Supreme Court Affirms Disability Cannot Bar Entry to Judicial Service
Last Updated on March 4, 2025 by Amit Patra
In a landmark ruling that redraws the boundaries of judicial service hiring, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that nobody can be discriminated against in the matter of judicial appointments based on physical disabilities alone, overturning discriminatory rules in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules.
The division bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has been delivering this revolutionary verdict while hearing a suo motu case on Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination Rules 1994, which had earlier excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.
“Blind candidates cannot be considered to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service and they can compete for selection for posts in judicial service,” ruled the Court, categorically rejecting the idea that blindness makes candidates unsuitable for judicial appointments.
At the center of the ruling is a rights-based approach, as Justice Mahadevan penned the opinion that “persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in the pursuit of judicial service opportunities.” The Court underscored that provision needs to be made for candidates who are disabled while determining their fitness under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The matter was consequent to a letter to then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by a visually impaired candidate’s mother complaining of exclusionary practices in selection as judges. Interpreting it into one of petitioning under Article 32, the Court pondered what reason it could be to withhold reservation quotas from visually challenged candidates in the 2022 Civil Judge Class-II examination.
The Court, while giving the verdict, also knocked down the requirements of Rule 7 of MP Service Rules such as an additional condition of three years of practice or scoring 70% marks in the very first attempt by differently abled candidates. Keeping the 70% aggregate marks as a requirement, the Court knocked down these additional obstacles.
Notably, the judgment relieves the victims all at once by ruling that PWD candidates who had appeared for earlier selection rounds are to be re-considered and candidates from Rajasthan who were left out because of non-utilization of different cut-offs can be given a chance in the subsequent recruitment process.
In cases, National Law School of India University Professor Sanjay Jain astutely noted that “Disability does not lie in my impairment but social barriers” – something which the Court has now constitutionally enshrined, holding that indirect discrimination by way of use of cutoffs or procedural barriers needs to be avoided to usher in substantive equality.
This option reflects a strong movement towards inclusive courts, acknowledging that diversity accommodation strengthens the justice system instead of making it weaker.
