permits lawful relaxation of minimum/ interview cut-offs for PwD where adequate candidates are otherwise unavailable and mandates separate cut-offs and merit lists for the PwD category at each stage. International disability jurisprudence and prior constitutional disability decisions (including Vikash Kumar and Jeeja Ghosh) are relied upon to frame the obligation of courts and appointing authorities to ensure an enabling process rather than exclusion by clinical labels.

Keywords: reasonable accommodation; substantive equality; RPwD Act, 2016; judicial recruitment; visually impaired; indirect discrimination; separate cut-off; relaxation in suitability; Article 21; UNCRPD.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Court acted on suo motu petitions and letter petitions challenging the 2023 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules which, by Rule 6A, effectively excluded visually impaired (blind/low vision) persons from reservation earmarked for PwDs and introduced procedural requirements in Rule 7 (three years’ practice or 70% first-attempt aggregate) that disproportionately affected PwD candidates. Petitioners relied on the RPwD Act, 2016 and international instruments (UNCRPD) to urge a rights-based approach, arguing the amendment imports a medical/clinical exclusionary test and relies on non-speaking medical opinions rather than assessing candidates after provision of reasonable accommodations.

Respondent authorities defended the amendment as an administrative measure grounded in medical opinion about the “type of work” required of a judge and invoked the proviso to Section 34 RPwD Act permitting exemptions after consultation. Interim relief had earlier permitted visually impaired candidates who qualified preliminarily to appear in mains; the core controversy involved validity of rule-making that implicitly presumes incapacity, the permissibility of additional eligibility hurdles, and the obligation to maintain separate cut-offs and relax standards when necessary to give effect to reservation.

The Court framed the dispute within constitutional principles equality, non-discrimination, dignity and evolving disability jurisprudence, emphasising that the social model of disability and the RPwD Act demand reasonable accommodation before capability is judged. The decision engages comparative and international materials and prior Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Vikash Kumar, Jeeja Ghosh) to hold that categorical exclusion and indirect discrimination cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Madhya Pradesh High Court amended the 1994 Judicial Service Rules (notably Rule 6A) in June 2023 to increase horizontal reservation but simultaneously restricted the benefit to certain locomotor categories while excluding blind and low-vision persons from judicial appointment reservation. Before this amendment, some reservations and concessions had been available to visually impaired candidates under prior state rules and court practice (including select earlier recruitments where blind/low-vision persons were considered).

A medical opinion obtained from the Dean of a Government Medical College opined that many categories under RPwD (including blindness/low vision, deafness, cerebral palsy, autism, intellectual disability, etc.) could not perform judicial duties; that view informed drafting. Consequent notifications and selection advertisements applied additional requirements Rule 7’s practice or 70% first-attempt score leading to rejection or non-selection of several PwD candidates. Petitioners (letter writers, visually impaired aspirants and intervenors, including Dr. Sanjay S. Jain) contended the rules were arbitrary, stereotyped, and contrary to RPwD Act and UNCRPD; respondents said exemption was lawful under second proviso to Section 34, and that the court should defer to the administrative assessment of “type of work” and medical opinion.

Parallel litigation concerned Rajasthan where non-declaration of separate PwD cut-offs raised claims that PwD were competitively disadvantaged because no separate merit list or cut-off had been maintained at each selection stage. Cases of unsuccessful candidates were thus clubbed with the suo motu petition for a comprehensive pronouncement about recruitment norms affecting PwD.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether visually impaired candidates can be treated as “not suitable” for judicial service by rule-making that excludes them from reservation?
ii. Whether the amendment to Rule 6A (MP Rules 1994) is constitutionally valid vis-à-vis Articles 14, 16 and the RPwD Act?
iii. Whether Rule 7’s additional requirement (three years’ practice or 70% aggregate in first attempt) indirectly discriminates against PwD and is therefore unconstitutional?
iv. Whether relaxation of minimum/interview cut-offs for PwD is permissible and under what conditions?
v. Whether separate cut-offs and merit lists must be maintained for PwD categories at each stage of examination?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners / Appellants submitted that Rule 6A and the impugned amendments institutionalise stereotyping by treating blindness/low vision as disqualifying for judicial office despite educational qualifications; they emphasized the RPwD Act’s guarantee of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation and relied on Vikash Kumar and Jeeja Ghosh to argue candidature must be assessed after accommodations.

They argued that reliance on a non-speaking medical opinion violated procedural fairness; that Rule 7 imposes indirect discrimination by privileging practice and first-attempt high scores which operate to the detriment of PwD who face systemic barriers; and that separate cut-offs and transparent reservation implementation are necessary to vindicate substantive equality. They urged the Court to treat RPwD Act as a super-statute and to declare the exclusion and extra hurdles invalid.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the impugned rules flow from the statutory proviso to Section 34 RPwD Act which allows exemption after regard to “type of work”; that a considered medical assessment indicated certain disabilities would impair judicial functioning; that administrative competence to frame eligibility must be respected; and that the High Court had not completely barred PwD interim measures allowed participation while the exemption was reasonable and necessary to protect the integrity and functioning of courts. They contended relaxation or separate cut-offs could not compromise judicial efficacy and that rule-making was not arbitrary but linked to job requirements.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Article 14, 15, 16 & 21, Constitution of India.
ii. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (ss.3, 20, 32/34 and scheme).
iii. Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (rr.6A,7,19 as amended).
iv. DOPT Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 (Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities).
v. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2007; International Principles on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities, 2019.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Court adopts a rights-based substantive equality frame and holds that visually impaired candidates cannot be precluded as “not suitable” for judicial service merely by rule-making anchored on clinical labels. The Court strikes down Rule 6A to the extent it bars educationally qualified visually impaired persons from applying. The judgment reasons that the RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination; clinical assessment without accommodating adjustments is an incomplete test of suitability.

Applying the test for indirect discrimination, the Court finds Rule 7’s additional requirement (three years’ practice or 70% first-attempt score) disproportionally impacts PwD and therefore is invalid in application to PwD; however the academic qualification elements including minimum aggregate may remain with applicable relaxations but without the practice/first-attempt stipulation. The Court permits lawful relaxation of minimum/interview marks for PwD where posts remain unfilled after selection in category, and cites the DOPT OM and rule enabling relaxation. On procedure, the Court requires separate cut-offs and merit lists for PwD at each stage (prelim, mains, interview) to ensure reservation translates into representation and to avoid opaque competition against able-bodied candidates.

The Court reasons that the RPwD Act functions as a quasi-constitutional super-statute and that India’s treaty obligations (UNCRPD) reinforce the duty to provide access and reasonable accommodation; it draws on domestic precedents (Vikash Kumar, Jeeja Ghosh) and international jurisprudence to frame the proper analytical steps identify barriers, provide RA, assess capability post-accommodation, allow reasonable relaxations consistent with administrative efficiency.

The Court remands or directs consequential reliefs: setting aside impugned rule fragments and orders, allowing affected candidates to be considered with applicable relaxations, and directing High Courts to publish separate cut-offs and maintain transparency.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that the assessment of suitability for public office cannot be predicated on categorical medical exclusion without first providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling assessment environment; where a law or rule has a disparate impact on PwD it amounts to indirect discrimination unless justified by a proportionate aim and means.

The RPwD Act and UNCRPD elevate the right against disability-based discrimination into a core normative constraint on administrative rule-making; consequent exclusions (as in Rule 6A) that remove educationally qualified PwD from consideration violate Articles 14/16 and the RPwD scheme. Relaxations and separate cut-offs are legitimate tools to effect substantive equality.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observes (non-decisorially) that availability of judicial staff, technological aids, scribes and procedural adjustments have enabled many PwD judges internationally and in India to perform judicial functions; the medical opinion relied upon was non-speaking and should not substitute a structured RA analysis. The Court urges legislative inclusion of disability as an express protected ground in the Constitution and commends best practices across High Courts (e.g., separate merit lists) to operationalize inclusion.

c. GUIDELINES

i. High Courts must declare separate cut-offs and merit lists for PwD at every stage.
ii. Before excluding a category, appointing authorities must conduct an RA assessment: identify accommodations, cost, efficacy, and test candidate post-accommodation.
iii. Rule-makers cannot rely on bare clinical reports to deny eligibility; reasons must be articulated and proportionate.
iv. Relaxation of minimum/interview marks is permissible where vacancies remain unfilled and where it does not unduly impair administrative efficiency; DOPT OM 15.01.2018 to be followed.
v. Affected candidates to be considered afresh where selection was impaired by the impugned rules; High Courts to ensure transparency and provide remedial appointments where eligible.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms a transformative, rights-based model: disability is to be addressed by dismantling institutional barriers and providing reasonable accommodation rather than presumptive exclusion. By treating the RPwD Act as a super-statute and insisting on procedural safeguards (separate cut-offs, transparent listings, RA assessments), the Court strikes a balance between maintaining the efficacy of the judiciary and upholding constitutional dignity and equality for PwD.

The decision will require rule revisions, administrative training in RA, and proactive measures by High Courts to structure selection processes that are inclusive yet rigorous. It also encourages legislative consideration to explicitly entrench anti-discrimination on disability within the constitutional text.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 222 : 2025 INSC 300.
2. Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 S.C.C. 370.
3. Jeeja Ghosh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 S.C.C. 761.
4. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. 3 S.C.C. 217.
5. V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 S.C.C. 237.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India (Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21).
2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3. DOPT Office Memorandum, Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, 15 Jan 2018.