A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The present appeal in Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors., 2026 INSC 53 concerns denial of public employment to a woman with disability under a recruitment notification issued in 2019. The appellant applied under the visually handicapped category. She was declared medically unfit during the Initial Medical Examination. The employer asserted that her disability did not meet the benchmark threshold. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the medical unfitness. Relief was moulded due to lapse of panel. The Division Bench reversed the decision citing expiry of the panel. The Supreme Court intervened. It constituted a Medical Board at AIIMS. The Board certified 57% disability, exceeding the statutory benchmark under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court restored substantive justice. It invoked Articles 14, 21, 41 and 142 of the Constitution of India. It applied the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. It addressed intersectionality of gender and disability. It directed creation of a supernumerary post. The judgment strengthens disability jurisprudence. It aligns corporate responsibility with constitutional morality.

Keywords: Reasonable Accommodation, Benchmark Disability, Article 142, Intersectionality, Corporate Social Responsibility, Substantive Equality.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026

iii) Judgment Date: 13 January 2026

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author: Justice J.B. Pardiwala

vii) Citation: 2026 INSC 53

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Articles 14, 21, 37, 39(a), 41, 142 of the Constitution of India; Sections 2(s), 2(y), 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

ix) Judgments overruled: Division Bench judgment in MAT 2325/2023 of Calcutta High Court

x) Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Service Law, Disability Law, Corporate Governance, Human Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arose from denial of appointment in a public sector undertaking. The appellant suffered visual disability and partial hemiparesis. She applied under reserved quota. She was called for document verification and IME. She was declared unfit. The employer disputed the percentage of disability. The learned Single Judge relied upon the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court emphasized statutory reservation. Relief was moulded prospectively. The Division Bench reversed on technical grounds. The Supreme Court examined functional disability. It constituted an expert board. The Board confirmed 57% disability. The Court held that expiry of panel cannot defeat constitutional rights. It relied on Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625. It reiterated harmony between Part III and Part IV. The judgment reflects transformative constitutionalism.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Coal India issued advertisement dated 16.12.2019. It invited applications for Management Trainees. The appellant applied under VH category. She possessed MBA in Human Resources. She produced disability certificates showing 60–70% disability. She cleared interview stage. She appeared for IME in September 2021. She was declared medically unfit. The ground cited additional neurological impairment. She challenged the decision before Calcutta High Court. Interim order reserved one vacancy. Single Judge quashed IME result. Division Bench reversed citing expiry of panel. Supreme Court ordered AIIMS evaluation. The Medical Board confirmed 57% disability. The disability exceeded 40% benchmark. The Court interacted with the appellant. It found her capable and determined.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether denial of appointment violated Sections 2(s) and 2(y) of RPwD Act, 2016.

ii) Whether expiry of recruitment panel defeats substantive rights.

iii) Whether reasonable accommodation extends beyond assistive devices.

iv) Whether Article 142 can be invoked for complete justice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the appellant possessed benchmark disability above 40%. They relied upon Section 2(s) RPwD Act. They argued that denial amounted to discrimination. They cited Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370. They contended benchmark cannot restrict entitlements unless expressly mandated. They invoked Articles 14 and 21. They asserted that medical board assessment was flawed. They emphasized right to livelihood under Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545. They argued that expiry of panel cannot cure illegality. They sought equitable relief under Article 142.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that disability was below benchmark. They argued that recruitment notification did not include multiple disability category. They contended that panel expired. They relied upon service jurisprudence limiting appointment after expiry. They argued that courts cannot rewrite advertisement. They maintained IME findings were binding. They opposed creation of supernumerary post.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 2(y) RPwD Act defines reasonable accommodation. It mandates necessary modifications. It prohibits undue burden test misuse.

ii) Section 2(s) RPwD Act defines person with disability. It does not mandate benchmark for all entitlements.

iii) Section 2(ze) RPwD Act defines universal design. It promotes inclusive infrastructure.

iv) Article 14 ensures equality before law.

v) Article 21 protects right to life with dignity.

vi) Article 41 directs State to secure right to work.

vii) Article 142 empowers complete justice.

I) PRECEDENTS ANALYSED BY COURT

i. The Court relied upon Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 775. It held reasonable accommodation requires purposive interpretation.

ii. It cited Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387. It rejected one size fits all approach.

iii. It relied on Om Rathod v. DGHS, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130. It held reasonable accommodation is gateway right.

iv. It cited Ch. Joseph v. Telangana SRTC, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592. It held alternative employment must be explored.

v. It referred to Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2024) 16 SCC 654. It emphasized inclusive equality.

vi. It invoked Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625. It balanced FR and DPSP.

viii. It cited Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257. It recognized intersectionality.

J) JUDGMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

i) Expiry of panel cannot defeat constitutional rights.

ii) Denial of employment violated RPwD Act, 2016.

iii) Reasonable accommodation is integral to substantive equality.

iv) Court can create supernumerary post under Article 142.

b) OBITER DICTA

i) Disability inclusion is part of Corporate Social Responsibility.

ii) ESG framework must include disability rights.

iii) Intersectionality requires multidimensional remedies.

c) GUIDELINES

The Court directed creation of supernumerary post.

It ordered suitable desk job.

It mandated universal design workstation.

It recommended posting at North Eastern Coalfields, Assam.

K) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment deepens disability jurisprudence. It harmonizes constitutional morality and statutory mandate. It affirms dignity over technicality. It recognizes gendered dimensions of disability. It aligns corporate governance with human rights. It strengthens purposive interpretation of welfare statutes. It expands Article 142 remedial power. It reinforces right to livelihood. It advances substantive equality.

L) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625

ii) Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370

iii) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

iv) Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2024) 16 SCC 654

b) Important Statutes Referred

i) The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

ii) The Constitution of India