# 2025 INSC 300

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 300
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 3496 and 3497 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2025-insc-300-38886
- **Pages:** 105

## Headnote

Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be 'not
suitable' for judicial service; Whether the amendment made in
Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution;
Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 violates the
equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation;
Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of
candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available,
after selection in their respective category; Whether a separate
cut-off is to be maintained and selection conducted accordingly
for visually impaired candidates.
Headnotes†
Judicial Services - Judicial Services Examination - Visually
impaired candidates, eligible to participate - Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994 - 2023 amendment - r.6A - Rajasthan
Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 - Challenge to amendment in r.6A, MP Judicial
Service Rules, 1994 excluding visually impaired and low vision
candidates from appointment in judicial service - Suo moto
cognizance of letter petitions - Amendment, if falls foul of the
constitution - Visually impaired candidates, if 'not suitable' for
judicial service:
Held: Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable'
for judicial service - They are eligible to participate in selection for
posts in judicial service - Amendment made in r.6A of the 1994
Rules falls foul of the Constitution, hence, struck down to the extent
it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally
qualified for the post to apply therefor - r.6A is against the guarantee
of substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act, 2016 and the
principle of reasonable accommodation therein - The impugned rule
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
223
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
based on the medical report of a doctor cannot have any place in
the disability jurisprudence that is ever evolving - Such conclusions
based merely on a clinical assessment of disability, innocent of the
principle of reasonable accommodation are not a fair and proper
assessment of the capability of judicial officers with disabilities while
participating in the selection to the post of judicial officers - Once
a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other
opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments,
assignments whether public or private, would automatically make
them eligible to participate for selection to the same - The principle
of legitimate expectation also stands attracted to this case as part
of the aspect of non-arbitrariness while furthering the equality
doctrine - India is a signatory to United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities and hence, under an obligation
to fulfil this object of inclusive equality. [Paras 42, 68(i)]
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - 2023 Amendment - r.7 -
Principle of indirect discrimination - The amendment proposed
to substitute r.7 prescribing the additional requirement, to
appear in the preliminary examination of the MP Judicial Service
examination, of either a three-year practice period or securing
an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt - Challenge
to the amendment and the consequential advertisement
dtd.17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of MP - Proviso to r.7,
if violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable
accommodation:
Held: r.7 to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either
a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70%
in the first attempt violates the equality doctrine and the principle
of reasonable accommodation - It is struck down in its application
to differently abled persons who have the requisite educatio

## Text

_Characters 0–39,949 of 226,014. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39949 for what follows._

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 222 : 2025 INSC 300
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024)
03 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be 'not
suitable' for judicial service; Whether the amendment made in
Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution;
Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 violates the
equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation;
Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of
candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available,
after selection in their respective category; Whether a separate
cut-off is to be maintained and selection conducted accordingly
for visually impaired candidates.
Headnotes†
Judicial Services - Judicial Services Examination - Visually
impaired candidates, eligible to participate - Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994 - 2023 amendment - r.6A - Rajasthan
Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 - Challenge to amendment in r.6A, MP Judicial
Service Rules, 1994 excluding visually impaired and low vision
candidates from appointment in judicial service - Suo moto
cognizance of letter petitions - Amendment, if falls foul of the
constitution - Visually impaired candidates, if 'not suitable' for
judicial service:
Held: Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be 'not suitable'
for judicial service - They are eligible to participate in selection for
posts in judicial service - Amendment made in r.6A of the 1994
Rules falls foul of the Constitution, hence, struck down to the extent
it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally
qualified for the post to apply therefor - r.6A is against the guarantee
of substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act, 2016 and the
principle of reasonable accommodation therein - The impugned rule
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
223
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
based on the medical report of a doctor cannot have any place in
the disability jurisprudence that is ever evolving - Such conclusions
based merely on a clinical assessment of disability, innocent of the
principle of reasonable accommodation are not a fair and proper
assessment of the capability of judicial officers with disabilities while
participating in the selection to the post of judicial officers - Once
a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other
opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments,
assignments whether public or private, would automatically make
them eligible to participate for selection to the same - The principle
of legitimate expectation also stands attracted to this case as part
of the aspect of non-arbitrariness while furthering the equality
doctrine - India is a signatory to United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities and hence, under an obligation
to fulfil this object of inclusive equality. [Paras 42, 68(i)]
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - 2023 Amendment - r.7 -
Principle of indirect discrimination - The amendment proposed
to substitute r.7 prescribing the additional requirement, to
appear in the preliminary examination of the MP Judicial Service
examination, of either a three-year practice period or securing
an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt - Challenge
to the amendment and the consequential advertisement
dtd.17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of MP - Proviso to r.7,
if violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable
accommodation:
Held: r.7 to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either
a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70%
in the first attempt violates the equality doctrine and the principle
of reasonable accommodation - It is struck down in its application
to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational
qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service - Applying
the test of indirect discrimination, the ease of practice as well as
the securing of marks cannot be said to be an equal condition to
both classes of citizens, viz., disabled and able-bodied lawyers as
the atmosphere in which they operate are not the same - r.7 will
be applicable to the PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the
educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including
the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be
determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates), but without the
requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they
should have three years' practice - Impugned order dtd. 01.04.2024
224
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
passed by the High Court and the consequential notification
dtd.17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
set aside as against the PwD candidates - The appellant-'AY' in
SLP (C) No.12179 of 2024 and similarly placed persons are entitled
to be considered for participating in the selection process in the light
of this decision. [Paras 46, 67.1(iii), 68(ii)]
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 - 2023 Amendment -
r.19 - Relaxation in cut-off marks - Relaxation in assessing the
suitability of PwD candidates when adequate PwD candidates
are not available, after selection in their respective category -
Permissibility:
Held: Relaxation of minimum marks is permissible in law - PwDs are
to be identified as a separate class in itself and therefore, some kind
of benefits has to be extended to them with respect to eligibility which
was extended similarly to other vertical reserved class - Relaxation
in marks can be given to PwD candidates - This relaxation in
minimum marks does not dilute the efficiency in administration - In
view of this and the 1994 Rules as amended on 22.06.2023 which
empowers the High Court with the power to relax, relaxation of
marks in interview is possible for PwD candidates - Furthermore,
the Office Memorandum No. 36035/02/2017-Estt (Res) [Reservation
for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities] dated 15.01.2018 issued
by Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department
of Personnel & Training also provides for relaxation in standards
of suitability - Therefore, relaxation in minimum cut-off marks is
permissible, especially when there is a specific power of relaxation
available to the appointing authority - Relaxation can be done
in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not
available after selection in their respective category, in the light of
existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this
regard, as in the present case. [Paras 52, 59, 62, 67.1(iv)]
Judicial Services - Judicial Services Examination -
Visually-impaired candidates - Separate cut-off for - Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Rajasthan Judicial Service
Rules, 2010 - rr.10, 41:
Held: A separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made
accordingly for visually-impaired candidates - Further, maintaining
and operating a separate cut-off list is mandatory for each category,
which includes PwD category as well - When the Rules considered
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
225
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
the PwD as a separate category and provided them with reservations,
it is indispensable on the part of the authorities concerned to declare
separate cut-off marks for PwD category at each stage to ensure
that those similarly placed candidates are adequately represented in
the service fulfilling the very purpose of reservation - Non-disclosure
of cut-off marks leads to a situation where such candidates may not
be adequately represented in the judicial service, which is against
the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 - Writ petitioners in WP (C)
Nos. 484 and 494 of 2024 contending that separate cut-off was not
applied in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examinations
and consequently were not selected for the main examination, are
entitled to be considered in the light of this decision in the next
recruitment, if they so apply to the post notified along with the
post unfilled now and carried forward to the next recruitment by
maintaining a separate cut off and merit list for PwDs - Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions
of Service) Rules, 1994. [Paras 63.3, 67.1(v), (vi), 68(iv)].
Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities (PwBD), if distinct:
Held: For the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with
disabilities, particularly in employment and more specifically in
respect of the issues covered in the present judgment, there is no
distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons
with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) - Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994 - Judicial Services. [Paras 63.3, 67.1(v), (vi)].
Disability Rights - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 41 - Right to
dignity u/Article 21 - Principle of reasonable accommodation -
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Rights-based
approach - Role of Constitutional Courts:
Held: Reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure
but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for
PwD, forming part of the right to dignity as guaranteed u/Article 21 of
the Constitution - The 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution
of India made it a Constitutional obligation for the State to make
provisions for safeguarding the interest of the weaker section of the
society, including 'handicapped and mentally retarded' - State has
an obligation to apply the Directive Principles of securing a social
order in promotion of the welfare of the people - Article 41 of the
Constitution is in the nature of a Directive Principle and it imposes
226
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a duty on the State to make an effective provision, inter alia, for
public assistance to disabled persons - RPwD Act, 2016 reveals
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 -
Significance of judgement in Vikash Kumar case, stated - Constitution
of India is blind to the differences between able-bodied and differently
abled citizens in matters of providing equal opportunity to all citizens
in all spheres of life, including employment, and envisages equality
and non-discrimination - This principle is to be enforced by the
Constitutional Courts by adopting a rights-based approach providing
an enabling environment and atmosphere and ensuring that PwD
are provided with equal opportunities, and accommodation that
they need and deserve in order to make sure that they can lead
their lives with dignity, realising their fullest potential without facing
discrimination. [Paras 3, 40, 41]
Disability Rights - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
a 'super-statute' - Scheme, discussed - Elevating right against
disability based discrimination to a fundamental right - Need for:
Held: RPwD Act, 2016 has acquired the status equal to that
of a 'super-statute' and hence, contains the ingredients of a
quasi-constitutional law - The RPwD Act, 2016 marks a significant
legislative shift by expanding the rights of PwDs and broadening
the recognized categories of disabilities - It ensures equality and
non-discrimination, mandates reasonable accommodation, and
prohibits barriers to community life, education, employment, and
access to justice - It also provides for social security measures,
inclusive education, reservations in higher education and
employment, and protection from cruelty and exploitation - It also
imposes clear responsibilities on the State and other stakeholders
in this regard - The right against disability-based discrimination, as
recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, needs to be seen of the same
stature as a fundamental right, ensuring that no candidate is denied
consideration solely on account of their disability. [Paras 36, 67]
Judicial Services - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 - Principle of reasonable accommodation - Substantive
equality:
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
227
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
Held: The principle of reasonable accommodation as enshrined
in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the
RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to
PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility - Any indirect
discrimination resulting in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through
rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order
to uphold substantive equality - The commitment to ensuring equal
opportunity necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where
merit is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations
required, fostering judicial appointments that truly reflect the principles
of fairness and justice - Disability Rights - International Disability
Jurisprudence/International Conventions. [Para 67]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.34 - Challenge
to the notification dtd.18.02.2023 in so far as it related to
non-selection of the appellant in SLP(C) No.7683 of 2024 on
the vacant post of Physically Handicapped Quota under the
Unreserved category on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division
(Entry Level) - High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
the benefit u/s.34 and Clause 11 of the Office Memorandum dated
15.01.2018 cannot be granted to the appellant - Correctness:
Held: Impugned order and the notification dated 18.02.2023 are set
aside as far as the appellant 'AS' and similarly placed persons are
concerned - Thus, the appellant and similarly placed persons who
had participated in the selection process are entitled to be considered
in the light of this decision and they may be appointed, if otherwise
eligible in the vacant posts after applying applicable relaxation as
provided for in the executive orders. [Para 68 (iii)]
Constitution of India - Article 15 - United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016 - ss.32, 34:
Held: While Article 15 of the Constitution bars the State from
discriminating against any citizen of India on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them, the specific
ground of 'disability' is conspicuous by its absence - The fact that
'disability' as a ground is not specifically stated under Article 15 of
the Constitution, would not mean that the same is not part of the
constitutional obligations of the State - ss.32 and section 34, RPwD
Act, 2016 indicates that similar to the State's obligations to provide
for special protection including in the form of reservation for socially
and educationally backward classes in educational institutions
228
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
as well as in employment as stated in Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution, the State has taken up the obligation of providing similar
protection including reservation in respect of PwD - However, now an
anti-discrimination clause ought to be included in the Constitution
with a specific provision that the State shall not discriminate on the
grounds of mental or physical disability in line with the principles
as stated in the RPwD Act, 2016 - Disability Rights. [Paras 34, 35]
Disability Rights - International Disability Jurisprudence -
Discussed - United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, 2007. [Paras 37, 38]
Disability Rights - Judicial Services - Distinguished/
accomplished lawyers and judges with disabilities - Exemplary
achievements of, enumerated - Reasonable accommodations
for PwD, necessity. [Para 65]
Case Law Cited
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992)
Supp. 3 SCC 217 - followed.
Union of India v. National Federalism of the Blind [2013] 9 SCR
1023 : (2013) 10 SCC 772; Jeeja Ghosh and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. [2016] 4 SCR 638: (2016) 7 SCC 761; Vikash
Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others [2021]
12 SCR 311: (2021) 5 SCC 370; Col. Nitisha v. Union of India
[2021] 4 SCR 633: 2021 SCC online SC 261; Taniya Malik v. High
Court of Delhi [2018] 10 SCR 348 : (2018) 14 SCC 129; Justice
Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [2014] 4 SCR
113 : (2014) 14 SCC 383; Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator
Union Territory of Delhi & Ors. [1981] 2 SCR 516 : (1981) 1 SCC
608; Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, AIR Online 2018 SC 544;
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India [2021] 13 SCR 823 :
(2023) 2 SCC 209 - relied on.
Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Others v. Kerala Water Authority and
Others [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 562 : AIR 1990 SC 2228; V. Surendra
Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2019] 1 SCR 954 : (2019) 4 SCC
237; Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors. [2018] 7 SCR 379 : (2018) 10 SCC 1; Aryan Raj v. State
(UT) of Chandigarh (2021) 19 SCC 813; Haridas Parsedia v.
Urmila Shakya [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 476 : (2000) 1 SCC 81; Om
Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC Online
SC 3130; Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India [2007] 12 SCR
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
229
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
991 : (2008) 3 SCC 1; Dr. Kavita Khamboj v. High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and others [2024] 2 SCR 1136 : (2024) 7 SCC 103;
Abhimeet Sinha and Others v. High Court of Judicature at Patna
and others [2024] 6 SCR 530 : (2024) 7 SCC 262 - referred to.
Rashmi Thakur v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR
Online 2018 MP 551; V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2015) 4 Madras Law Journal 513; Madhu v. Northern Railway,
Order dated 17.01.2018 in LPA.640/2017; M. Sameeha Barvin v.
Government of India (2021) 1 Madras Law Journal 466; Neetu
Devi Singh v. High Court of Allahabad, 2008 (2) AWC 1541;
Rajinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012 SCC Online
P&H 2017; Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University
2012 SCC Online Del 4788 - referred to.
Walter E. Washington, etc., et. al. v. Alfred E. Davis et al. 426
U.S. 229; S. Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law, European
Court Reports 2008 1-05603; City Council of Pretoria v. Walker
SACC-1998 (2) SA 363; Mahlangu v. Minister of Labour [2020]
ZACC 24; Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons - Sears
"Ontario HRC", MANU/SCCN/0009/1985; Orsus v. Croatia [2010]
ECHR 337; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom
[1985] ECHR 7; National Capital Alliance on Race Relations v.
Canada (Health and Welfare), 1997 28 C.H.R.R.D / 179 (Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal); Van Raalte v. The Netherlands [1997]
ECHR 6; Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway
Company [1987] 1 SCR 1114 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
William N. Eskridge Jr and John A. Ferejohn, super-statutes, 50
Duke Law Journal 1215-1276 (2001); Sandra Fredman, "substantive
Equality Revisited" Vol.14(3)., International journal of constitutional
law (2016) 712-738 - referred to.
List of Acts
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules 1994; Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016; Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010; Constitution of
India; Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2017; Madhya Pradesh District Court Establishment (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules 2016; Madhya Pradesh Higher
Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
230
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2017; Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Amendment)
Act, 2023; Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970; Himachal Pradesh
Judicial Services Rules, 2004; Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service
(2nd amendment) Rules, 2016; Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service
(Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007; Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995.
List of Keywords
Visually impaired candidates; Appointment in judicial service;
Judicial service examination; Exclusion of blind persons from
judiciary; Exclusion of visually impaired, low vision candidates
from appointment in judicial service; Suo-moto cognizance;
Letter petitions; Disability rights; Persons with Disabilities
(PwD); Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD); Deafness;
Cerebral palsy; Autism; Intellectual disability; Specific learning
disability; Mental illness; Relaxation in assessing the suitability
of PwD candidates; Separate cut-off; Non-declaration of cut-off
marks; Test of indirect discrimination; Principle of reasonable
accommodation; Reservation of posts for PwD; Transparency;
Fairness; Equal opportunity; Dignified life; Fundamental rights;
Principle of legitimate expectation; Right against disability based
discrimination; Mandamus; Non-discrimination; Doctrine of
equality; Equality for PwD; Right to dignity; Safeguarding interest
of weaker section of society; Medical or clinical assessment;
Inclusivity; Non-arbitrariness; Eligibility criteria; Separate class;
Minimum qualifying marks; Public employment; Relaxation in
minimum marks; PH category; Unreserved category; Preliminary
examination; Horizontal reservation; Main examination; General
category; Fully-abled candidates; Recruitment process; Unreserved
category of the physically handicapped quota; Art.14 of the
Constitution; Art.15 of the Constitution; Art.16 of the Constitution;
Art.19 of the Constitution; Art.21 of the Constitution; Art.253 of
the Constitution; Rights-based model of disability; United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007;
International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for
Persons with Disabilities 2019; Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties, 1969; United Nations Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities; Proclamation on the Full Participation
and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and
Pacific Region; Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
231
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
1993-2002; Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
Pacific; International human rights law; UNCRPD Committee;
Ontario Human Rights Code; European Court of Human Rights;
Human Rights Tribunal of Canada; Department of Empowerment
of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan).
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 2 of 2024
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
In Re: Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services
With
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 3496
and 3497 of 2025 and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 484 and 494 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion.
Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sr. Adv., Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka
Mittal, Siddhartha Iyer, Utkarsh Sonkar, Shrey Kapoor, Ms.
Upasna Agrawal, Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Jabar Singh, Prmoad
Kumar, Apoorva Srivastava, Vishvajeet Vijaykumar Shinde,
M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., Ravi Raghunath, Manan Daga, Nakul
Patwardhan, Karan Singh, Ms. Kaarunya Lakshmi, Ms. Sejal Jain.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G.,
S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv., Arjun Garg, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Ponnam Mahesh
Babu, Brahma Prakash Soni, Mukul Kumar, Sunny Choudhary,
Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Alabhya Dhamija,
Bhuvan Kapoor, Madhav Sinhal, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Shyam
Gopal, Sameer Shrivastava, Prashant Singh, D.K. Garg, Abhishek
Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta,
Ravi Kumar S., Ms. Susmita Lal, Kamakhya Srivastava, Gautam
Narayan, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma,
Savadikar Ankur Shirish, G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran,
C.Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan P.V., C. Kavin Ananth.
232
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted. This judgment is organized under the following heads
for easy reference and understanding:
SL.
NO.
HEADS
PARAGRAPHS
I
INTRODUCTION
02 - 03
II
RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
04 - 8.1
III
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS & SUBMISSIONS
OF LEARNED COUNSELS
09 - 28
A
SUO MOTU W.P. (CIVIL) NO.2 OF 2024
[IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY
IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES VS. THE
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH & ORS]
09 - 12.5
A.1
SUBMISSIONS OF DR. SANJAY JAIN -
INTERVENOR
13 - 13.11
B
SUO MOTU W.P. (CIVIL) NO.6 OF 2024
[IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES' CANDIDATES IN
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES VS.
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS]
14 - 16
C
AYUSH YARDI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND
ANOTHER [SLP(C) NO.12179 OF 2024]
17 - 21
D
ALOK SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [SLP(C)
NO.7683 OF 2024]
22 - 24.2
E
MANVENDRA SINGH RATHORE & ORS.
ALISHA KHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF
RAJASTHAN & ORS. [W.P.(C) NOS.484
AND 494 OF 2024]
25 - 28
IV
ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION
29 - 29.1
V
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
30 - 66
A
EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
& NEED FOR ELEVATING RIGHT AGAINST
DISABILITY - BASED DISCRIMINATION TO
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
33 - 36
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
233
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
B
I N T E R N A T I O N A L D I S A B I L I T Y
JURISPRUDENCE, DOCUMENTS AND
COMMITMENT
37 - 38
C
R P w D A C T - P R O V I S I O N S A N D
GUARANTEES
39
D
JUDICIAL APPROACH - PROGRESS MADE
THUS FAR
40
E
RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH
41 - 42
F
INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION
43 - 46
G
RELAXATION IN SELECTION CRITERIA
& SEPARATE CUT-OFF FOR DISABLED
CANDIDATES - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE
47 - 62
H
SHINING EXAMPLES TO SHOW- 'IT CAN
BE DONE'
65 - 66
VI
CONCLUSION
67 - 67.1
VII
RESULT
68 - 69
I.
INTRODUCTION
2.
January 4, 2019 was chosen as the World Braille Day by the United
Nations to commemorate the birthday of Louis Braille and to remember
him as the man who invented the system 'Braille' in 1829, which is
used by the visually impaired for reading and writing, till date. Louis
Braille who became completely blind in both eyes by the age of five,
had developed this system by himself at the age of 20 inspired by
the communication system devised by Captain Charles Barbier of
the French Army, and offered professorship at the National Institute
for Blind Youth, Paris, where he taught history, geometry and algebra
while also having an ear for music. Almost two centuries ago from
now, Louis Braille had understood that what the visually impaired
needed was not pity or sympathy but accommodation and an enabling
atmosphere in which communication played an important role. In his
own words, "access to communication in the widest sense is access
to knowledge, and that is vitally important for us if we (the Blind) are
not to go on being despised or patronized by condescending sighted
people. We do not need pity, nor do we need to be reminded we
are vulnerable. We must be treated as equals and communication
is the way this can be brought about." His words are a poignant
234
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and resounding reminder of the fervent appeal of Persons with
Disabilities1 to be afforded equal opportunities so as to enable them
to enjoy a life of dignity and progress in all spheres on par with their
able-bodied counterparts.
3.
"Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes
among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before
the law." This prophetic dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall
Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) can well be said to capture
the spirit of what we are called upon to decide today. To draw a
parallel, the Constitution of India is blind to the differences between
able-bodied and differently abled citizens in matters of providing equal
opportunity to all citizens in all spheres of life, including employment,
and envisages equality and non-discrimination. This principle is to
be enforced by the Constitutional Courts, by adopting a rights-based
approach, providing an enabling environment and atmosphere,
and ensuring that PwD are provided with equal opportunities, and
accommodation that they need and deserve in order to make sure
that they can lead their lives with dignity, realising their fullest potential
without facing discrimination. Holding this concept of equality and
non-discrimination as the basic foundation on which all issues arising
from the cases on hand are to be decided, we proceed further to
deal with them.
II.
RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 2/2024
4.
On 07.03.2024,2 this Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a letter
petition dated 15.01.2024, which was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India, by the mother of a judicial aspirant who is a visually
1
For short, "PwD"
2
1. The Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules
1994 have been amended, as a consequence of which, Rule 6A excludes visually impaired and low
vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service.
2. A letter petition has been converted into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
3. We direct issuance of notice, returnable in two weeks to:
(i) The Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
(ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh; and
(iii) The Union of India.
4. We request Mr Gaurav Agarwal, senior counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in the matter. At
this request, Mr Ravi Raghunath, counsel shall stand nominated as Advocate-on-Record to assist him.
5. List the Petition on 1 April 2024.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
235
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
impaired candidate, challenging the legality of the Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules 1994, as amended on 23.06.2023, whereby Rule 6A excludes
visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in
the judicial service. According to the letter petitioner, the action of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust
and violative of the spirit of the Constitution. Hence, she requested
this court to examine the matter and protect the interests of visually
impaired candidates ensuring their right to equal opportunity and a
dignified life, as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20163.
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 6/2024
5.
This case arises from a letter petition sent by a visually impaired
law student to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, requesting to
take necessary steps to ensure transparency, fairness and equal
opportunity for persons with disabilities candidates in judicial service
examinations in Rajasthan.
Appeal arising from SLP(C) No.12179/2024
6.
Challenge is to the final order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 30465 of 2023,
whereby, the High Court rejected the challenge to the amendment
in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 and the consequential notification
dated 17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as
they do not provide a specific exemption for persons with disabilities,
and consequential direction to the respondent authorities to give
relaxation of Rule 7 to the appellant herein.
Appeal arising from SLP(C) No.7683 of 2024
7.
Challenge is to the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.11175/2023.
The said writ petition was filed by the appellant (i) to set aside the
notification dated 18.02.2023 as far as it relates to non-selection of
the appellant on the vacant post of Physically Handicapped Quota
under the Unreserved category on the post of Civil Judge, Junior
3
For short, "the RPwD Act, 2016"
236
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Division (Entry Level), and (ii)to direct the respondent authorities to
grant appointment to the appellant on the post of Civil Judge, Junior
Division (Entry Level) under Physically Handicapped candidate under
the Unreserved category along with all consequential benefits. By
the order impugned herein, the High Court dismissed the writ petition
by observing that the benefit under Section 34 of the RPwD Act,
2016 and Clause 11 of the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018,
cannot be granted to the appellant herein.
W.P. (C) Nos. 484 and 494 of 2024
8.
To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the High Court of Rajasthan,
to publish separately and declare the results and cut off marks for
persons with benchmark disabilities4 category for the Rajasthan
Judicial Service Examinations at every stage viz., Preliminary, Mains,
Interviews and final result.
I.A.No.242002 of 2024 in W.P(C) No. 494 of 2024
8.1. In addition to the above reliefs, the petitioner sought the following
prayers, by way of this amendment application:
(i)
To issue a declaration that the Rajasthan Judicial Service
Rules, 2010 are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India insofar as they do not provide for
the declaration of a separate merit list and/or cut-off for
persons with benchmark disabilities' candidates despite
the candidates constituting a separate class of candidates
competing amongst themselves;
(ii)
To issue a Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1
to amend the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 to
bring them in accordance with Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and Office Memorandum issued
by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt.
of India time and again to include specific provisions for
the declaration of a separate merit list for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities;
4
For short, "PwBD"
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
237
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
(iii) To issue a Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to
hold the separate main examinations for the candidates
of persons with benchmark disabilities category including
the petitioner herein, for selection in the Rajasthan Judicial
Service Examination, 2024;
(iv) To issue a Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1
to declare the results for the candidates of persons with
benchmark disabilities category separately for each stage
of shortlisting for the purposes of selection in the Rajasthan
Judicial Service Examination, 2024.
III.
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS & SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED
COUNSELS
A.
IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL
SERVICES VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUO MOTU WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2 OF 2024]
9.
Based on the letter petition dated 15.01.2024 given by the mother
of a visually impaired candidate to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of
India, challenging the amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1994, whereby reservation granted in favour of blind and
low vision persons, was withdrawn, this Court has registered the
captioned suo motu Writ Petition.
10. The respondents in this suo motu writ petition are the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Government of Madhya Pradesh and Union of
India. Vide order dated 15.04.2024, this Court impleaded one Dr.
Sanjay S. Jain, a professor of Law at the National Law School of
India University, Bangalore, with over 25 years of teaching experience
and totally blind since birth, as an intervenor, to assist the Court in
connection with the present issue concerning the appointment of
visually impaired persons as Judges in District Judiciary.
Submissions of the Letter Petitioner
11. According to the letter petitioner, Rule 12(1)(a) of the Madhya
Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 framed by
the Madhya Pradesh Government in exercise of power conferred
238
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
under Article 101 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provides for reservation
in favour of blind and low vision persons. In light of the judgment in
Rashmi Thakur v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others5 and
the Madhya Pradesh District Court Establishment (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules 2016, reservation was given to visually
impaired persons. Other States, such as Haryana, Delhi, etc., also
provide reservation for the same category. Hence, the amendment
made in Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, is in violation of Articles
14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also stated in
the said letter petition that the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted
reservation for blind and low vision candidates in the Judicial service
vacancies of 2021 and therefore, removing such reservation for
the present would amount to unjust discrimination between those
selected in the same category before 2023 and those after. Stating
so, the letter petitioner requested this Court to consider the issue
and protect the interests of the visually impaired candidates.
Submissions on the side of High Court of Madhya Pradesh
12. It was submitted that the impugned rule viz., clause 6A of the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1994 deals with reservation of posts for PwD in recruitment to
the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) and the same reads as under:
"6A. 6% posts shall be horizontally reserved, only at
the time of initial recruitment of persons suffering from
locomotor disability including leprosy cured, dwarfism,
muscular dystrophy and acid attack victims, excluding
cerebral palsy, as specified under S.34 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016).
Provided that if such reserved posts or any of them are not
filled in a given recruitment year due to non-availability of
suitable students, such vacancy shall be carried forward
into the succeeding recruitment year and if no suitable
candidate is available, then they shall be treated as
unreserved posts."
5
AIR ONLINE 2018 MP 551
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
239
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
When the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 20176 were being framed, an opinion
was sought from the then Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur, (An Autonomous Government
Medical College) District Jabalpur (M.P.) on the suitability of PwD as
stipulated in the RPwD Act, 2016 for the post of District Judge (Entry
Level). The Dean, vide letter no. 6417 dated 04.10.2017 opined that
a person suffering from certain disabilities, such as, being blind or
having low vision, deafness or hard of hearing, cerebral palsy, autism,
intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness and
multiple disabilities under clauses (a) to (d) of the RPwD Act, 2016
cannot perform the duties of a Judge in the Higher Judicial Service.
In light of the opinion given by the Dean, the provision providing for
2% reservation to persons suffering from disabilities mentioned in
Cl (a), (b), (c - cerebral palsy only), (d) and (e) of the RPwD Act,
2016 was proposed to be removed from the MPHJS Rules, 2017.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Commissioner, Disabilities
in terms of the second proviso to Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016
and as per the exemption given by the State Government, Department
of Social Justice and Disabilities Welfare Department, the MPHJS
Rules, 2017 were published and made applicable with effect from
13.03.2018.