SC Strikes Down Arbitrary Disability Percentage Ceiling for Public Employment: Reaffirms Reasonable Accommodation under RPwD Act in Prabhu Kumar [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 868 of 2024
Case Title: Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Date of Judgment: 11 March 2026

In a judgment with far-reaching implications for disability-inclusive public employment in India, the Supreme Court of India has held that the State cannot impose arbitrary upper limits on disability percentages for reservation in public employment unless such restrictions are backed by objective functional assessment and the principles of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The judgment is a major reaffirmation of substantive equality and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation, and decisively rejects the long-standing administrative practice of mechanically excluding persons with higher disability percentages from employment opportunities.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Prabhu Kumar, a practising advocate with 90% permanent locomotor disability due to left shoulder disarticulation, had applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in Himachal Pradesh pursuant to a 2018 recruitment advertisement.

The recruitment notification reserved two posts for persons with disabilities but imposed a condition that eligible candidates must have disability between 40% and 60% in one arm or one leg.

Despite successfully clearing the written examination and interview, and even topping among candidates selected under the disability category, the appellant was denied appointment solely because his disability exceeded the prescribed 60% ceiling.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed his challenge, following the earlier decision in V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

RPwD Act Creates a “Floor”, Not a “Ceiling”

The Supreme Court examined Sections 2(r) and 33 of the RPwD Act, 2016 and held that the law only prescribes a minimum threshold of 40% disability for benchmark disability status and does not permit the State to impose arbitrary upper limits.

In one of the most significant observations of the judgment, the Court held:

“The RPwD Act, 2016 defines the ‘floor’ for reservation eligibility but does not empower the State to create an arbitrary ‘ceiling’ that excludes those with higher degrees of disability, provided they are otherwise capable of performing the functional requirements of the role through reasonable accommodation.”

The Court further observed that by fixing a 60% cap, the State had effectively rewritten the statutory definition of benchmark disability in a manner contrary to the object of the RPwD Act.

Reasonable Accommodation Is Central to Disability Rights

The Bench relied heavily upon the transformative ruling in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, which had questioned and weakened the earlier precedent in V. Surendra Mohan.

Reproducing extensive portions from Vikash Kumar, the Court reiterated that disability jurisprudence in India must be rooted in reasonable accommodation and not in stereotypical assumptions about capability.

The judgment quoted with approval the observation that:

“Reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution.”

The Court emphasised that the relevant question is not whether accommodating a person with disability may create “avoidable complications”, but whether providing accommodation imposes a disproportionate or undue burden.

Disability Percentage Cannot Determine Capability

Rejecting the assumption that a higher disability percentage automatically implies inability to perform professional duties, the Court made a strong statement on functional competence:

“The percentage of disability, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of a candidate’s capability or suitability for public employment.”

The Bench noted that the appellant had already demonstrated his competence by practising law successfully for nearly a decade and by securing the highest rank among disability category candidates.

Importantly, the Court held that suitability must be assessed through actual functional evaluation rather than abstract medical percentages.

Supreme Court Questions the Rationality of the 60% Ceiling

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the State’s inability to justify the 60% disability cap.

The Bench observed:

“We are at a loss to comprehend as to what could have been the rationale behind fixing this upper limit of disability…”

It further noted that the duties of an Assistant District Attorney primarily involve legal reasoning, advocacy, teaching, and advisory functions where locomotor disability in the arm could not reasonably be treated as an impediment.

The Supreme Court also highlighted that even the High Court had recorded serious doubts regarding the basis on which the State had fixed the disability ceiling and had found no evidence of consultation with experts or objective assessment.

Constitutional Equality and Substantive Inclusion

The Court held that the State’s action violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the mandate of the RPwD Act.

The judgment is significant because it shifts the focus from medicalised exclusion to substantive equality and individualised assessment.

It reiterates that persons with disabilities cannot be denied opportunities merely because administrative authorities rely upon preconceived assumptions or arbitrary numerical restrictions unsupported by scientific or functional analysis.

Relief Granted

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to appoint the appellant as Assistant District Attorney within two weeks.

The Court further directed that:

• the appointment would relate back to 19 September 2019 with all notional benefits;
• if the vacancy was unavailable, a supernumerary post must be created;
• the State must pay costs of ₹5 lakh to the appellant for the prolonged injustice suffered by him.

Commentary

This ruling is likely to become a foundational precedent in disability employment jurisprudence in India.

Across India, recruitment advertisements and institutional policies frequently prescribe rigid medical or disability-percentage restrictions without undertaking any evidence-based assessment of actual job requirements or possibilities of reasonable accommodation. This judgment makes it clear that such exclusions cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

The decision also strengthens the evolving judicial trend seen in cases such as Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences, Anmol v. Union of India, and Kabir Pahariya v. National Medical Commission, where the Supreme Court has consistently moved away from stereotype-based exclusion and towards individualised, evidence-based assessment of capabilities.

Most importantly, the judgment recognises that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not concessions but enforceable constitutional entitlements essential to achieving genuine equality for persons with disabilities in public life.

Read the judgement in Prabhu Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh

Delhi HC orders appointment of a Person with Visual Disability to IAS with consequential seniority

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Case No.: WP(C) 572 of 2020

Case Title: Vishv Mohan V. DoPT & Others

Date of Judgement: 22.08.2022

Brief

While ordering Mr. Vishv Mohan, a candidate with visual impairment  of 2015 batch, to be appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and setting aside Appellate Medical Board Report as being inconclusive, the Delhi High Court observed that a welfare State is expected to create conditions which are conducive to citizens with disabilities by providing them avenues for public employment under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The  State is enjoined to create conditions and opportunities for the welfare and betterment of the citizens with disabilities and those who are differently abled.

"The Central Government had enacted the said Act to ensure that the citizens falling in this category are not deprived of their rightful means of livelihood in respect of public employment. It is with a view to give impetus to the beneficial provisions of the said Act, that the Central Government and the State Governments created various avenues for public employment of such differently abled citizens." said the Court.

The Court dealt with a plea filed by a candidate with visual  disability for recruitment of All India Service for the year 2015.  The petitioner had challenged the report of the Appellate Medical Board of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, conducted in compliance of High Court's order whereby the Medical Board consisting of three senior doctors had concluded that the Petitioner was having visual disability of 20% only. Whereas several other competent medical boards and one medical board of AIIMS Delhi had also ceritified him in the past with more than 60% visual disability. 

The Court expressed its astonishment as to how the AIIMS Delhi could assess them 20% disability and 60-75% disability in two different sittings.

While there was no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner suffered from visual impairment namely 'high myopia with Isometropic Amblyopia', the Court dealt with the issue as to whether the Petitioner was suffering from a visual impairment which would be greater than 40%. Having 40% visual impairment would entitle the petitioner to be treated as a visually disabled category candidate.

It was the Petitioner's case that he was a meritorious candidate who had secured a total of 828 marks in the examination of the Civil Services Examination 2014 with All India Rank of 1173 and 5th rank holder in the disabled category.

Perusing the consistent medical reports of past several years wherein his disability ws assessed higher than 60% by competent medical boards in the disability certificates issued to the petitioner, the Court was of the view that the Petitioner fell within the definition as contained in sec. 2(b)(ii) of the PWD Act.

The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner was not only a person with visual impairment to the extent of 60% but also a "brilliant candidate" who had secured 5th rank in his own category and was also positioned at All India Rank No.1173.

"In such circumstances, depriving the Petitioner of public employment, that too, at the level of Indian Administrative Services, on such inconclusive medical report dated 17.12.2018, is not only unfair, unjust but also whimsical and arbitrary. We hold so," the Court observed.

Setting aside the impugned Appellate Medical Board Report, the Court directed the respondents to take the assessment of the percentage of disability of the Petitioner at 60% and also consider him qualified so far as the medical criteria is concerned.

"As a consequence, Respondent No.1/DoPT is directed to allot the cadre and appoint the Petitioner in Indian Administrative Service (2015 Batch) considering him eligible in so far as the Central Civil Examination, 2014 is concerned with all consequential benefits in respect of seniority and promotion on notional basis. Since the Petitioner  did not discharge any duties, we refrain from granting any back wages," the Court added while disposing of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 

Read the embedded order dated 22 Aug 2022 below:-

A person with 71% physical disability can't study Medicine - says MCI's resolution!

Dear Colleagues,

The resolution of Medical Council of India that the disability must be between 40 per cent and 70 per cent to be eligible for admission and for seeking a seat reserved for candidates with physical disability itself is faulty. The degree of disability is a medical model and can not be a conclusive reason to declare what a person with disabilities can do or not do. Then we have highly subjective disability evaluation system wherein two different doctors give different grading of disability to the same person. A person with 71% will thus be technically outrightly rejected for the wrong assessment due to subjectivities involved.

Hon'ble High Court may have given the benefit to the petitioner in the instant case, however, technically even the bench is not competent to decide on the degree of disability, unless doubting the State Medical Board's assessment, it ordered for re-constitution of Medical Board which gave an otherwise recommendation on it. 

At the most, the bench could have expressed its opinion on the discernible abilities of the petitioner observed by them and ordered accordingly. I feel, getting in to guess work of percentage of disabilities is like falling in to the trap of 40-70 percentage set out by the improper and unreasonable resolution of the MCI which is not supported by the disability legislation in the country. This classification has been created by MCI of its own which doesn't stand the test of law.

Here is the news coverage:

Reconsider admission of physically disabled student: HC

A special medical board set up by the state government had found the student unfit for health science courses and ineligible for a seat under the physically disabled quota as his disabilities stood at 88 per cent.

Written by Ruhi Bhasin | Mumbai | Published on:June 26, 2015 2:50 am

Noting the movements of a physically disabled student inside the courtroom, the Bombay High Court has directed the state government to consider his admission in the first of year MBBS course. The student was earlier denied admission under the physically handicapped quota.

“He (petitioner) has been walking with braces and having seen his physical movements in the court room, we are of the view that his disability cannot be assessed as 88 per cent. His case should be considered for admission to the first year MBBS course on the basis that his disability is between 50 per cent and 70 per cent ,” said Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice A K Menon.

Earlier, a special medical board set up by the state government had found the student unfit for health science courses and ineligible for a seat under the physically disabled quota as his disabilities stood at 88 per cent. While under the Medical Council of India resolution, the disability must be between 40 per cent and 70 per cent to be eligible for admission and for seeking a seat reserved for candidates with physical disability.

The HC, however, directed the state government to consider his case on the basis of his marks obtained by him in the common entrance, MH-CET, 2015, for admission to first MBBS course in a seat reserved for physically handicapped.

The student had sought admission to the first year MBBS course in the Government Medical College in a seat reserved for physically handicapped on the ground that his disability is between 50 percent and 70 percent.

He was born on March 18, 1996 and had been suffering from congenital disability involving both the lower limbs due to Bilateral Congenital Dislocation (CHD) of hip and Congenital Talipes Equinovarus (CTEV).

From 1996 to 2004, his father who is a doctor, provided him with treatment and care, including multiple surgeries and physiotherapy.

The boy underwent five surgeries on the deformities and the correction was carried out to the extent that there is no more dislocation of the hip joint.

There were, however, restrictions to the hip joint while doing physical activities of the lower limb. Pooja Thorat, the petitioner’s lawyer, informed the court that the special medical board has examined him without wearing braces. “He, infact, was wearing braces even while studying in school and was himself commuting from his residence to the school,” the lawyer had submitted.

Source: Indian Express

Loss in earning capacity and not degree of disability is considered in deciding compensation: Madras HC

Madras High Court has while hearing an appeal against a poor disability compensation in a motor accident claim case recently held that while computing compensation in motor accident cases, the loss of earning capacity of the victim should outweigh the extent of disability.

Enhancing the compensation by 2 lakh to the injured driver, Justice R Mahadevan said,  “In cases of compensation, it is not the disability, which could be partial or total, alone that matters. It is the loss in earning capacity as a result of the accident that is to be considered.”
 
In the instant case R Murali, driver of a concrete mixing vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed to have suffered 100% loss in his earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest.  However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarded only Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing his monthly income at Rs 4,000.

The driver, aggrieved by the poor compensation package, approached the high court.  Opposing enhancement of compensation, counsel for the insurance company said Murali could walk and his disability was only 60%. Even though he is incapable of driving, he can go for some other job, the insurance firm argued and sought dismissal of the appeal.

Justice Mahadevan, disagreeing with the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as well as the submissions of the insurance company’s counsel, said they had failed to discuss the applicability of “total disablement”.

The judge while distinguishing “disability” in medical parlance and “disability” vis-a-vis earning capacity, said, “Considering the injury on the hip, right leg and ankle, Murali can no longer drive a vehicle as he cannot exercise absolute control over it.”

Source: Times of India