“Justice Has Vision: Supreme Court Clears the Path for Visually Impaired in Judicial Services”
Case Citation & Bench
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 300 | Judgment Date: 3 March 2025
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
Facts
A letter-petition dated 15 January 2024, sent by the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant to the Chief Justice of India, challenged the legality of amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994—specifically Rule 6A, which disqualified visually impaired and low-vision candidates, and Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements like three years of practice or 70% marks in the first attempt . The Supreme Court, taking suo motu cognizance of the petition, heard related petitions from Rajasthan as well .
Main Provisions at Stake
-
- Rule 6A, MP Judicial Service Rules, 1994: Excluded visually impaired / low-vision candidates from judicial service .
-
- Proviso to Rule 7: Prescribed extra eligibility conditions (practice requirement or cut-off marks) that disadvantaged PwD candidates .
-
- Statutory backdrop: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)—mandating non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and affirmative action for persons with disabilities .
Issues Involved
-
- Can visually impaired candidates be said to be “not suitable” for judicial service?
-
- Do Rule 6A and the Proviso to Rule 7 violate Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution, the RPwD Act, and the principle of substantive equality?
-
- Is the State obligated to provide reasonable accommodation, relaxations, or separate cut-offs for PwD candidates to ensure genuine inclusion? .
Main Principles Laid Down
-
- **Visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial services; Rule 6A is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes them .
-
- Rule 7’s extra constraints were struck down insofar as they impose unjustified procedural hurdles on PwD candidates .
-
- The right against disability-based discrimination, as enshrined in the RPwD Act, 2016, must be seen as having the stature of a fundamental right .
-
- The principle of reasonable accommodation is not discretionary, but a fundamental right integral to substantive equality and dignity under Article 21 .
-
- Indirect discrimination, such as via unreasonable cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be removed to ensure fairness .
-
- Public institutions must proactively create inclusive environments, including providing assistive technologies—not merely excuse their inaction .
Impact
This judgment is a game-changer—both symbolically and practically:
-
- It forces all courts, especially High Courts, to revise recruitment rules wherever discriminatory provisions exist.
-
- It sharpens the legal lens on reasonable accommodation, pressing the State to provide assistive tools, infrastructure, and separate cut-offs for PwD judicial aspirants .
-
- Establishes a precedent across India reinforcing disability justice, inspiring more inclusive policymaking in judicial appointments—and beyond.
-
- Emboldens aspirants with disabilities, reinforcing that merit is measured by mind and character—not sight .
Conclusion
With this judgment, the Supreme Court didn’t just deliver justice—it embodied its highest ideals. By striking down discriminatory recruitment rules, affirming reasonable accommodation as a right, and elevating disability equality to the core of our constitutional ethos, the Court has ensured that the judiciary begins to reflect the full spectrum of our society—not excluding those who simply see differently.
Very Short Summary
Summary: On 3 March 2025, the Supreme Court (Bench: Pardiwala J. & Mahadevan J.) in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025 INSC 300) declared that visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial services, struck down Rules 6A and 7 of MP Judicial Service Rules, and held that reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right, elevating disability-based equality to the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 and the RPwD Act, 2016