Can the blind see? Delhi High Court has a unique answer as it rules in favour blind candidate for AAI selection

The Delhi High Court on Thursday quashed the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI) rejection of a blind candidate for Junior Executive (Law), holding that the ability to “see” must be understood beyond the physical sense of sight [Mudit Gupta v Airport Authority of India and Anr].

A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul invoked Lady Smart’s quote from Jonathan Swift’s book Polite Conversation in Three Dialogues, “There’s none so blind as they that won’t see".

It posed a philosophical question “Can the blind see?” and drew a sharp distinction between the physical act of seeing and the functional capacity of perception and cognition. 

The Court said that the eye is merely a recorder of images and that real perception occurs in the brain, which processes, interprets and understands visual information. 

“The concept of “seeing”, inasmuch as it is stipulated, in the DEPWD [Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities] Notification as well as in the Advertisement [for the job], as a functional attribute, cannot be restricted to the ocular functionality of the eye,” the Court said. 

It explained that despite not possessing the ocular ability which enables the recording of images on the retinal wall of the eye, if a candidate is nonetheless able to perceive what is before him, he must be regarded as being possessed of the functional attribute of “sight”. 

“The assessment of the satisfaction, by the candidate who is blind, or suffers from low vision, of the functional requirement of “seeing”, vis-à-vis the suitability of the said candidate for appointment as JE (Law) has, therefore, to be expansive, and not myopic,” the Court said. 

It added that if the AAI’s stand on the inability of a person to “see” were to be applied in the present case, a Senior Advocate like SK Rungta (who is blind) would be ineligible to hold the post of Junior Executive (Law). 

“The proposition, to say the least, is ridiculous in the extreme,” the Court added. 

The High Court rendered these findings while dealing with three petitions filed by Mudit Gupta, a blind candidate, who applied for the Junior Executive (Law) post. The post was reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, including blindness and low vision.

Although he cleared the computer-based test, AAI later withheld and cancelled his selection over “inability to perform functional requirements” like reading, writing and seeing. This decision was taken based on medical assessment.

Gupta challenged this decision and Note 8 of the 4 January 2021 DEPwD notification, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which allowed employers to assess candidates’ suitability for functional requirements.

After considering the case, the High Court condemned the “myopic interpretation” by the Airports Authority, which denied appointment to Gupta despite his qualifications, on the ground that he did not meet the “functional requirement” of seeing.

Citing both the RPwD Act and the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in In re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the High Court held that no person with a disability can be disqualified through a medical board and that assessments must occur in an “enabling environment” with access to assistive devices.

Therefore, the Court set aside Gupta and two other candidates’ rejections and ordered the AAI to reassess their functional suitability keeping in mind the Supreme Court judgement and the High Court’s observations in the present judgement. 

“We emphasise that the aim and attempt must be at ensuring that the petitioners are recruited, and not at excluding them from appointment,” the Court added. 

However, the Court rejected the candidates’ challenge to Note 8. 

Senior Advocate SK Rungta with advocate Prashant Singh appeared for the petitioners. 

Advocates Digvijay Rai and Archit Mishra represented the AAI. 

Senior Panel Counsel Vinay Yadav, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Nidhi Raman with advocates Rahul Kumar Sharma, Ansh Kalra, Kamna Behrani and Siddharth Gautam, Akash Mishra and Arnav Mitta represented the Union of India. 

[Read Judgment]