Anchal Bhatheja became the first visually impaired woman lawyer to appear in a case before the Supreme Court on June 6..In her debut appearance before the Supreme Court, Bhatheja represented a petitioner with 100% visual impairment, challenging the constitutional validity of the recruitment advertisement dated May 16, 2025 for the Uttarakhand Judicial Service civil judge exam..Bhatheja, a 2023 BA LLB (Hons) graduate from National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, previously worked as an associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas before joining Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.In this conversation with Bar and Bench’s Ratna Singh, Bhatheja shares insights into her journey and what she expects from stakeholders in the legal profession to make it more accessible for persons with disabilities..Ratna Singh (RS): Can you walk us through how it felt to appear before the Supreme Court?.Anchal Bhateja (AB): Personally, it was both empowering and profoundly humbling. I lost my mother when I was 15, and ever since, I’ve carried a quiet hope that she would be proud of wherever life takes me. That day in court, I thought of her, my father and my sister, and my closest friends. They have been the architects of this journey.Professionally, it was a defining milestone - not just because I am blind, but because it was also my first appearance before any court. From the uncertainty that followed the loss of my eyesight to standing before the Supreme Court, it has been a long, transformative path. I’m grateful to my professors and mentors, who played a crucial role in shaping my thinking. But this is just the beginning. I hope to contribute meaningfully to both litigation and policy, and to help dismantle the structural ableism and patriarchy that still pervade legal institutions.As they say, when law is invoked to exclude, it should be challenged. When law is used to include, it should be celebrated, but never taken for granted..RS: What were some of the biggest accessibility challenges you faced during your legal education, and how did you overcome them?.AB: When I joined NLSIU, accessibility wasn’t embedded in the institution’s infrastructure or digital systems. The hostels, classrooms and online portals were not compliant with the accessibility mandates of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.There were some incredibly supportive faculty members - Prof Rahul Singh, Kunal Ambasta, Rashmi Venkatesan and Madhu KS - who helped me build momentum. But systemic change needed more. So, I co-founded the Disability Support Collective, a student-led initiative to serve as a bridge between disabled students and the administration. Through that, we lobbied for inclusionary reforms. Now there’s a tactile path in the library and a designated reading room, among other improvements. Progress is happening, but accessibility must be seen as a right, not an afterthought..RS: In your petition against the Uttarakhand Judicial Services notification, you’ve argued for broader inclusivity under the RPwD Act. What systemic changes do you think are most urgently needed in the judicial recruitment process for persons with disabilities?.AB: The most urgent issue is blanket ineligibility. Several state judicial service notifications still exclude whole categories of persons with disabilities, which contradicts Section 34 of the RPwD Act. The standard should be functional ability, not outdated perceptions of capability.Then there's the issue of access to preparatory resources. Many coaching centres are inaccessible, both physically and digitally. Copyright concerns are often used to deny blind candidates access to essential study materials. But the RPwD Act, ICT standards and public building accessibility norms apply to private actors as well.Examinations need overhaul, too. Many PwD candidates are denied reasonable accommodations simply because their disability status isn’t acknowledged in the application portal. Even the Uttarakhand notification wasn’t screen-reader compatible. From information dissemination to the layout of exam centres, every step must be accessible.Our broader argument is simple - don’t let prejudice masquerade as policy..RS: What do institutions and policymakers need to do in order to ensure that persons with disabilities are allowed to thrive in the legal arena?.AB: Institutions need to move beyond tokenism. Consult people with lived experience. Accessibility is not charity—it’s a statutory and moral obligation. Reasonable accommodation isn’t logistically difficult; it just needs intention.Educational institutions should focus on residential, academic and social inclusion. Employers should stop perceiving persons with disabilities as being incompetent. They should be afforded an equal opportunity and should also be provided with appropriate reasonable accommodation to perform at par with their able-bodied counterparts.For policymakers, disability inclusion must be a priority. Conversations should not stop at implementation of the RPwD Act and ramps and captchas. It should extend to social, cultural and recreational inclusion of persons with disabilities..Assistive tech like JAWS and VoiceOver have been vital; I use them for research, drafting and review. But their utility is limited when platforms aren't accessible. Government and legal websites often have unlabeled buttons, image-based CAPTCHAs, or poor navigation. Even major digital platforms like SCC Online and Google documents aren’t fully screen-reader friendly.Mentorship has made all the difference. I’ve been mentored by people like Dhvani Mehta, Amar Jain and Rahul Bajaj. They have seen me for the person I am and not for the disability I have..For disabled lawyers, what we need is a structural ecosystem of support. Law schools should teach screen reader skills, legal vocabulary and self-advocacy. Firms and chambers must offer mentorship, inclusive workspaces and real opportunities to grow. And for litigating lawyers with disabilities, there must be financial fellowships because navigating inaccessible court infrastructure often requires substantial costs.Ultimately, the real challenge is not the lack of tools, but the institutional reluctance to see inclusion as essential.
