Supreme Court Upholds Equal Access to Judicial Services for Persons with Disabilities [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Title:  Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vs. The Registrar General , The High Court of Madhya Pradesh  (Suo-Motu)

Case No.: SMW(C) No. 2/2024  (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) by holding that no candidate can be denied consideration for judicial service recruitment solely due to their disability. The ruling strikes down discriminatory provisions and upholds the principles of equality and affirmative action enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

The judgment is a significant milestone in the journey toward an inclusive and equitable judicial system. The Supreme Court explicitly held that persons with disabilities must not face discrimination while seeking employment in the judiciary and that the state is responsible for ensuring an inclusive framework. The Court emphasized that any indirect discrimination—such as unreasonable cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be removed to uphold substantive equality.

By striking down a provision in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service, the Court has sent a strong message against systemic exclusion. The ruling makes it clear that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in the selection process for judicial positions.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which disqualified visually impaired candidates.

• Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as a three-year practice period or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks, was also struck down to the extent that it discriminated against PWD candidates.

• The Court held that reasonable accommodations must be provided to PWD candidates during the recruitment process, in line with the RPwD Act, 2016.

• The judgment extends relief to PWD candidates in Rajasthan who were denied a separate cutoff in the Rajasthan Judicial Service preliminary exams, ensuring they will be considered in future recruitments.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the exclusion of her son from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court subsequently issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue gained prominence after the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the RPwD Act. 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.

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

The judgment underscores a rights-based approach to disability inclusion in the judiciary. It affirms that disability is not a limitation but a social barrier that must be addressed through reasonable accommodations and affirmative action. The Court recognized that once recruited, judicial officers with disabilities must be provided the necessary training and support to discharge their duties effectively.

The ruling aligns with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation for PWDs in government jobs, including judicial positions. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, already provide for a 6% reservation in state services, further reinforcing the need for compliance with disability rights legislation.

Implications for the Future 

The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a crucial precedent for other states and institutions in India. It reaffirms that arbitrary barriers preventing PWDs from equal participation in public service must be dismantled. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities.

For aspiring judges with disabilities, this ruling is a ray of hope. It not only paves the way for their rightful inclusion in the legal profession but also strengthens the foundation of a truly representative and diverse judiciary.

This judgment is a reminder that the fight for disability rights is far from over, but each legal victory brings us closer to a more inclusive society.

Judgement

Read the Judgement below:

Indian Supreme Court expands Access to Scribes in Examinations for All Persons with disabilities who need it, Benchmark threshold not a pre-requisite [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Date of Judgement: 03 February  2025

Background

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) by allowing all disabled candidates to use scribes for writing exams, regardless of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by a candidate diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a chronic neurological condition, who was denied the facility of a scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner had a 25% permanent disability, certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore. Despite this, recruitment bodies refused him the accommodations typically granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). He challenged the restrictive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which failed to ensure reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities below the 40% benchmark.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court emphasized that restricting scribe facilities to only those with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The ruling referenced several landmark judgments, including:

• Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) – Held that denying a scribe to candidates below the benchmark disability threshold was discriminatory.

• Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021) – Reinforced the importance of reasonable accommodation in examinations.

• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) – Strengthened the principle of equality in educational assessments.

The Court also considered international precedents, such as Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, which advocate for inclusive policies ensuring equal access to education and employment opportunities for disabled individuals.

Key Directives from the Supreme Court

To address inconsistencies in examination accommodations, the Court issued the following directives to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:

1. Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.

2. Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.

3. Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.

4. Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.

5. Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.

6. Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.

7. Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.

8. Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.

9. Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.

10. Penalize non-compliance – Take strict action against examination bodies that fail to implement the prescribed guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant victory for disability rights in India. By extending scribe accommodations to all disabled candidates, the ruling ensures greater inclusivity and fairer opportunities in competitive examinations. This judgment reinforces the core principles of the RPwD Act, 2016, and underscores the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation as a legal and ethical obligation.

Read the Judgement

Supreme Court Mandates Enforcement of additional guidelines along with the UOI's Airport Guidelines for Dignified Assistance to Persons with Disabilities

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala  and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case No. W.P.(C) No. 121/2024

Case title: Arushi Singh vs. Union of India  

Date of Judgement: 12 November 2024

Brief Summary

On November 12, 2024 the Supreme Court disposed off a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with a benchmark disability, addressing an incident of alleged humiliation at Kolkata Airport. Singh reported being asked by security personnel to stand up from her wheelchair during security screening, a situation that left her feeling disrespected and violated. The Court affirmed that the guidelines proposed by the Union Government for treating persons with disabilities with dignity at airports would now be mandatory, also extending to elderly and injured passengers requiring wheelchair assistance.

Incident Leading to the Petition  

Arushi Singh, a graduate of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and LL.M. holder from the National University of Singapore, recounted her experience on January 31, 2024. She alleged that she waited for approximately 20 minutes without assistance outside the airport and was subsequently asked to stand during security screening three times, despite her repeated explanations of her disability. The insensitivity allegedly displayed by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel prompted Singh to file the petition, seeking effective enforcement of relevant regulations, including the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, and the Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022.  

Supreme Court Observations and UOI's Suggestions  

A bench comprising former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala had noted during earlier hearings that the issues raised required action by the Union of India. During the proceedings, a joint statement was presented, outlining several suggestions for ensuring dignified treatment of specially-abled individuals at airports:  

1. Mobile Application for Wheelchair Availability: Real-time updates on wheelchair availability at designated airport points for easy access by users.  

2. Mechanized Wheelchairs: Availability of mechanized wheelchairs for passengers traveling solo or in cases of delayed assistance.  

3. Boarding Pass Coding:  Incorporation of an alphabet code indicating the type of disability and a color scale denoting the severity of the condition.  

4. Integration of Unique Disability Identity Database:  Streamlining the ticket booking process by linking the database, enabling instant access to verified disability information for better assistance.  

5. Specialized Kiosks for Boarding Passes: Contactless kiosks equipped with voice recognition and response technology to aid persons with disabilities.  

6. Regular Sensitization Training for Airport Staff: Comprehensive and periodic training for airport staff, emphasizing understanding various disabilities and compassionate assistance.  

Court’s Directives  

The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, Abiha Zaidi, that these suggestions should be treated as mandatory guidelines. The bench further emphasized that these measures should not be limited to wheelchair users but also include elderly and injured passengers requiring assistance. Importantly, it clarified that physical assistance already being provided at airports would not be withdrawn under these guidelines.  

Concluding the matter, the bench remarked:  

"We dispose of the Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms laying more stress on sensitizing the staff at the airport to be more compassionate towards the specially abled passengers." 

Read the judgement

Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi case holds the recommendatory nature of Sectoral Accessibility Guidelines under Rule 15 as ultra vires the RPWD Act. Grants 3 months to UOI to make corrections in consultation with stakeholders

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Case Title:  Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005

Date of Judgement: 08 Nov 2024

Summary

On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India & Ors., reshaping the landscape of accessibility rights for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India. 

One of the major difficulties faced in enforcing the accessibility mandate and making accessibility a real right had been that the language in RPWD Rule 15 incorporated no compulsion to comply. Despite this absence, the Union of India kept claiming that the rules were mandatory. The Supreme Court bench called off the bluff and asked the Union of India to create a mandatory floor on accessibility. The bench directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed this judgment in a PIL filed by Mr Rajive Raturi, a  person with visual impairment, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

The latest judgment was passed in the light of the report submitted by NALSAR - Centre for Disability Studies, headed by Professor Dr. Amita Dhanda titled “Finding Sizes for All- A Report on the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India” which was prepared by the Centre in collaboration with persons with disabilities, disabled persons organizations and experts on accessibility.

The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, after analysing international treaties such as United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & judgments, culled out the following principles:-

a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and

b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives.

The Court noted that the CDS report opined that while the RPwD Act 2016 creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, whereas the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, create a mechanism which only prescribes self- regulatory guidelines.

Agreeing with this view, the Court observed :

"Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules have transformed into self- regulation by way of delegated legislation. The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of the RPWD Act While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non- negotiable floor. A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act."

The Court therefore directed the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months. "This exercise may involve segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR- CDS is directed to be involved in the process. It is clarified that progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue unabated. However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules must be prescribed in Rule 15," the Court observed.

Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories were directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented in cases of non- compliance with Rule 15.

The judgement in para 22  highlights the importance of Accessibility as a Human Right in the following words:-

"Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities, to exercise their rights fully and equally. Without accessibility, individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society, whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation in cultural and civic activities. Accessibility ensures that persons with disabilities are not marginalised but are instead able to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else, making it an integral part of ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity. By embedding accessibility as a human right within existing legal frameworks, it becomes clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the exercise of other rights."

Para 37 of the judgement explains relationship between Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility in following terms:-

"At this stage, it is also crucial to understand the relationship between reasonable accommodation and accessibility, as both are essential for achieving equality for PWDs. While accessibility generally refers to the removal of barriers in the environment or infrastructure to ensure equal access for all, reasonable accommodation is more individualised. It involves making specific adjustments to meet the unique needs of a person with a disability. In other words, accessibility ensures that environments are designed to be inclusive from the outset, while reasonable accommodation ensures that individuals who face specific challenges can enjoy their rights on an equal basis in particular contexts."

The judgement in Para 39 reiterates the duty of state vis-à-vis accessibility as below:-

"It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning that the State is required to implement accessibility measures proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. The State must establish broad, standardised accessibility standards in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring that these standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all relevant stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests".

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Mandatory Accessibility Standards 

The Court found that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, 2017, previously framed as "guidelines," was ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as it lacked enforceability, which was the intent of the RWD Act 2016. This judgment mandates the government to replace these aspirational guidelines with binding rules within three months. This reading down of Rule 15 from voluntary guidelines to mandatory standards in light of the mandate of the RPWD Act is a major advancement in accessibility rights, aiming to provide PWDs with meaningful access to public spaces and facilities, which is critical for them to exercise other rights.

2. Historical Context and Slow Progress 

This ruling traces its roots to an earlier Supreme Court judgment on December 15, 2017, that directed states and union territories to take actions towards accessibility. Despite the passage of several years, compliance was found lacking, prompting the appointment of NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) to assess the implementation status based on a court order. The report by NALSAR-CDS, coupled with submissions from both the petitioner and the Union of India, formed the basis for this historic judgment.

3. Highlighting Legislative Gaps and Need for Uniformity 

   The judgment underscores discrepancies in accessibility standards across different sectors, such as the Ports and Civil Aviation sectors. Rule 15(1) and its various standards were criticized for presenting conflicting guidelines on fundamental requirements, like accessible toilets, and for the presence of non-enforceable, technical errors. By declaring Rule 15(1) ultra vires to the RPWD Act, the Court has called for a single, enforceable accessibility framework aligned with the Act's legislative intent.

4. Principles for Accessibility and Universal Design. 

The Court directed that the following principles of accessibility should be considered while carrying out the above exercise:

a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations or specialized design;

b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis;

c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers, audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure digital and informational accessibility across public and private platforms; and

d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.

5. Government Accountability and Timelines 

The Union Government has been directed to frame these mandatory rules within three months, in consultation with NALSAR-CDS and stakeholders. Compliance with the redefined Rule 15 will be monitored under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the RPWD Act, ensuring accountability through penalties and non-issuance of completion certificates for non-compliance.

Moving Forward: A Collective Win for Accessibility Rights

This ruling is not merely a judicial milestone; it reflects the resilience and advocacy of India’s disability rights movement. By transforming accessibility from an aspirational goal into a mandatory legal standard, the Supreme Court has advanced India towards becoming a more inclusive and accessible society. The judgment enshrines accessibility as a prerequisite for realizing the rights and dignity of all citizens, ensuring that everyone can participate fully and equally in public life.

As the government works to implement the Court’s directives, the ongoing role of DPOs, NGOs, and individuals in shaping and monitoring these standards will be crucial. This collective approach will uphold the inclusive spirit of the RPWD Act, reinforcing that accessibility is not just a right but a shared responsibility. 

The Writ Petitions have been adjourned to 07 March 2025 on which date, the Union Government must report compliance to this Court.

Read the judgement here:

Supreme Court - Benchmark disability no ground to render a candidate ineligible to pursue MBBS

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:  Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan 
Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.:  Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 15 October 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775

Cases Referred:

• Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 383
• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 2 SCC 209
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
• Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 761
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and others (2023) 2 SCC 286

Synopsis: 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the eligibility of a candidate with a benchmark disability for admission to the MBBS program under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) reservation. The case revolved around the appellant, who qualified NEET (UG) 2024 and sought admission under the PwD and OBC categories. The Disability Certification Centre initially deemed the appellant ineligible, citing that his speech and language disability (44-45%) would hinder his ability to pursue the course under National Medical Commission (NMC) norms.

When the Bombay High Court declined interim relief, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court issued an interim order directing that the appellant’s seat be reserved and constituted a specialized Medical Board to evaluate whether the appellant’s disability genuinely impeded his ability to pursue medical education. Following a favorable report, the Court upheld the appellant's admission.

Key directives of the judgment included:

1. Disability as a Criterion: Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate. Eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board's opinion on whether the disability prevents course completion.
2. Reasoned Decisions: Boards must explicitly state if and why a disability would impede the candidate’s ability to pursue the course.
3. Judicial Review: Negative opinions by Disability Boards can be challenged in courts, which may refer the case to premier medical institutes for independent review.
4. Policy Reforms: Pending reforms by the NMC, the Boards must consider guidelines from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

This landmark decision emphasizes a nuanced, case-by-case assessment of disabilities in educational settings, reinforcing the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

Supreme Court of India Issues Landmark Guidelines for Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Visual Media [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice JB Pardiwala

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5239 of 2024

Case Title: Nipun Malhotra (Appellant) Versus Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors

Date of Judgement: 08 Jul 2024

Brief Introduction:

In a groundbreaking judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at ensuring the dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. This significant ruling emphasizes the importance of respectful and accurate representation, underscoring that negative stereotypes and insensitive portrayals can severely impact the dignity of persons with disabilities and perpetuate social discrimination against them. The Supreme Court said “the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised”. In determining these aspects, the “intention” and “overall message” of the film have to be considered.

The case in question involved the portrayal of disabled persons in the film 'Aankh Mihcoli,' produced by Sony Pictures. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition challenging the film's portrayal of disabled persons. The petitioner sought guidelines for filmmakers regarding the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and recommendations to censor certain parts of the film.

While the Court refused to interfere with the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it took the opportunity to provide a framework for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. The Court's guidelines aim to align such portrayals with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Indian Constitution and the RPwD Act.

Judgment Highlights:

The Court emphasized the prevention of stigmatization and discrimination, recognizing their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the historically oppressive representation of differently-abled persons continues, with persons with disabilities often used to provide comic relief and jokes made at their expense. He noted the historical use of humor to mock disability and how films and visual media tend to perpetuate myths about disabilities, portraying persons with certain disabilities as “super-cripples.”

“This stereotype implies that disabled persons have extraordinary heroic abilities like enhanced spatial sense… this may not apply to everyone. It also may imply that those who do not have such superpowers are less than normal or ideal,” Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked.

The judgment embraced the modern social model of disability, which views disabilities not as personal tragedies but as societal barriers to inclusion. The medical model, which sees disability as a personal tragedy, was deemed obsolete. The Court pointed out that stereotypes and mockery of disabilities arise from a “lack of familiarity” with disabilities, stemming from inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in the dominant discourse.

The Court balanced the issue by stating that not all speech that entrenches stereotypes was against individual dignity. Context, intention, and overall meaning must be considered before determining if remarks made in visual media or films are disparaging.

Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour,’ explaining that disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities while disability humour seeks to better understand and explain a disability.

Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

1. Language Sensitivity: - Avoid words that cultivate institutional discrimination, such as “cripple” and “spastic,” as they contribute to negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. Avoid language that individualizes the impairment and overlooks social barriers (e.g., terms like “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victim”).

2. Accurate Representation:- Strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to avoid perpetuating misinformation and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.

3. Inclusive and Diverse Portrayals:- Reflect the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, capturing their diverse realities and avoiding one-dimensional, ableist characterizations. Showcase the successes, talents, and contributions of persons with disabilities, promoting a more inclusive understanding of disability.

4. Avoiding Harmful Stereotypes:- Do not lampoon persons with disabilities based on myths or present them as “super-cripples” with extraordinary abilities, implying they deserve dignity only if they compensate for their impairments in exceptional ways.

5. Participatory Decision-Making:- Practice the principle of “nothing about us, without us,” involving persons with disabilities in the creation and assessment of visual media content.

6. Collaboration and Consultation:- Collaborate with disability advocacy groups to gain invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.

7. Training and Sensitization:- Implement training programs for writers, directors, producers, and actors to emphasize the impact of portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. These programs should cover the social model of disability, respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that visual media respects and upholds the dignity of persons with disabilities. By issuing these guidelines, the Supreme Court has paved the way for more inclusive and respectful portrayals, which can help shift societal perceptions and promote equality. The involvement of persons with disabilities in the creative process and collaboration with advocacy groups will ensure that media content reflects their lived experiences accurately and empathetically.

The Court's judgment in this case sets a precedent that can influence future portrayals of persons with disabilities in visual media, fostering a more inclusive and respectful society.

Read the Judgement:

Supreme Court: Citing Reasonable Accommodation provisions, bench directs a person with defective colour vision to be appointed as Assistant Engineer Electrical

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6785 of 2023 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12671 of 2022]

Case Title: Mohamed Ibrahim Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 16 October 2023

Brief:

The Supreme Court granted relief to the appellant - a person with colour blindness - who was denied appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer applying the principle of "reasonable accommodation" as defined in the RPwD Act. Incidently, colour blindness is not an identified or defined disability in the schedule to the Act.

The Court highlighted that the provisions of the RPwD Act are specifically designed to foster the participation and empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). However, it expressed its concern that the benefits arising from affirmative action are confined to a specific category of PwDs, including those with orthopedic, visual, hearing, and mental disabilities, among others covered in the schedule to the Act. These benefits are intricately linked to the concept of "benchmark" disabilities, which grants affirmative action and similar benefits to PwDs who meet a defined threshold of disability, typically 40 percent or more. This distinction based on specified categories and threshold conditions, as per the topc court, creates substantial barriers.

It bench observed, “The actual benefits in the form of affirmative action are defined by a specific category of PwDs (orthopaedical, visual, hearing, mental, etc.) and tied to the context of “benchmark” disabilities, which entitles those PwDs who qualify with a certain threshold of disability (40 percent or more) to the affirmative action and other similar benefits. The nature of inclusion of specified categories only to the exclusion of other categories of disabilities, on the one hand, and the eligibility of a threshold, in the opinion of this court, constitute barriers.”

"The twin conditions of falling within defined categories, and also a threshold condition of a minimum percentage, of such disabilities, in fact are a barrier," opined the court. The Court emphasized the necessity of a more rational and inclusive approach to accommodate individuals who may not it into the established categories of PwDs in the schedule to the Act.

“The facts of this case demonstrate that the appellant is fit, in all senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he applied and was selected for. Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” as he is color blind. At the same time, he does not fit the category of PwD under the lexicon of the universe contained within the Act. These challenge traditional understandings of what constitutes “disabilities”. The court has to, therefore, travel beyond the provisions of the Act and discern a principle that can be rationally applied.”

The bench was hearing an appeal against the Madras HC judgment which had ruled in favour of the respondent(TANGEDCO) asserting its right to reject the appellant's candidature on the grounds of colour blindness. The case revolved around a job application for the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the appellant. The appellant, who was initially considered qualified for the role, was subsequently found to be color blind during a medical examination. This raised concerns about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an engineer, which frequently involve working with color-coded power cables and wires.

As a result of these concerns, TANGEDCO rejected the appellant's candidature. The appellant challenged this decision under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Madras High Court initially ruled in his favor, directing TANGEDCO to offer him the position. However, in appeal before the division bench, the decision highlighted the evolving doctrine of proportionality, indicating that TANGEDCO's decision had a reasonable basis, even by this modern standard. Consequently, the division bench's judgment reversed the previous order, leading the appellant to seek redress from the Supreme Court. 

The SC bench noted that respondent TANGEDCO had not explicitly indicated that colour vision deficiency, in any form or degree, serves as a disqualifying factor for the role of an Assistant Engineer. It emphasized that the appellant, being a graduate in electrical engineering, possessed knowledge and experience related to the role's functions. Additionally, practical experience during the course exposed the candidate to equipment defects and solutions for breakdowns. Thus, the SC bench established the need for some form of accommodation.

The Court relied on Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 4 SCR 638 to highlight that when public facilities and services are designed with standards inaccessible to persons with disabilities, it results in their exclusion and a denial of rights. The concept of equality goes beyond merely preventing discrimination; it involves addressing systematic discrimination through positive rights, affirmative action, and reasonable accommodation.

The Court also cited the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India  2021 (13) SCR 823, which distinguishes between formal equality and substantive equality. Substantive equality aims to achieve equal outcomes, and the principle of reasonable accommodation plays a critical role in this.

The Court observed that reasonable accommodation entails accommodating disabled individuals based on their capacities. It also relied on Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission  2021 (12) SCR 311, which held “The principle of reasonable accommodation acknowledges that if disability” should be remedied and opportunities are “to be affirmatively created for facilitating the development of the disabled. Reasonable accommodation is founded in the norm of inclusion. Exclusion results in the negation of individual dignity and worth or they can choose the route of reasonable accommodation, where each individual's dignity and worth is respected.”

The court also cited Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India (2022),  where the Supreme Court directed the FTII to accommodate students with colour blindness saying, "The respondent institute is a premier institute and one would expect it to encourage liberate thought process and not put courses connected with films in any conformist box".

While  acknowledging the resondent's concerns about colour vision impairment, the Court reminded the TANGEDCO of its obligation to operate within the framework of "reasonable accommodation" as defined by Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act. Resultantly, the court set aside the impugned judgement of the Division bench of Madras High Court saying, “The impugned judgment cannot stand; it is set aside. TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay,”.

During the hearing, the Court learnt that a member of the bar, Mr. Mehmoud Yumar Faruqi had life experiences of colour blindness -as someone living with a condition of colour blindness and had collected considerable case law and literature. The court had, therefore, requested his assistance for the proceedings. The court expressed its gratitude for his assistance.  

Access the judgement below:

Supreme Court seeks Centre's resonse to a plea which sougth quanum of assistance to PwDs 25% higher than those given to others as per section 24(1)

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a plea which sought that quantum of assistance to persons with disabilities should be 25 per cent higher than those given to others under similar social welfare schemes.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the apex court in the matter.

The top court noted the petitioner has relied on the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Section 24 of the 2016 Act deals with social security and section 24 (1) says, "The appropriate government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community: provided that the quantum of assistance to the persons with disabilities under such schemes and programmes shall be at least 25 per cent higher than the similar schemes applicable to others." Jayant Singh Raghav, president of the organisation, told the bench that proviso to section 24 (1) of the Act provides that quantum to be provided to the persons with disabilities needs to be 25 per cent additional to the others under similar social welfare schemes.

"Which are the schemes in respect of which you are claiming a 25 per cent enhancement," the bench asked.

Raghav referred to the disability pension given by different states.

"Presently, instead of issuing notice to all the states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what the Union Government has to say," the bench said.

Source: Unedited stroy from syndicate feeds

Supreme Court- FTII should make reasonable accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with colour blindness in all courses.

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice MM Sunresh.

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7719 of 2021

Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar Vs. The Film and Television  Institute of India & Anr. 

Date of Judgement: 12 April 2022

Brief:

Films and Television Institute of India - Majority view of the Committee appointed by SC accepted - Individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll for ALL courses offered by FTII. There should be no bar to admissions to the FTII for colorblind individuals - FTII should make reasonable accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with color blindness, in all courses where there is a bar to the admission of colorblind individuals. (Para 26-35)

A Supreme Court bench directed the Film and Television Institute of India(FTII) to allow color blind candidates to take admission in all its courses. Court further mooted a proposal to make subjects that may not inclusive for such students to be made optional.

In December 2021, Ashutosh Kumar, a 35-year-old man approached the Supreme Court after being barred by the institute because he is color blind. The institute had put forth the logic that he may not be able to pass in certain subjects.

then directed the creation of a panel of experts comprising 

The top court had, instead of taking a call itself on whether colour blindness would be an aspect which would be an impediment in going through the course, it formed a committee of experts consisting of  an ophthalmologist, a film director, a film editor, a script supervisor, a head of the department from FTII, and a lawyer to analyze whether students with color blindness can be allowed to pursue a course in FTII,  to look into the issue and to facilitate a more comprehensive exercise by the Committee to opine on the aspect of colour blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification. The court framed the two issues on which the opinion of the members was sought as under: 

“i. Whether the course curriculum provided for diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by the appellant who suffers from color blindness? 

Committee’s recommendations: The appellant Mr. Ashutosh Kumar who has Red and Green color vision deficiency and has color perception of CP4, as per the AIIMS Medical Board report, will have difficulty in completing the existing course curriculum of the diploma in Film and Editing course offered by the FTII. This is more particularly due to a twenty-minute ‘color grading module’ which is part of the Film Editing curriculum. However, the color grading module has no relevance to either the film editing course or to the film editor’s professional role (Mr. K. Rajasekaran, HoD Editing, FTII, does not agree that the color grading module is irrelevant to the film editing course). 

ii. To facilitate a more comprehensive exercise, the role of the committee would be to opine on the aspect of color blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification.”

Committee’s recommendation: It is the opinion of the committee that :

i. It is recommended that individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll for ALL courses offered by FTII. There should be no bar to admissions to the FTII for colorblind individuals. Any limitation can be overcome by an assistant in educational and professional life.

ii. FTII should make reasonable accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with color blindness, in all courses where there is a bar to the admission of colorblind individuals. For example, by providing elective/optional modules in the curriculum for those core credits which may require intensive color appreciation or in any other way. 

iii. The color grading module in the existing Diploma in Film Editing Course curriculum, should either be excluded or made elective, thereby lifting the bar of admissions for individuals with color blindness.” 

Court analyzed the report filed by the panel of experts, all of whom except one had recommended that FTII should admit students with color blindness as stressing that “filmmaking is a collaborative art and shortfalls can be addressed by having assistance while making the film.”

In particular, the committee expressed that individuals with colour blindness should be permitted to enroll for all courses offered by the FTII with the following reasoning:-

(a) Film and television creations are collaborative art forms. Restricting entry of colour blind candidates to film courses may sacrifice creative talent and stultify the development of the art. Inclusivity enriches this creative art form by introducing variety, any limitation can be overcome by assistance in the educational and professional life. 

(b) It is not the role of FTII to decide for candidates their future prospects as a film/television professional. If learning limitation of the candidate can be overcome by making reasonable accommodation or with the help of an assistant, the candidate should be eligible for admission to courses offered by FTII. 

(c) Film editing is the art, technique and practice of assembling shots into a coherent sequence and the job of an Editor is not simply to mechanically put piece of a film together, cut off film slates or edit dialogue scenes. The Film Editor must creatively work with the layers of images, story, dialogue, music, pacing as well as the actors performances to effectively “reimagine” and even re-write the film to craft a cohesive whole.

Court while agreeing with their view noted that “We find ourselves with majority view of committee. Same to be adopted by FTII in its curriculum. It does not impede on their freedom but gives them a broader canvas in pioneering effort.”

Court further noted that FTII as a premier institute can put reasonable accommodation like other global institutes from whom the panel of experts sought an opinion.

it was subitted that applicant was not permitted to take up the course despite having completed six months of the course. He submitted that though he is willing to waive the first six months and start afresh again he should not have to go through the admission process again after a medical officer had cleared his eye examination.

Furthermore, counsel for the FTII submitted that it would be a difficult task to modify the entire course as the field is of technical nature and in some courses visually impaired are specifically limited from being able to pursue it.

Court on hearing the submission granted two weeks time for the institute to file its reply on this aspect and adjourned the matter to May 10. Sussequently the FTTI agreed to keep an additiona seat and grant admission to the petitioner in the session starting in March 2023 as prayed.

Access the judgement below:

Supreme Court while upholding the Kerala HC judgement directed State of Kerala to provide reservation in promotion on all post after identifying said posts within 3 months.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Case No. : Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2021

Case Title: The State of Kerala & Ors Vs.  Leesamma Joseph 

Date of Judgement: 28 June 2021

Brief:

This was an appeal against the order of the Kerala High Court on the issue of reservation in promotion of a disabled women employee who was appointed on compassionate grounds and not on disability quota hence was not extended the reservation in promotion for disabled. The matter was persued before the Administrative Tribunal which dismissed her case.  However, the High Court subsequently overturned the Tribinual's order and allowed her case against which the State went to Supreme Court.  

The Supreme Court praised the Order of the High Court as salutary and expressed that it did not call for any interference. 

Supreme Court said, "In fact, what seems to emerge is that the appellant-State has not implemented the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta's and Siddaraju's cases(supra). Thus, we consider it appropriate to issue directions to the State of Kerala to implement these judgments and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. We are making it time bound so that the mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by making Section 32 as an excuse for not having identified the post.

Read the Judgement below:-

Supreme Court: Testimony of a witness with disability not inferior; intersectionality need to be taken in to account while determining the case.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Bench:  Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & Hon'ble Justice M R Shah

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 452 of 2021

Case Title: Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2021 INSC 272

Date of Judgement: April 27, 2021

Brief:

Testimony of a witness with disability cannot be considered inferior to that of their able-bodied counterparts only on account of the disability. Crimes against Women, Caste-based Violence, lntersectionality, Gender Evidence, Testimony of Person with Disability.

The case was about the rape of a girl with visual impairment belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The SC affirmed the conviction of the appellant for rape of the girl with visual impairment. The court discussed that it is imperative to take into account the inter sectionality while determining the case. The court emphasised that threats against women with disabilities in India are not uncommon and can lead to feelings of powerlessness. However, the court clarified that by this they did not mean to subscribe to the stereotype that persons with disabilities are weak and helpless, rather aim to highlight the increased vulnerability in such cases, and cited reports such as the 2018 report by Human Rights Watch. The court also gave certain guidelines including the need for Awareness-raising campaigns, in accessible formats, to inform women. 

Supreme Court on Reservation of NEET seats - "when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai

Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 885/2019

Case Title: Vidhi Himmat Katariya and others Vs  The State of Gujarat and others

Date of Judgement: October 04, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1137; SCC Online SC 1318

Brief:

The Petitioners were students appearing for the NEET Exam for admission to MBBS Courses across the country. They sought to be considered persons with disabilities eligible to claim reservation under the PwD Category. The regulations of Graduate Medical Education in MCI were amended in 2019 and whereby Appendix ‘H’ came to be added to the erstwhile Regulations, 2017 – providing for minimum degree of disability to be 40% (Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with specified disability. Appendix ‘H’ further provided that in case of ‘physical disability or locomotor disability’, the applicant may be assessed for “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion” as essential to be considered eligible for medical course”.

Therefore, the medical board denied admission to Petitioners under persons with disabilities category by stating that they are not eligible for reservation under this category under the amended Regulations.

Petitoners claimed that the relevant provisions of Regulations, 2019 – “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered” has been applied by the State Government to non­suit the petitioners for medical course in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind. 

Petitioners appealed to the Appellate Medical Board, which upheld the previous decision. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 for relief. The Court ruled in favour of the state and declined to grant admission to the petitioners by stating as below:

"Now so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that while denying admission to the petitioners the State Government and/or authorities have not considered the relevant parameters and have not considered that the respective petitioners are able to perform well is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case all the expert bodies including the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and even the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi consisting of the experts have opined against the petitioners and their cases are considered in light of the relevant essential eligibility criteria as mentioned in Appendix ‘H’ – ‘Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’. Therefore, when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts – in the present case, the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, more particularly when there are no allegations of mala fides."

Judgement:

Supreme Court: MCI Expert Committee's opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee

Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) No. 669 OF 2018

Case title: Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Through Dr. Kamlesh Virumal Purswani Vs Union of India & Ors

Date of Judgement: 28 Aug 2018

Brief:

The Petitioner, who appeared for the NEET UG Examination for the 2018-19 session was denied benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities, despite having low vision impairment and being eligible for 5% reservation for specific benchmark disability under the RPwD Act, 2016 and MCI's Medical Education Regulation 4(3). 

An MCI expert committee determined that individuals with a visual impairment below 40% would not be admitted to the MBBS course.  Aggrieved by this he approached the Court.

The question which arises in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is, whether a person with benchmark disability of low vision, within the meaning of Section 2(r), read with Clause 1B of the Schedule, of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 can be denied the benefit of reservation for admission to the MBBS Medical Course.

The court said that the argument of MCI that Section 32 is not attracted since it only provides for reservation to higher educational institutions and not to technical institutions imparting technical education, appears to be fallacious since higher educational institution is a generic term which would include institutions imparting all kinds of higher education, including technical education, whereas technical institution is a specific term for those institutions which only impart technical education.

The court, rejecting the opinion of the committee, held that its opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision (Medical Regulations) mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities. It held that the RPwD Act, 2016 as well as Medical Regulations by MCI was binding on the institution and thus no expert committee's opinion could be given primacy over the same. Thus, it held that the petitioner cannot be denied admission if he qualifies as per his merit in the category of persons with disabilities.

Judgement:

Supreme Court of India wants an Expert Panel To Determine What Areas of Medical Practice Can Colour-blind MBBS Aspirants Study based on international best practices [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice AM Khanwilkar 

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.30772 of 2015)

Case Title: Pranay Kumar Podder Vs. State of Tripura and Others

Date of Judgement: 23 March 2017 and Complianace Order dated  12 Sep 2017

Brief

Dear colleagues,

In a progressive order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar has directed the Medical Council of India to constitute a committee of experts to look into the areas of practice that MBBS aspirants with colour blindness could indulge in. 

The bench passed these orders while hearing a Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.30772 of 2015), filed by two MBBS aspirants, who were declared ineligible for admissions at the stage of counseling in 2015, as they had partial colour blindness. 

The petitioners had challenged the decision of the committee that refused them admission because of their colour-blindness before the High Court of Tripura and  Agartala, contending that there existed no regulation framed by the Medical Council of India, under the Medical Council Act, 1956, debarring them from seeking admission. The high court had, however, refused to interfere, and had dismissed their petition. 

Before the Hon'ble SC, the petitioner's counsel contended that it was “obligatory” on the part of the Medical Council of India to take a “progressive measure so that an individual suffering from CVD may not feel like an alien to the concept of equality, which is the fon juris of our Constitution”. Amicus Curiae Mr. Viswanathan urged that a complete ban on the admission of individuals suffering from CVD to MBBS course would violate conferment of equal opportunities and fair treatment. To buttress this submission, he had made reference to provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, to which India is a signatory. 

The Amicus Curiae Mr. Viswanathan had urged that as colour blindness is not considered as a disability under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 nor it is a disability under the recently notified Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, the nature and severity of colour blindness and the disciplines they can practise has to be given a re-look.

The defendants, on the other hand, had submitted that since the complete diagnosis and prognosis of a disease or disorder may depend upon colour detection, there is requirement for restriction in the field of practice of an individual with colour blindness in this country.

Considering rival submissions, the court made reference to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr Kunal Kumar v Union of India and others, and also to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Parmesh Pachar Vs. Convener, Central Undergradutate Admission Board. While the Delhi HC had concurred with the view that people with colour blindness may not be able to pursue certain courses or disciplines, the Rajasthan HC had opined that students suffering from disabilities cannot be debarred from seeking admissions..

The apex court, however, wished neither to lean in favour of the view of Delhi High Court nor generally accept the perception of Rajasthan High Court. It, thus, directed an assessment by an independent expert committee, and observed, “Total exclusion for admission to medical courses without any stipulation in which they really can practice and render assistance would tantamount to regressive thinking. The march of science, apart from our constitutional warrant and  values, commands inclusion and not exclusion. That is the way a believer in human rights should think”.

The bench directed that the expert committee shall also  concentrate on diagnostic test for progress and review of the disorder and what are the available prosthetics aids to  assist CVD medical practitioners and what areas of practice could they undertake without difficulty with these aids. It further said the committee shall include representatives of the Medical Council of India, and experts from genetics, ophthalmology, psychiatry and medical  education, who shall be from outside the members of the Medical Council of India. It has been directed to submit a report to the court within three months. The matter has been listed for July 11.

Writing the order the court expressed, "Human being is a magnificent creation of the Creator and that magnificence should be exposed in a humane, magnanimous and all-inclusive manner so that all tend to feel that they have their deserved space. Total exclusion for admission to medical courses without any stipulation in which they really can practise and render assistance would tantamount to regressive thinking. When we conceive of global phenomenon and universal brotherhood, efforts are to be made to be within the said parameters. The march of science, apart from our constitutional warrant and values, commands inclusion and not exclusion. That is the way a believer in human rights should think.

The bench has directed the Committee of Experts to submit a report to the court within three months, andd fixed the next listing on 11 July 2017 for compliance.

See the judgement dated 23 March 2017 and  compliance Order dated 12 Sep 2017 below:

Judgement dated 23 March 2017:

 

 

Compliance Order dated 12 Sep 2017:

Supreme Court | Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. B. S. Reddy | 23 Feb 2017 | Section 47 of PWD Act 1995

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.

Case No.:   Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017,Civil Appeal Nos.3428-3458 of 2017,Civil Appeal Nos.3464-3499 of 2017,Civil Appeal Nos.3501-3527 of 2017

Case Title: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. B. S. Reddy

Date of Judgement:  23 February, 2017.

Cited as : 2017 ALL SCR 1413

Cases Cited:

• Hawa Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, W.P. (C) No.7880/2011, Dt.3.2.2012 [Para 4,5]
• Airport Authority of India Vs. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh, L.P.A. No.1601/2005, Dt.14.12.2005 [Para 4,5]
• G. Muthu Vs. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, (2006) 4 MLJ 1669 [Para 4]

Synopisis:  Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1995), Ss.47, 2(i) - Benefit of S.47 of Act - Prayer for - By employees of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporation - Benefit is available to only those persons who are covered under S.2(i) of Act and not to other persons - Schemes of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporation covers even those employees who are not covered by Section 2(i) of the Act - Thus, those who are disabled within meaning of S.2(i) are not without any benefit whatsoever - Employees of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporation are entitled to invoke such schemes but not benefit of Section 47. 2006 (4) MLJ 1669 Dissented from. (Paras, 4, 5, 6)

JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue raised in this set of cases is whether benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is available to those covered by Section 2(i) of the said Act alone or applies even to persons not covered thereby.

4. The employees in question suffered disability during employment and they sought benefit of Section 47 of the Act to the effect that their services could not be dispensed with on account of the said disability, nor their rank could be reduced and they could only be shifted to some other post, with same pay-scale and service benefits. The claim was contested by the appellants-Transport Corporations with the plea that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act was available only to those covered by Section 2(i) which defines "disability". The said stand was supported on the basis of judgments of the High Court of Delhi in the cases of Hawa Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation dated 3.2.2012 in W.P. (C) No.7880 of 2011 & Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh dated 14.12.2005 in L.P.A. NO.1601 of 2005. The High Court of Delhi dissented from the judgment of the Madras High Court in G. Muthu V. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited - (2006) 4 MLJ 1669 which lays down that the definition under Section 2(i) could not control the provision of Section 47 of the Act, as the context of Section 47 of the Act requires a different meaning to be given to the word "disability".

5. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court which has been followed in the impugned order and approve the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in Hawa Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Airport Authority of India v. Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh. We do not find any reason to hold that expression "disability" in Section 47 of the Act is used in a different context so as not to go by the definition given in Section 2(i) of the Act. We also note that even though Section 2(i) of the Act may not cover every disabled, scheme of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Transport Corporations covers even those employees who are not covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. Thus, those who are disabled within the meaning of Section 2(i) are not without any benefit whatsoever. They are, thus, entitled to invoke such schemes but not Section 47 of the Act.

6. In view of above, we allow these appeals in above terms and hold that the benefit of Section 47 of the Act will be available only to those who are covered by Section 2(i) of the Act. No costs.

7. It will be open for the appellants-Corporations to take decision on individual grievances of the employees and the employees are at liberty to take their remedies in terms of the above judgment.

8. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

Supreme Court while upholding the Karnataka HC decision directs Karnataka Govt not to deny Primary School Teacher jobs to Visually Impaired Candidatesto

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2009 (Against the final order and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in PIL Writ Petition No. 16396 of 2005 dt. 29.09.2007)

Case Title: Selection Authority and Deputy Director  Vs. Akhila Karnataka S.K. Andha Sangha

Date of Judgement: 01 Sep 2016

Supreme Court directs Karnataka Govt. to not keep visually impaired persons out of primary school teacher jobs while dismissing the appeal filed by the Karnataka Govt.

Supreme Court of India upheld the ruling of the Karnataka High Court in PIL Writ petition No. 16396 of 2005, directing the Karnataka State Government to ensure reservation for visually impaired persons in the role of primary school teachers and to execute this through a dedicated recruitment drive. This decision marked the culmination of a legal battle that saw the state government arguing that individuals with blindness or low vision were unsuitable for the role of primary school teachers and should not be entitled to reservation in these positions.

The repercussions of this Supreme Court ruling are significant, as it will necessitate the recruitment of hundreds of blind and low vision individuals to address the shortfall in reserved vacancies that had persisted since 2005.

This legal victory was achieved through the efforts of a non-governmental organization (NGO) representing blind individuals, known as the "Akhila Karnataka Andha S.K. Sangha", with the able representation of Advocate Jayna Kothari. The organization had previously succeeded in petitioning the Karnataka High Court, where the state had argued that primary school teacher positions were ill-suited for visually impaired persons. In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in July 2016, the state contended that students in primary schools could not be effectively taught by teachers with blindness or low vision. They further claimed that many government primary schools, out of a total of 44,000, had only one or two teachers without additional support staff, making it difficult for such schools to function if reservations were granted to visually impaired persons.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected these arguments put forth by the Karnataka State Government. The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, pointed out that the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 mandates that a minimum of 3% of all government job vacancies should be reserved for disabled individuals. Of this quota, at least 1% should be allocated for persons with impaired vision. Moreover, both the Central and Karnataka State Governments had recognized primary school teaching positions as suitable for blind and low vision individuals in accordance with the said Act. The court maintained that placing visually impaired individuals in schools equipped with other teachers and support staff would not disrupt the schools' functioning, particularly given the availability of modern technology-based aids and appliances for blind and low vision individuals. Thus, the Supreme Court held the state government responsible for fulfilling its obligation to employ visually impaired persons in these positions and dismissed their appeal.

Below the Supreme Court's order dated 01.09.2016 dismissing the appeal of the State Govt. of Karnataka:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length who have taken us through the orders impugned in these appeals. We are of the considered view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error much less any perversity to compel our interference in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. These civil appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed."

Access the Karnataka HC Judgement: