'No one can be denied consideration on account of disability': SC allows visually impaired persons in judiciary

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday held that no candidate can be denied consideration in judicial services solely on account of their disability, as reasonable accommodation must be provided to them in assessing their eligiblity in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

"It is high time that an anti- discrimination clause 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," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The court said the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognised in the RPwD Act 2016, is of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability.

"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," the bench said.

In its judgment in a batch of matters, including suo motu ones, the court struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, insofar as it excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.

The bench also struck down Rule 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, insofar as it applied to PwD candidates.

The said rule 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, the bench said.

In its decision, the bench said any indirect discrimination that results 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, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflects the principles of fairness and justice," the bench said.

The court said the RPwD Act, 2016 has acquired the status equal to that of a ‘super-statute’ and hence, contains the ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law.