On March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that significantly advances inclusivity within the judiciary. A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan addressed the constitutionality of Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired candidates in judicial services. The Court struck down Rule 6A, declaring it unconstitutional and affirming that visually impaired and low-vision individuals are fully eligible to participate in judicial service examinations.
This suo motu action was initiated in response to a letter petition received in January 2024 from the mother of a visually impaired law graduate aspiring to join the judiciary. The Court emphasized that denying opportunities based on disability contravenes the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Justice Mahadevan, authoring the judgment, underscored that reasonable accommodation is not discretionary but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for persons with disabilities. This decision not only invalidates discriminatory provisions but also mandates the declaration of separate cut-off marks and merit lists for persons with disabilities at every stage of the examination process, ensuring transparency and fairness in judicial appointments. This blog highlights the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing visually impaired candidates to join judicial services by striking down Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Service Rules.
Read Also: False Promise of Marriage: Bombay HC Upholds Conviction
Background of the Case
In January 2024, the mother of a visually impaired law graduate, Alok Singh, wrote to then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighting that her son was barred from applying to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination due to Rule 6A of the 1994 recruitment rules. This rule explicitly excluded visually impaired candidates in judicial services, prompting concerns over discrimination and violation of constitutional rights.
Taking suo motu cognizance of the letter, the Supreme Court converted it into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India, seeking their responses.
The issue gained further prominence when the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Interim measures were taken by the Court to ensure participation of visually impaired aspirants, but their selection was made subject to the final outcome of the case.
The case culminated in a landmark judgment on March 3, 2025, where the Supreme Court struck down Rule 6A, affirming that visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in judicial services, thereby reinforcing the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.
Read Also: Karnataka HC on Section 91 CrPC vs RTI for Accused
Issues Arising for Visually Impaired Candidates in Judicial Services
- Suitability of Visually Impaired Candidates for Judicial Service: Whether visually impaired candidates can be deemed unsuitable for judicial service, and if such exclusion violates their right to equality under the Constitution.
- Constitutionality of Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules: Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial appointments, violates the Constitution and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
- Validity of Provisions in Rule 7 for PwD Candidates: Whether the additional requirements prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules, including a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, violate the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD).
- Relaxation of Minimum Qualification for PwD Candidates: Whether it is permissible to relax the minimum qualification standards for persons with disabilities (PwD) candidates, particularly when there is a shortage of PwD candidates selected in their respective categories.
- Separate Cut-Off for Visually Impaired Candidates: Whether a separate cut-off list should be maintained for visually impaired candidates to ensure they are given fair consideration during the judicial service selection process, and if it is necessary for the authorities to publish a separate merit list for PwD candidates at every stage of the examination.
- Discrimination Between PwD and PwBD Candidates: Whether the authorities can make a technical distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), and if such distinction is legally justifiable in the context of judicial service recruitment.
Court’s Observations and Remarks
- Reasonable Accommodation as a Fundamental Right: The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodation for visually impaired candidates is not a discretionary measure but a fundamental right that is essential to ensuring substantive equality. It is part of the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court remarked, “reasonable accommodation is integral to achieving substantive equality for PwD, forming part of the right to dignity.”
- Visually Impaired Candidates Not Unsuitable for Judicial Service: The Court clarified that visually impaired candidates cannot be deemed unsuitable for judicial service solely due to their disability. The assessment of a candidate’s suitability should not be based on medical or clinical evaluation but must account for reasonable accommodation and an enabling environment. As the Court stated, “once a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments, would automatically make them eligible to participate for selection to the same.”
- The Importance of Equal Treatment and Avoiding Indirect Discrimination: The Court stressed that equal treatment for visually impaired candidates must be pursued, but it also acknowledged that “unequals cannot be treated equally.” Indirect discrimination arises when policies fail to account for disabilities, resulting in unequal outcomes. The Court observed that the impugned Rule 6A violated the principles of equality, by barring visually impaired candidates from judicial service without considering necessary accommodations.
- Capability of Visually Impaired Individuals in Legal Professions: The Court recognized that visually impaired individuals have excelled in the legal profession, underscoring that disability does not limit one’s capability to make significant contributions to the field of law. The Court pointed out, “accomplished individuals who are blind or visually impaired and part of the interview series, have excelled in the legal profession and beyond, showcasing that visual impairment does not preclude one’s ability to make significant contributions.”
- Importance of Separate Cut-Off Marks and Merit Lists for PwD Candidates: In line with the duty of transparency, the Court directed the authorities to declare separate cut-off marks and publish separate merit lists for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates, ensuring transparency in the selection process. The Court stressed that separate cut-off marks must be maintained to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness in the judicial service selection process.
- Affirming Disability Rights and the Need for Inclusive Frameworks: The Court reaffirmed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates the inclusion of persons with disabilities in public service roles, particularly in judicial services. It further remarked, “it is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination… of the same stature as a fundamental right,” emphasizing that disability-based discrimination should be taken seriously and acted upon promptly.
By upholding the right to equal opportunity and dignity for visually impaired candidates, the Court reinforced the need for inclusive, fair, and transparent recruitment processes in judicial services.
Read also: Supreme Court Pushes for Generic Prescriptions
Understanding the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) is a significant legislation in India that ensures equal rights and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. It replaced the earlier Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and aligns with India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Key Provisions of the RPwD Act:
- Expanded Definition of Disability: The Act recognizes 21 types of disabilities, including visual impairment, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, and others, ensuring a broader scope of protection.
- Equality and Non-Discrimination: It prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in various sectors, including education, employment, and access to public spaces.
- Reasonable Accommodation: The Act mandates that appropriate adjustments or modifications be made to ensure persons with disabilities can enjoy equal opportunities. This includes providing assistive devices, altering work environments, and offering additional time during examinations.
- Accessibility: It requires that public buildings, transportation, and information and communication technologies be made accessible to persons with disabilities.
- Reservation in Employment and Education: The Act provides for reservation of jobs and educational seats for persons with disabilities, promoting their inclusion in various sectors.
- Social Security and Welfare: It includes provisions for social security benefits, rehabilitation, and support services for persons with disabilities.
Application in Judicial Services: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, which excluded visually impaired candidates from judicial appointments. The Court emphasized that such exclusion violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the RPwD Act. It directed that reasonable accommodation be provided to visually impaired candidates during the recruitment process, ensuring their participation in judicial services.
This ruling underscore the importance of the RPwD Act in promoting an inclusive society where individuals with disabilities have equal access to opportunities, including in the judiciary.
For more detailed information on the RPwD Act and its provisions, you can refer to the official government publications and legal resources.
Read Also: Right to Be Considered for Promotion: SC’s Judgment
Implications of the Supreme Court Judgment for Visually Impaired and Disabled Candidates
The Supreme Court’s judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, by a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, is a historic step in advancing disability rights in India especially for visually impaired candidates.
- Empowerment Through Equal Opportunity: The Court struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, stating that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in judicial service exams. This paves the way for equal treatment in public employment and sets a benchmark for other states.
“Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service… Rule 6A falls foul of the Constitution.” — Supreme Court
- Strong Legal Support for Reasonable Accommodation: The Court affirmed that reasonable accommodation is not optional and it is a constitutional obligation. It ensures disabled persons are given the support needed to perform on par with others.
“Reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure, but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for PwD.”
- Precedent for Inclusive Policy Reforms: This judgment is likely to lead to reforms in recruitment rules across various public sectors, encouraging inclusive hiring and reducing discrimination against persons with disabilities (PwDs).
- Affirmation of Equal Rights: The judgment reinforces the principle that disability should not be a barrier to public employment, aligning with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and upholding the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination.
- Boost in Confidence for Aspiring Judicial Candidates: The decision sends a powerful message to aspiring blind and low-vision students that their dreams of becoming judges are valid and protected by law.
“Accomplished individuals who are blind or visually impaired have excelled in the legal profession… visual impairment does not preclude one’s ability to contribute to law.”
- Transparency in Selection Process: The Court directed that separate cut-off marks and merit lists must be declared for PwD candidates at every stage of recruitment, enhancing fairness and transparency.
“Non-declaration of cut-off marks affects transparency… separate merit list must be published for PwD category.”
This landmark ruling strengthens the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and reaffirms that disability is not disqualification. It marks a vital shift toward a diverse and inclusive judiciary, where individuals are judged by their merit, not their physical condition.
Final Thought
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a transformative moment for India’s justice system recognizing that visually impaired and disabled candidates have an equal right to serve as judges. By striking down discriminatory rules and emphasizing reasonable accommodation, the Court has not only upheld the values of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution but has also opened new doors of opportunity for thousands of deserving aspirants. This verdict is more than a legal win; it is a bold step toward a more inclusive and just society.
