Supreme Court upholds order calling for lawyer with bipolar disorder to be appointed as judicial officer

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Delhi High Court judgment which called for a successful Delhi Judicial Services candidate who suffered from Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD) to be appointed as a judicial officer [Akanksha Singh v. High Court of Delhi & Ors]..On the last date of hearing in the matter, the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh had called for a Medical Board to be constituted by the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), to opine whether lawyer Bhavya Nain would be capable of efficiently discharging his duties as a judicial officer. After perusing the report submitted by the Medical Board, the Court noted,"The Board has opined that Mr. Bhavya Nain suffers from Bipolar Affective Disorder but has been in remission (asymptomatic) since August, 2018. At present he is stated not to have any disability and there is nothing to indicate that he will not be able to discharge his responsibilities to the post of Judicial officer for which he has been selected. He has, however, been advised to continue his regular treatment and follow-up with his treating Psychiatrist.".Bhavya Nain had appeared for the Delhi Judicial Services Examination in 2018 but his candidature under the 'Person with Disabilities' category was rejected, as his disability (BPAD) was not considered 'permanent' in nature. He thus approached the Delhi High Court challenging the same..Before the High Court, it was argued by the respondents that Nain's mental illness renders him unfit to carry on duties of a judicial officer. However, the judgment dated May 8, 2020 pointed out the contradictions in the arguments of the respondents, noting, "On one hand, the respondent has trivialised the ailment of the petitioner by stating that it is not of permanent nature, and that he would cease to be a PwD with bench mark disability, at some point of time, with his disability falling below 40%. On the other hand, in the aforesaid paragraphs, the respondent states that the condition of the petitioner is so severe that he may not be able to handle the stressful job of a Judicial Officer.".The Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula thus held that Nain is undisputedly an eligible candidate under the 'mental illness' category and should be inducted immediately. This judgment was then challenged before the Supreme Court..Delhi HC sets aside rejection of candidature of successful DJS candidate suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder.The top court has now upheld the Delhi High Court judgment, albeit for "little different reasons as set out in the impugned order." In a previous order, the Bench expressed reservations regarding the manner in which the High Court came to its conclusion."Our reservation, however, qua the impugned judgment is the part in which the Division Bench embarked thereafter referring to various medical literatures to come to its own conclusion that the performance of the judicial functions which should be assigned to the respondents as a consequence of his appointment could be performed without any impairment even if the candidate has a BPAD. We will hasten to add that we are not opining to the contrary but we do believe that this was not a subject the court could have delved into to come to a conclusion..." The Court opined that a reference should have been made to a Medical Board which would determine whether Nain could be said to be capable of efficiently discharging duties as a judicial officer..[Read order]