CHENNAI: Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” This prophetic dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall Harlan in Plessy versus Ferguson (1896) in the US captures the spirit of the landmark verdict of the Supreme Court of India for disability rights on March 3. The court quashed a rule of the Madhya Pradesh judicial services that disallowed visually impaired and low-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services. "It is high time that we view the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognised in the RPwD Act (Right of Persons with Disabilities Act), 2016, in the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability," the Supreme Court said.
Background and appeals
A two-judge bench of justices R Mahadevan and J B Pardiwala pronounced the judgment on a batch of petitions dealing with certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, and seeking amendments to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, to bring them in accordance with the RPwD Act.
The case was filed by both visually impaired and disabled candidates who were denied job opportunities in the judicial services due to discriminatory provisions in the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan judicial services rules. The petitioners argued that these provisions violated their fundamental rights, including their rights to equality and dignity.
The court also took suo motu cognizance of a letter petition on Dec 15, 2024, to the then CJI by the mother of a visually impaired judicial aspirant, challenging the legality of the amended Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, whose Rule 6A excludes the visually impaired and low-vision candidates from appointment in judicial services. According to the petitioner, the action of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which rejected a challenge to Rule 7 that does not grant specific exemptions to the disabled, is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of the spirit of the Constitution.
A similar letter petition was sent by a visually impaired law student from Rajasthan to the then CJI requesting action for transparency, fairness and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in judicial service exams in the state. The petitioners prayed for a direction to the Rajasthan High Court to publish separately and declare the results and cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations at every stage viz., Preliminary, Mains, Interviews and the final result.
The verdict
The court said a rights-based approach necessitates that PwDs must not face any discrimination. Instead, there must be affirmative action on behalf of the state to provide an inclusive framework. Justice Mahadevan cited cases of exemplary achievements of distinguished individuals in the legal profession, who have demonstrated that visual impairment is no barrier to attaining professional excellence, competing on equal footing and making significant contributions to the justice delivery system alongside their able-bodied counterparts. Holding that the right against disability-based discrimination, as recognised in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, should be viewed as a fundamental right, the court said no candidate should be denied consideration for employment solely on account of their disability.
The bench ruled that visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service. It struck down the amendment made in Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 to the extent that it does not include impaired persons who are educationally qualified for the post.
The court also struck down Rule 7 of the 1994 rules to the extent of prescribing additional requirements of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, insofar as it applies to a PwD candidate.
Further, the court ruled that a separate cut-off has to be maintained and selection made for visually-impaired candidates in line with the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, where a seven-judge bench proposed reservation of PwD candidates in public employment, and for relaxation of qualifying marks as affirmative action in their favour.
Reasonable accommodation
The court highlighted the importance of reasonable accommodation in ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities. The principle, as enshrined in international conventions and established jurisprudence, mandates that accommodations be provided to persons with disabilities as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility. It held that the principle that reasonable accommodation is not a discretionary measure but a fundamental right integral to achieving substantive equality for PwD, forms part of the right to dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Implications of the judgment
The judgment has far-reaching implications for disability rights in India and is a significant step forward. It paves the way for visually impaired candidates to participate in judicial services, and sets a precedent for other disability rights cases. It recognises the fundamental right of persons with disabilities to equal opportunities and non-discrimination. As India continues to strive towards an equitable society, this judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting rights of all citizens, regardless of abilities.
Some of the visually impaired who excelled in the judiciary
Zak Mohd Yacoob
Lost his sight at 16 months due to meningitis, served as a judge on the South African Constitutional Court from 1998 to 2013. Despite his blindness, he effectively discharged his judicial duties with the aid of a legally trained assistant, a computer, a braille printer, and a note-taker. While acknowledging that reading case materials took longer, he firmly rejected the misconception that blind individuals are incapable of assessing critical evidence, such as charts, maps, or witness demeanour. He argued that the belief that one must “see” a witness to assess credibility was unfounded. In his tenure, Justice Yacoob advocated for constitutional protection of differently-abled individuals, stressing the need for equality and accessibility equality within the justice system.
Yetnebersh Nigussie
An Ethiopian lawyer and disability rights activist, attributes her ability to pursue a legal career to the loss of her eyesight at the age of five, an event she considers to have spared her from child marriage. She dedicated herself to using education as a tool to empower persons with disabilities, particularly women and girls, who often face compounded discrimination. She emphasizes that genuine inclusion requires changing societal mindsets and providing tangible facilities to ensure access to education and healthcare. Arguing that no form of discrimination should be tolerated, she stresses the importance of adopting a holistic approach to human rights, reinforcing the principle that all individuals, irrespective of gender or disability, deserve equal opportunities.
David Lepofsky
A distinguished Canadian lawyer, has argued over 30 cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. Acknowledged as one of Canada’s most influential lawyers, he leveraged technological advancements to enhance his legal practice. Previously reliant on volunteers to read trial transcripts, he now accesses case materials digitally through screen readers and cloud-platforms, allowing him to work from anywhere. Despite the inherent challenges, Lepofsky remains committed to ensuring litigants get their rightful entitlements, demonstrating perseverance and self-reliance in overcoming professional barriers.
S K Rungta
Conferred with the position of Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in 2011, he dedicated his career to breaking down barriers for the differently-abled. Initially reliant on clerks for mobility and legal filings, he has cut his dependence with the advent of assistive technology. While he encountered skepticism from some judges regarding his capabilities, he asserts that the judiciary has largely been supportive. His contributions have been instrumental from facilitating entry of the blind into the civil services to enforcing disability reservations under Indian law, securing rights of blind to serve as witnesses, and shaping India’s disability legislation - The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Ronald M Gould
On the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he has progressive multiple sclerosis. Gould underscores the significance of legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in ensuring that reasonable accommodations are not a matter of discretion but a legally enforceable right. He advocates for systemic reforms that balance accessibility with professional excellence, emphasising that disabled individuals should not be viewed through the lens of charity but as professionals capable of delivering high-quality legal work when provided with appropriate accommodations.
Jack Chen
A blind patent attorney at Google, he highlighted that the primary challenge for visually impaired lawyers is not completing legal tasks but doing so with efficiency. Tasks such as legal drafting and formatting, particularly those requiring adherence to citation standards like the Bluebook, demand significantly more time. He noted that while blind professionals may take longer in certain tasks, they often outperform their sighted peers in others, particularly in reading speed when using screen readers. His success exemplifies the capacity of blind legal professionals to adapt and excel in highly technical fields through the strategic use of assistive technology.
Tomer Rosner
A blind legal advisor to the Israeli Parliament, Rosenr plays a crucial role in drafting and analysing legislation concerning disability rights. Given the extensive volume of legal documents he must review, he employs screen readers and optical character recognition (OCR) technology to access text that is otherwise inaccessible. Despite these technological aids, there remain instances where he relies on personal readers. He acknowledges the challenges inherent in his profession but maintains that with the effective use of technology and adaptive strategies, legal professionals with disabilities can manage their responsibilities with competence and efficiency.
David S Tatel
A judge on the US Court of Appeals for Columbia, Tatel adapted to his blindness by employing law clerks and a reader. Though less adept with modern technology, he relied on a braille keyboard. He asserted that blindness does not limit a lawyer’s ability to argue cases effectively. Rejecting the imposition of low expectations on blind professionals, he preferred to be recognised as a “judge who happens to be blind” rather than a “blind judge” reinforcing the principle that competence in the legal profession is not diminished by disability.
Haben Girma
The first deafblind graduate of Harvard Law School, Girma established herself as an influential accessibility consultant, working to remove barriers that hinder professionals with disabilities. She engages with legal materials using screen readers, braille displays, and notetaking support. Highlighting the challenges faced by blind legal professionals in accessing visual information, she emphasizes the need for institutions to provide alternative formats, such as text descriptions or tactile graphics. She underscores that access to legal work is not just about individual effort but also about systemic responsibility, urging legal institutions to proactively adopt inclusive practices that ensure equal participation for professionals with disabilities.
Nirmita Narasimhan
A visually impaired lawyer and policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Nirmita has been instrumental in advancing digital accessibility and policy reforms. A law graduate from Delhi University with additional degrees in German and Music, she played a key role in drafting India’s National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility and worked extensively with government agencies to integrate accessibility into public programmes. Recognised with multiple awards, including the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (2010), she stresses that addressing systemic hurdles rather than focusing solely on disability would indirectly lead to more effective accessibility reforms.