Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India set aside certain High Court decisions concerning the recruitment of visually impaired and other persons with disabilities (PwD) in judicial services. The Bench, comprising Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, observed that exclusionary provisions in the recruitment rules of the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts were inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court held that persons with disabilities must be provided equal opportunities and reasonable accommodations in the judicial selection process and directed necessary modifications in the recruitment policies of both states.

The matter arose from several petitions, including suo motu writ proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court based on complaints regarding the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services. The petitions challenged the amendment of Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which removed reservations for blind and low-vision candidates. A similar challenge was raised regarding the recruitment policies of the Rajasthan High Court, which allegedly failed to provide separate merit lists and appropriate accommodations for PwD candidates.

The petitions stated that High Courts had either excluded specific disability categories from judicial recruitment or had not implemented proper accommodations during examinations. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had upheld the exclusion of visually impaired candidates, relying on medical opinions that such individuals would not be able to effectively discharge judicial functions. The Rajasthan High Court had not published a separate merit list for PwD candidates, raising concerns that their reservations were not effectively implemented.

The respondents, including the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, contended that the recruitment rules were framed in compliance with statutory provisions and that judicial officers were required to possess certain physical capabilities. The Madhya Pradesh High Court relied on an expert opinion from the Dean of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, which stated that individuals with blindness, cerebral palsy, or other disabilities might not be suitable for judicial roles due to the nature of their responsibilities.

The Supreme Court recorded that the exclusion of blind and low-vision candidates from judicial service was not justified under the RPwD Act, 2016. The judgment stated: "The law mandates equal opportunity in public employment, and any deviation from this principle must be backed by compelling reasons. The burden lies on the authorities to demonstrate that reasonable accommodations cannot be provided to enable persons with disabilities to discharge their duties."

The Court observed that judicial work does not necessarily require full physical faculties and that assistive technologies and human support systems can enable visually impaired judges to perform their duties effectively. It noted: "A judge's role is primarily intellectual, involving the application of legal reasoning, analysis of evidence, and interpretation of statutes. The denial of opportunities based on outdated notions of ability constitutes indirect discrimination."

Addressing the reliance on medical opinions, the Supreme Court stated: "A medical opinion cannot override the statutory right of persons with disabilities to participate in public employment. The RPwD Act requires public authorities to identify and eliminate barriers rather than create exclusions based on broad generalizations."

With respect to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations, the Court recorded that the failure to provide separate cut-offs for PwD candidates violated the principles of horizontal reservation. The judgment stated: "When reservations are provided, they must be implemented meaningfully. Merely mentioning reserved vacancies without ensuring a fair selection process defeats the legislative intent behind such provisions."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and writ petitions, setting aside the impugned High Court orders. It directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State Government to amend Rule 6A of the Judicial Service Rules, 1994, to reinstate reservations for blind and low-vision candidates, in compliance with the RPwD Act. The Court stated: "It is imperative that persons with visual disabilities be given an equitable opportunity in judicial recruitment, and the amendment to Rule 6A must reflect this commitment."

The Rajasthan High Court was directed to issue separate merit lists and ensure transparent selection criteria for PwD candidates in all future judicial service recruitments. The judgment noted: "Fair and transparent implementation of horizontal reservations cannot be reduced to mere formal compliance; it must be substantive."

Visually impaired candidates who had been denied opportunities in the previous selection process were permitted to participate in fresh recruitment without any additional disqualification. The Court stated: "Denial of opportunity in previous selection cycles due to arbitrary exclusions should not deprive candidates of their right to compete."

The Court also directed all High Courts to take steps to ensure reasonable accommodation of PwD candidates in judicial examinations, including the provision of assistive technologies and accessibility measures. The judgment noted: "Public institutions have a duty to proactively create an inclusive environment rather than perpetuate exclusion through inaction."

Case Title: In Re: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES and connected matters

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 300

Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 3496 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 3497 of 2025, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 484 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2024

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]