Rights of persons with disabilities should be elevated as fundamental rights: Supreme Court

It is high time that the rights of persons with disabilities against disability-based discrimination is recognised as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held recently [Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the observation in a March 3 judgment in which the Court ruled that visually impaired candidates are eligible for appointment to judicial services in India.The Court added that the principle of reasonable accommodation requires that necessary accommodations be provided to individuals with disabilities before assessing their eligibility for jobs.The Court concluded that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service opportunities. Instead, the State must take affirmative action to establish an inclusive framework that ensures equal access and opportunity, the Court said. "Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability. Further, as extensively discussed, 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 judgment said. .The Court's ruling came after it took suo motu cognizance of a letter petition written by the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant in January 2024.The candidate's mother questioned a rule in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules that prevented visually impaired candidates from seeking an appointment in the State judicial services.The letter was converted into a suo motu plea by the top court..A similar issue was raised by a visually impaired law student from Rajasthan who told the Supreme Court that the Rajasthan High Court had failed to implement fair and transparent selection criteria for persons with disabilities in judicial service examinations. The student claimed that while reservations for persons with disabilities were mentioned in notifications, separate cut-offs and merit lists were not declared, effectively denying them fair consideration.Individual petitions were also filed by two candidates, Alok Singh and Ayush Yardi, challenging their exclusion from the judicial selection process in Madhya Pradesh due to disability-based barriers and lack of reasonable accommodations.The Supreme Court clubbed all these matters together and examined whether the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial services violated constitutional and statutory rights..The Court held that the principle of reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure but a fundamental right, essential for ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities. It further emphasized that this principle is an integral part of the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court added that the principle of reasonable accommodation not only ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities but also upholds their dignity by affirming that their suitability should be evaluated after providing necessary accommodations and an enabling environment."The spirit of the RPwD Act, 2016 would reveal 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," the Court said..The Court further explained that the principle of indirect discrimination is rooted in the fundamental notion that unequals cannot be treated the same, as uniform treatment can sometimes result in unjust outcomes.The Court highlighted the remarkable achievements of several visually impaired legal professionals to emphasize that disability is not a barrier to success in the judiciary. The Court recounted that Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob, a blind former South African Constitutional Court judge, effectively performed judicial duties using assistive technology. Justice David S Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals used clerks and readers to navigate legal materials. David Lepofsky, a blind Canadian lawyer, successfully argued over 30 cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court also referred to SK Rungta, a senior advocate in India, who played a crucial role in enforcing disability rights and Tomer Rosner, a blind legal advisor in Israel’s Parliament who contributed to disability legislation.The Court added that Jack Chen, a blind patent attorney at Google, excelled in corporate law. The Court also cited the examples of Yetnebersh Nigussie, an Ethiopian activist, and Judge Ronald M Gould, who has multiple sclerosis, all of whom proved that disabilities do not limit legal excellence..The Court concluded that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in judicial service selection. Consequently, Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, was struck down as unconstitutional.The Court also struck down the application of Rule 7 to PwD candidates, which required either three years of practice or a minimum of 70 per cent aggregate marks in the first attempt to become a successful judicial candidate..The Court further directed that candidates who were previously denied selection due to the lack of separate cut-offs in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Preliminary Examination will be considered in the next recruitment cycle and that the unfilled seats will be carried forward.The Court ruled that a separate cut-off must be maintained for visually impaired candidates, aligning with the precedent set in the Indra Sawhney case..Advocates Nishit Agrawal, Sarthak Rastogi, Kanishka Mittal, Shrey Kapoor, Upasna Agrawal, Siddhartha Iyer, Chhatresh Kumar Sahu, Apoorva Srivastava, Satyam Srivastava, Jabar Singh, Shubham, Aparna Mehrotra and Ravi Raghunath appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate SK Rungta and Advocates Nishit Agrawal, Arjun Garg, Kriti Gupta, Sagun Srivastava, Saaransh Shukla, Mukul Kumar, Sunny Choudhary, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rashmi Singhania, Alabhya Dhamija, Bhuvan Kapoor, Madhav Sinhal, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Sameer Shrivastava, Yashika Varshney, Palak Mathur, Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Priyanka Shrivastava, Prashant Singh, DK Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Anu Kushwaha, Manzoor Ali Khan Kacho, Praveen Bajaj, Tanuj Gulati, Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Ravi Kumar S, PS Sridhar Raj, Susmita Lal, Kamakhya Srivastava, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Savadikar Ankur Shirish, Viraj M Parakh, G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, Meenakshi Rawat, Harikrishnan P.V., C. Kavin Ananth, and Shyam Gopal along with Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared for respondents..[Read Judgement]