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:

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 

Calcutta High Court Orders Punjab National Bank to Pay ₹3 Lakh for Discrimination Against Disabled Employee [Judgement included]

Court: Calcutta High Court, India

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

Case Title: Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others

Case No: WPA 10195 of 2023

Date of Hearing: 20 June 2024

Subject: Inhuman conduct of employer bank with a disabled employee, transfer on promotion 

Brief

In a landmark judgement, the Calcutta High Court has directed Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to a bank official with a 70 percent disability for what the court described as "inhuman" conduct towards him [Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others]. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha emphasized the need for sensitivity and compliance with disability rights laws in the banking sector.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anirban Pal, a Scale-III officer at PNB, was severely injured in a motor accident in 2015, resulting in a 70 percent disability. Despite his condition, Pal was promoted to Scale-IV in 2018. However, PNB insisted on transferring him to Patna, disregarding his repeated requests to remain in Calcutta, where he had access to essential caregiving.

Pal initially avoided the bank's promotion process in 2016, fearing transfer. Observing that two colleagues with physical disabilities were promoted without transfer, he participated in the 2018 promotion process. Although promoted to Scale-IV, his request to stay in Calcutta was denied, forcing him to move to Patna under duress.

Unable to cope with the move, Pal took leave due to severe discomfort and pain. PNB's threats of coercive action further aggravated his situation. Pal then appealed for repatriation to Calcutta, either in his promoted role or by reverting to his previous Scale-III position. Following intervention from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Pal was transferred back to Calcutta in December 2018, albeit demoted to Scale-III.

Court's Findings

The Court condemned PNB’s actions, highlighting their failure to accommodate Pal’s disability needs and their blatant disregard for the directives of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Court mandated disciplinary actions against the responsible officials and ordered the sensitization of all Public Sector Bank officials regarding the "Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016" and the bank's special rules pertaining to disability.

Sensitization and Disciplinary Measures

The High Court's judgement underscores the urgent need for greater awareness and adherence to disability rights within public institutions. The Court's directive to sensitize officials across all Public Sector Banks aims to prevent future instances of discrimination and ensure that employees with disabilities receive the support and accommodations they are entitled to under the law.

This judgement serves as a critical reminder of the legal and ethical obligations of employers to uphold the rights and dignity of employees with disabilities. It is a significant step towards fostering an inclusive and supportive work environment in India's banking sector and beyond.

Read the Judgement

Court of CCPD issues notice to Ola Cabs on disability discrimination meted out to a disabled veteran refusing to accept the wheelchair for ride.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India.

Presided by: Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, CCPD

Case Title: Wing Commander Shantanu Vs. Ola Cabs.

Date of Notice/Order: 15 Dec 2023

Brief: 

The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) has issued a notice to Ola Cabs in response to a complaint filed by Wing Commander Shantanu, a para shooter, and a veteran of the Indian Air Force. The notice addresses the alleged denial by an Ola Cab driver to accept the wheelchair of the para shooter, who has an 80% locomotor disability.

According to the complaint lodged with the CCPD, Wing Commander Shantanu had booked an Ola cab to travel a short distance from the Karni Singh Shooting Range, where he was participating in the 1st Khelo India Para Games, to a location 3 kilometres away on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 as there was no space in the rear boot, occupied by a CNG kit, the para shooter’s wife requested the driver to place the folded wheelchair in the back seat—a common practice among sedan cab drivers.

However, the specific Ola driver, whose details have been withheld, reportedly responded aggressively, using derogatory language, and demanded that the couple exit the cab, refusing to accommodate the wheelchair.

Feeling aggrieved and humiliated by this encounter, the Air Force veteran complained to the CCPD, seeking redress and action against the driver. The CCPD, viewing the allegations as an affront to the dignity of a person with a disability, particularly a soldier and sportsperson, has issued a notice to Ola Cabs.

The notice requires Ola to respond within 30 days, addressing the reported ill-treatment and ensuring necessary action is taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Navigating Indian towns poses unique challenges for individuals using wheelchairs. The infrastructure often lacks proper accessibility features, such as ramps or elevators, footpaths, making it difficult for wheelchair users to access public spaces, including sidewalks and buildings.

Narrow and crowded streets further complicate mobility, hindering the smooth movement of wheelchairs. Additionally, public transportation systems may not be wheelchair-friendly, with limited or no provisions for boarding and disembarking.

The overall lack of awareness and accommodation in public spaces contributes to the daily struggles faced by wheelchair users, impacting their ability to move freely and independently in Indian towns despite their equal right to use public transport and public spaces.

Source: Press Release, Govt. of India

Chhattisgarh HC directs the PSC Raipur to appoint Visually Impaired Candidate who was denied appointment despite her merit position as the assistant did not mark her Physically Disabled in the form.

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court, Raipur

Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Case No.:  WP(S) 4572 of 2020

Case Title: Bhojkumari Patel Vs. Chhattishgarh Public Service Commission Raipur

Brief

The Chhattisgarh high court has allowed a writ petition, filed by a 26-year-old visually impaired girl, Ms. Bhojkumari Patel and directed the state public service commission (PSC) to issue a selection list so that the higher education department can appoint her assistant professor of political science in the ‘blind’ category. 

The bench ordered the PSC to complete the process within 15 days of receiving the order, and the higher education department to issue an appointment order to petitioner within a month. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is 90% blind, the court said, adding that she fulfils all the criteria for the appointment and even “stood in the merit position” in the exam for assistant professor (blind category), yet her appointment has been denied.

The court said the inaction of the PSC in issuing an appointment order to a person with a disability goes against the aims and object of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Bhojkumari Patel shared that she had to fight a legal battle for one and a half years to get justice because of an inadvertent error when she took assistance at a cybercafé to fill her application. She is hopeful of getting her  appointment order by December 2022.

The PSC had issued an advertisement on August 23, 2019, for appointments to the post of assistant professor. Patel has a masters’ in political science and cleared NET. Her blindness certificate was issued by Dr Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS-Delhi.

Being 90% blind, she was allowed the assistance of scribes to write the examination. She secured the highest mark in her category and was selected for the interview phase. She was shocked when she didn’t find her name on the list of selected candidates. 

On inquiring, she found that the person who helped fill her application had clicked ‘no’ in the column for ‘physical disability’. Therefore, she was not selected. She then submitted an application with the PSC on June 21, 2021, for rectification of the mistake, but it was not considered, her counsel submitted in court, pointing out that her admit card clearly said she was 90% visually impaired. The court passed an interim order on July 5, 2021, for reserving one post in the physically handicapped (blind) OBC female category. 

During the pendency of the petition, the state sanctioned six supernumerary posts in the blind category on November 30, 2021, in which two were for political science. The state had asked the PSC to send the selection list against these posts, but it had not considered the case of the petitioner. 

Patel’s counsel argued that scribes are provided only when a person is more than 40% disabled, and here the petitioner is 90% blind, which has been certified by the government doctor

Allahabad HC directs compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for violation of human dignity of a person with disability during recruitment exercise

Court: Allahabd High Court, UP, India 

Bench: Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Case No. : Writ - A No. - 18302 of 2021

Case title - Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary ( Higher Education) And 4 Others 

Date of Order: 31.08.2022

Case Brief 

The petitioner who is 56-year-old and a person with disability having 50% locomotor disability, had applied for the post of a Library Peon at a Government Degree College in Saharanpur. The essential qualifications for the said post prescribed were Class V pass and ability to ride cycle. 

He was called for an interview, however, in the interview, the petitioner was not evaluated and he was purportedly asked to leave as he could not ride a bicycle. The principal forced the petitioner to ride a bicycle though he expressed he could ride a tricycle with equal efficiency. Subsequently, a higher educational qualification (for the post of Library Peon) of High School was insisted and since the petitioner did not hold that qualification, he was excluded. 

The petitioner thus moved to the High Court claiming the violation of his rights and alleging humiliation caused to him, mainly by the then Principal of the Government Degree College, who interviewed him. He also alleged hostile discrimination having been practised by the State respondents and a complete violation of his special rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. 

He also argued that only to deprive him of an opportunity of employment, the selection process was stalled and higher educational qualification (than that possessed by the petitioner), was pressed so that the petitioner could be excluded from the zone of consideration. 

The petitioner also had escalated the issue and lodged complaints, as a result, the Regional Employment Exchange (Divyangjan), Meerut Division instituted an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioner. It submitted report dated 23.11.2007 confirming the allegations as true.

Thereafter the court/office of State Commissioner (Divyangjan), exercising powers vested under Section 82 of the Old Act directed the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, to institute a magisterial enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the magisterial enquiry was conducted and its report submitted on 09.09.2019. In that, the Magistrate found the fact allegation made by the petitioner to be correct.

Also, upon receipt of direction issued by the court/office of State Commissioner (Divyangjan) dated 23.05.2019, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, acting as the Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, made his own enquiry and passed an order dated 30.11.2019, confirming the allegations of the petitioner as true and recommending action agaisnt respondents.

At that stage and in view of the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Saharanpur, the petitioner withdrew his earlier writ petition No. 17917 of 2007, in belief of appointment thus assured to him.

However, the above order was assailed by the then Principal of the Government Degree College, Deoband, Saharanpur, in Writ – A No. 1975 of 2020 (Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.). It transpires, in the course of those proceedings, office of the District Magistrate/Additional Commissioner (Divyangjan), Saharanpur, vide further order dated 17.02.2020 withdrew in entirety its earlier order dated 30.11.2019.

Thus the petitioner again approached this court with the present petiton at a delayed stage.

Court Order

The Court, affirming the importance of human dignity, the granted a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh as compensation to the petitioner. While partly alowing the petition of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Gupta, the court remarked, "The amount of compensation has been awarded to let the petitioner know, the State may take time to hear & understand its citizen and his plight but, it is neither deaf nor heartless as may ever remain indifferent, forcing him to drag his feet, almost literally, to this Court to seek justice. The citizen works at the heart of the giant being the State is. Unless the heart beats freely, the being cannot thrive." 

The Court expressed that the state was liable to compensate its 'special citizen' whose dignity was violated as he was humiliated at the instance of the State authorities, for no fault of his. The Court also emphasized that the State and its functionaries had failed to protect him, and the act of humiliation was against the mandate of the Constitution. 

"...the State and its functionaries have not only failed a special citizen but also violated his fundamental right to life and liberty - for what worth is human existence if it is denuded of dignity and respect deserving its cherished existence. Deprived of dignity, liberty is a sea-shell washed to the shore, dead and of ornate value for others but worthless to the being that used to live within it," the Court further observed.

The Court also added that the respondents are generally at fault in not providing for identification and reservation of adequate posts for persons with a locomotor disability at Government Degree College at Deoband, Saharanpur.  The Court called it "most disturbing" that instead of apprising him of the fact regarding non-availability of reservation, he was unfairly asked to ride a bicycle which he obviously could not. 

In any case, the Court opined, in absence of a specification of 'bicycle' in the advertisement, the petitioner should have been allowed to ride a 'tricycle' which also qualifies as a cycle. In other words, the Court clarified, that if otherwise eligible, the petitioner should have been allowed to compete as a General Category candidate. 

The court directed the State  to pay the petitioner, a lump-sum compensation assessed at Rs. 5,00,000/-  directly into his Savings Bank Account within a period of three months.

Read the order embedded below: 

Court of CCPD directs Kerala Gramin Bank to give promotion to a candidate with blindnesss on equal basis with others.

 Court:         Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, India

Case No.     13186/1021/2021

Case Title:   Sukulal Vs. Chairman, Kerala Gramin Bank 

Date of Order: 04 August 2022

Subject:    Discrimination in promotion on the basis of disability to a blind candidate, Relaxation of Standards, Reasonable Accommmodation

Read the order embedded below:

Landmark licence review triggered after RNIB, UK complained against refusal to allow entry in restaurant to a blind man with his guide dog

A blind man who was refused entry to a restaurant with his guide dog has instigated a landmark licence review which could set a precedent for disability training in the hospitality industry.

Artur Ortega said managers at Manjal in Canary Wharf told him he could not dine if he wanted to bring his trained dog Mercer inside.

Under the Equality Act, guide dog and other assistance dog owners have the right to enter most premises and vehicles with their animals. READ the guide in PDF Here.

The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) complained to Tower Hamlets Council on Mr Ortega’s behalf. It has triggered a licensing review, believed to be the first of its kind for a restaurant in the UK. The charity wants conditions added to the diner’s licence, which will ensure staff have to go through training so they know the rules around discrimination against service dog owners.

Jack Holborn, the lawyer the charity has employed for the review, said they do not want to see Manjal, which has since moved to nearby Marsh Wall, lose its licence, but added: “The law is already very clear. What we are asking for is that restaurant staff have training to ensure things like this do not happen. We would like to see this added to all premises’ licences.”

Samantha Fothergill, of the RNIB, said: “This is an area where local authorities can and must use their licensing powers to stamp out this practice. We believe licensing powers can be used to require staff to be trained, to require the display of a sticker welcoming assistance dogs and, ultimately, to revoke licences where refusals happen.”

Mr Ortega, a software engineer, and his colleagues were refused entry to the Indian restaurant last July.

Ms Fothergill said: “When Mr Ortega complained, the manager was called but he also confirmed guide dog Mercer was not welcome. The manager told Mr Ortega that not everyone liked dogs and that he should show some understanding of Asian culture.” Mr Ortega said when the table was booked he had explained he was bringing a guide dog and he told staff that under the Equality Act he was allowed to bring Mercer inside. He said: “I felt completely humiliated to be discriminated against in such a rude way.”

He added that he had been to Manjal before with Mercer and had not been turned away. Naveen Bhandari, from Manjal, later wrote a letter to Mr Ortega apologising for the incident and offered the group a complimentary meal.

He said managers had realised their mistake and were going to allow Mr Ortega to dine there — but in the 15 minutes while they were preparing a table for him he had left.

Related news: Standard dot co dot UK 

SC says Reservations & Relaxations for disabled - a matter of Govt. Policy; Rejects Delhi & Madras HC view on number of attempts at CSE [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

While hearing Civil Appeal No. 858 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21587 of 2013), titled Union of India & Ors Vs. M. Selvakumar & Anr., a bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising  Sh. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Sh. Justice Ashok Bhushan, in its judgement dated 24 January 2017 has observed, "It is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether the better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution."

The bench headed by Ranjan Gogoi set aside the judgement of the Madras High Court and the view taken by Delhi High Court that "increasing the number of attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category from 4 to 7 with effect from the 2007 Examination and not proportionally increasing the number of attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category from 7 to 10, is discriminatory and arbitrary".

Judgement

To read the judgement in Civil Appeal No. 858 of 2017 titled Union of India & Ors Vs. M. Selvakumar & Anr  in portable document format (PDF) click here, and in Notepad format click here.

Background

It is pertinent to note that the Madras High Court in its order passed on 24.01.2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 18705 of 2010 titled M. Selvakumar versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Others had discussed in detail clause-3 (iv) of the Notification for CSE 2008 and specifically discussed the provision which states that physically handicapped will get as many attempts as are available to other non-physically handicapped candidates of his or her community, subject to the condition that physically handicapped candidates belonging to the general category shall be eligible for 07 attempts. The High Court had further observed that the number of attempts for the physically handicapped persons in the general category has been increased from four to seven. However, the same benefit has not been proportionally extended to the PH candidates in the OBC community. Considering this to be inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India the petitioner M Selvakumar was given relaxation in the number of attempts as had been granted to the PH candidates belonging to general category. However, there were no specific direction of the Madras High Court to quash clause-3 of the notification nor there was any direction to the respondents to make necessary changes in the Rules for future examinations.

The SC bench said "the horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination, is a matter of Governmental policy and the Government after considering the relevant materials have extended relaxation and concessions to the Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category as well as General Category.

The verdict came on appeal filed by the Union of India challenging two judgements of the high courts which allowed Physically Handicapped students of OBC to avail 10 attempts instead of 7 attempts in the Civil Services Examination.

Both the High Court's had held that since the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category have been increased from 4 to 7 with effect from 2007 Civil Services Examination, there should be proportionate increase in attempts to be taken by Physically Handicapped Candidates belonging to the OBC Category. 

The apex court said when the attempts for exams of Physically Handicapped candidates of OBC Category as well as those of in General Category are made equal, there is no question of discrimination as the candidate belonging to OBC Category has already been given ten years relaxation in age which give them a relaxation of three more years.

"The present case is not a case of treating unequals as equal. It is a case of extending concessions and relaxations to the physically handicapped candidates belonging to general category as well as physically handicapped belonging to OBC category. Physically handicapped category is a category in itself, a person who is physically handicapped, be it physically handicapped of a general category or OBC category, suffering from similar disability has to be treated alike in extending the relaxation and concessions," noted the bench in its judgment.

Both being provided 7 attempts to appear in Civil Services Examination, no discrimination or arbitrariness can be found in the above scenario", the bench concluded.

Delhi Commission for Women issues notice to DoPT for denying IRAS to Women with Disability

Dear Colleagues,

The Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) has on 17 Jan 2016 issued a notice to Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Central government, in connection with a complaint filed by a blind woman alleging cancellation of appointment in Indian Railways Accounts Service (IRAS) by the railway ministry due to her disability.

The commission has sought -- within a week -- the factual report of the woman's candidature, reasons for rejection of IRAS service initially allocated to her and the proposed action plan of the DoPT to resolve the issue and compensate.

The woman, who qualified the civil services examination in 2015, has alleged that she was initially allotted a job in IRAS. However, her appointment was cancelled because of her disability and later when she followed it up with DoPT, she was reallocated a job in Postal and Telecommunication, Accounts and Finance Service, the woman alleged.

"While she was allocated the IRAS service as per her rank in CSE-2015, she has now been allocated a job which is in contravention of her rank, merit and preference of service," said the notice issued by DCW chief Swati Maliwal to DoPT secretary BP Sharma.

"It is evident that the lady has already undergone a great deal of struggle and after painstaking efforts has cleared the civil services examination. Crucial time of training and foundation course has been wasted due to systemic delays. Therefore, it is necessary that immediate action is taken to rectify the same," the notice further read.

In her representation to Maliwal, the complainant has said that at present she is pursuing PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University. "Born with a weak eyesight, I became completely blind at the age of 6. Surgeries were done but my retina could not be reattached. However, without wasting much time, I started learning Braille and continued with my studies. For this, I had to leave the comfort of home and stayed at a hostel for blind," she said in her representation to DCW.

Source: Times of India

UK Supreme Court rules in favour of Wheelchair than Buggy in public buses

Dear Colleagues,

You would remember this unique case of a wheelchair user Mr. Doug Paulley who approached the court after he was told he could not get on a bus to Leeds in 2012 when a mother with a pushchair refused to move. Mr. Paulley had argued that operator FirstGroup's "requesting, not requiring" policy was discriminatory. 

Brief of the Case

The appeal concerns the lawfulness of a bus company’s policy in relation to the use of the space provided for wheelchair users on its buses. Mr Paulley is a wheelchair user who attempted to board a bus operated by a subsidiary of FirstGroup PLC on 24th February 2012. 

The bus had a space marked by a wheelchair sign and a notice saying, “Please give up this space for a wheelchair user” (“the Notice”). At the time Mr Paulley attempted to board, a woman with a sleeping child in a pushchair occupied this space. She was asked by the driver to fold down the chair and move; however, she refused, stating that it did not fold down. Mr Paulley had to wait for the next bus as a result. 

Mr Paulley issued proceedings against FirstGroup for unlawful discrimination on the ground of his disability, claiming that FirstGroup had failed to make “reasonable adjustments” to its policies contrary to section 29(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The Recorder found that FirstGroup operated a “provision criterion or practice” (“PCP”) consisting of a “policy… of ‘first come first served’… whereby a non-wheelchair user occupying the space on the bus would be requested to move, but if the request was refused nothing more would be done.” This placed Mr Paulley and other wheelchair users at a substantial disadvantage by comparison with non-disabled passengers. 

There were reasonable adjustments that FirstGroup could have made to eliminate the disadvantage: 

(i) altering the Notice positively to require non-disabled passengers occupying a space to move if a wheelchair user needed it; and 

(ii) adopting an enforcement policy requiring non-disabled passengers to leave the bus if they failed to comply. 

The Recorder found in favour of Mr Paulley and awarded him £5,500 damages. However, FirstGroup went in appeal before the  Court of Appeal which unanimously allowed the appeal and held that it was not reasonable to hold that FirstGroup should adjust its policy so that its drivers required, rather than requested, non-wheelchair users to vacate a space when it was needed by a person in a wheelchair, and then to positively enforce that requirement with the ultimate sanction being removal from the bus. 

Mr. Paulley, went in appeal to UK Supreme Court against the impugned order.

Judgement of Supreme Court

To read the judgement dated 18 Jan 2017 of  The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in FirstGroup Plc (Respondent) v Paulley (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 4, click here.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Paulley’s appeal, albeit only to a limited extent. Lord Neuberger gave the lead judgment (with which Lord Reed agreed) allowing the appeal but only to the extent that FirstGroup’s policy requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate the space without taking any further steps was unjustified. 

Where a driver who has made such a request concludes that a refusal is unreasonable, he or she should consider some further step to pressurize the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances. Lord Toulson and Lord Sumption write concurring judgments. On the issue of the order to be made, this majority declines to uphold an award of damages. Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke also allow the appeal but they would have restored the order of the Recorder in full, including upholding the award of damages. 

Reasons for the Decision 

[References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment]

Under section 29 of the 2010 Act, as a “public service provider”, FirstGroup must not discriminate against a person requiring its services by not providing the person with the service, and it must make “reasonable adjustments” to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled persons [20-26]. 

The Recorder’s judgment effectively required a policy that could lead to a non-wheelchair user being ordered off the bus [40-45]. The Court of Appeal was right to reject this. An absolute rule that any non-wheelchair user must vacate the space would be unreasonable: there are many circumstances in which it could be unreasonable to expect a non-wheelchair user to vacate a space, and even more, to get off the bus, even where the space is needed by a wheelchair user [46-48]. 

Even a qualified rule (i.e. that any non-wheelchair user must vacate if it is reasonable) implemented through mandatory enforcement would be likely to lead to confrontation with other passengers (not least where the non-wheelchair user vacating the space affected other travellers) and delay [50-51]. Passengers are not clearly subject to a statutory obligation to comply with a policy relating to the use of the space, and would not appear to be under such an obligation to get off the bus if they fail to do so [52]. 

Even though the hearing in the Court of Appeal had proceeded on the basis that it was not part of Mr Paulley’s case [59], the argument that FirstGroup’s PCP should have gone further than it did, albeit not as far as the Recorder concluded, has more force. FirstGroup cannot be criticised for choosing not to express the Notice in more forceful terms: it was aimed at politely requiring non-wheelchair users to vacate the space; there was evidence that “directive” notices are a less effective means of communication with the public; and the use of specially emphatic language should not determine legal liability in this case [63]. 

The suggestion that the Notice should state that priority of wheelchair users “would be enforced” would be false [64]. However, it was not enough for FirstGroup to instruct its drivers simply to request non-wheelchair users to vacate the space and do nothing further if the request was rejected. The approach of the driver must depend upon the circumstances, but where he or she concludes that the refusal is unreasonable, some further step to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to move should be considered, such as rephrasing the request as a requirement (especially where the non-wheelchair user could move elsewhere in the bus) or even a refusal to drive on for several minutes [67]. 

Lord Toulson agrees [83-85] adding that fresh legislative consideration is desirable [87]. Lord Sumption also agrees albeit with reservations [92]. So far as damages are concerned, Lord Neuberger (with whom Lords Sumption, Reed and Toulson agree) concludes that the Recorder did not specifically consider whether, if FirstGroup had simply required its drivers to be more forceful, there was a prospect that it would have made a difference in this case. It is therefore not possible to conclude that there would have been a real prospect that such an adjustment would have resulted in Mr Paulley not being placed in the disadvantage that he was, and so an award of damages is not possible [60-61]. Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke dissent in part. 

As the Recorder found, it was reasonable to expect bus operators to do more than FirstGroup did [102-109]. His judgment did not necessarily require ejection of a passenger who refused to move from the bus nor did it create an absolute rule [106]; [129-131]; [137]. Had the practice suggested by the claimant been in force, there was at least a real prospect that Mr Paulley would likely have been able to travel [108]; [138]. This being so, it was unjust to deny Mr Paulley damages [109]; [160]. 

[References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment]

Delhi University gets another rap from Delhi High Court - Fined for defying Section 39 of Disabilities Act 1995 [Judgement Included]

Dear colleagues,

Delhi University was caught on the wrong side of the law once again for defying the mandate of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the instant case W.P.(C) 8232/2016 titled Medhavi Krishna v. University of Delhi and Ors., has directed the Delhi University to grant admission to the petitioner - a candidate with 77% disability, while declaring the admission criteria adopted by the University as "unsustainable".

In the instant case, the petitioner had sought a direction to the University to grant him admission under the PWD (Persons with disability) category in the Ph.D programme of Department of Buddhist Studies University of Delhi. The petitioner was one among the 47 students who had cleared the written examination and were called for the interview. He was the only student under the PWD category to have qualified for the same. Post interview, only twenty candidates were declared successful. However, arbitrarily no admission was granted under the PWD category. Aggrieved by the unreasonable & arbitrary denial of admission, the petitioner made representations before various authorities viz. the DU Vice-Chancellor, OSD (Admissions and Research Council) and also the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Head of Department of Buddhist Studies, but it failed to yield any result.

The petitioner left with no option approached the High Court, alleging discrimination on the ground that other candidates who had secured similar marks in the interview were granted admission under other categories. He submitted that the University could not have frustrated the provisions of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandates all Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government to reserve not less than three per cent seats for persons with disabilities. He had further contended that the minimum cut off marks could not have been fixed after the selection process had begun, as was the situation in the case at hand. The question then to be considered by the Court was then whether the cut off marks of 70, as prescribed by the Selection Committee, was justified. Accepting the contentions put forth by the petitioner, it ruled that fixing of 70 marks as the cut off for the PWD category was “without any basis/logic.”

Noting that seats in the Ph.D course were still available, and that the selection process was still going on, the Hon'ble Judge directed the University to grant admission to the petitioner, and also awarded costs to the tune of Rs. 10,000. 

To read the Court Judgement dated 14 December 2016 click below:

W.P.(C) 8232/2016 titled Medhavi Krishna v. University of Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC favours aspiring candidates with cerebral palsy for admission to MBBS; Orders re-constitution of Medical Board with 2 Neuro-specialists [Judgement Included]

Dear colleagues,

This petition by two candidates with cerebral palsy who are aspiring to become doctors/ surgeons revolves around three larger questions often faced by many candidates with disabilities aspiring to be doctors:

(a) Whether a person with cerebral palsy can be a doctor?
(b) Whether the 40-70% disability criteria set by MCI for admission to MBBS courses is constitutionally valid ?
(c) Whether  a team of ophthalmologist, a pathologist, an orthopaedic, a general physician and a surgeon can assess the disability of a person with cerebral palsy in absence of a neuro specialist?

The Medical Board set up by State Directorate of Medical Education and Research mechanically assessed the candidates above 70% disability looking at the etiology of their disability i.e. cerebral palsy. The Board did not have neuro-specialists. Hon'ble Bench ordered to re-examine the candidates citing that the Medical Board was not competent to even assess the candidates with cerebral palsy. The court expressed that the Medical Board should include two doctors who have a specialization in neuroscience and asked for re-constitution of the same to assess the disability and to keep two seats vacant for them.  However, it seems the judgement doesn't address the impugned criteria of 40-70% disability!  Another area that is worth our concern is the tendency of authorities to adjust candidates with disabilities in disability quota even when the candidates have scored higher marks in the common entrance test like general candidates. This must be checked at every stage.

It is pertinent to mention that the candidates did not have functional impediment of upper limbs, they had a restriction of the lower limbs while walking. However, since the disability is a result of cerebral palsy, the medical board often indicates all four limbs involved. Same is the case with the List of identified posts by Govt. of India wherein the assessment or identification doesn't highlight the functional abilities as it mechanically goes with categories as One Arm, One Leg, Both Legs. Merely on the basis of slight involvement of limbs the candidates are declared ineligible even where the affected limb hasn't lost its functional competence. (Eg. a person with a deformed feet but with no functional limitation in walking is declared as ineligible for a post not meant for both leg affected candidate.) These inconsistencies in the list of identified jobs and their mechanical implementation by departments is causing more harm than good.

Click here for the Combined Court Order dt 22 Aug 2016 in WP(C) 9299/2016 titled Rajnandinee P. Mane Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.  ;  WP(C) 9556/2016 titled Rutuja D. Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Here is the brief coverage by Times of India of this specific case.

Can a student with cerebral palsy become a doctor?

Girl with Cerebral Palsy gets HC nod to pursue medicine
 

Travelodge sued for discriminating with a deaf customer with guide dog in USA

Dear Colleagues,

A deaf woman who uses a service dog is suing the Travelodge of La Mesa, alleging discrimination for how she was treated when she tried unsuccessfully to check into the hotel earlier this year.

The Travelodge though did not initially bar her from staying overnight with her guide dog, it demanded that she sign a damage policy form for pets that she and her lawyers say is discriminatory, according to a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court.

When she protested during the check-in process, the desk clerk informed her that she and herguide dog were no longer welcome to stay at the hotel, the suit says. She asked for a refund but was denied one at the time because the hotel stay was booked on Expedia, the desk clerk told her.

The plaintiff, Naomi Sheneman, of Rochester, New York, is alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

She is seeking a court order requiring Travelodge to comply with policies prohibiting discrimination against the deaf and to train its staff on a regular basis about the rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing under state and federal laws. The suit also seeks compensatory damages.

“There are a lot of hotels out there that don’t follow the law and require additional burdens for people with service animals,” said attorney Andrew Rozynski of Eisenberg & Baum Law Center For The Deaf and Hard of Hearing, which is representing Sheneman. “This suit is to show that you can’t have these additional burdens for people with disabilities because that’s the law. To require her to sign this form and say she can’t stay there and embarrass her is humiliating.”

Travelodge said it was reviewing the complaint with its attorneys. “However, we want to make it clear that Ms. Sheneman, who was a returning guest and totally familiar with the policies and rules of the hotel, was not presented any additional requirements because of her service animal,” the hotel said in a statement. “She was asked for the same deposit as any customer and presented the same information that would be given to any guest with a non-service animal.”

The La Mesa hotel said it did not refuse service to Sheneman, and that it “has never discriminated against persons with service animals. We welcome service animals as advertised on our website, and guests with service animals are staying on a regular basis at the Travelodge of La Mesa.”

While the Travelodge of La Mesa does not permit pets, it notes on its website that “ADA defined service animals are welcome at this hotel.” When Sheneman checked in, she was told that a damage deposit for the room was required, which she provided.

But when she was given a form setting forth additional charges to be applied specifically to damage caused by a guest’s animal, she said she was uncomfortable signing it because it “appeared to impose additional terms or obligations on her because of her service animal,” states the suit.

Sheneman was forced to stay at another hotel and ultimately received a full refund from Travelodge of the $185.53 she had paid.

Source: The San Diego Union Tribune

Kerala HC: Tax Exemption on Vehicle for disabled is financial privilege different from a Right [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

A double bench of the Kerala High Court has ruled that a cap on tax exemption on purchase value of vehicles by persons with disabilities can not be termed as discriminatory. The division bench comprising of Justice Antony Dominic and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu opined  that the exemption made by the Government in the instant case, was in the nature of concession to persons with disabilities. And this exemption being a part of financial incentive, the Government was well within its powers to impose suitable conditions.

Brief Brackground  of the case

The Government, had by a notification, G.O. (MS) No. 16/98/Tran., dated 31.03.1998, granted a tax exemption for certain motor vehicles, including the luxury cars, being purchased by differently abled persons. However by a subsequent amendment, the Government had imposed a limit to the cap of Rs.5,00,000/- ,on the value of such vehicles entitled to such tax exemption.

Appellant, a person with 100% disability and a wheel chair user purchased a car of a value exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/. He argued that his son was also disabled being mentally retarded, a bigger car of a value more than 5,00,000/- cap was required to manage the daily activities of the family. He contended that limiting the cap on value of vehicles entitled to tax exemption for use by disabled, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 

His writ petition in this regard, before the single bench was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the division bench in an appeal.  Dismissing the writ appeal, the division bench observed:- “Be it a classification of discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution, it applies vis-a-vis the right that has been constitutionally consecrated. In that context, legion are the precedents that the classification or discrimination shall pass the judicial muster as regards the reasonableness or non-arbitrariness.” 

Judgement

The bench opined, “In the present instance, it is only a concession the Government has conferred on physically challenged persons. It being a financial incentive, the Government is well within its powers to impose suitable conditions. In other words, a privilege being entirely different from a right, a Fundamental Right at that, we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel as regards discrimination or unreasonableness does not apply.” 

Click here to read the judgement  WA.No. 1071 of 2016 IN WP(C).17895/2016 titled  Dr. C.H. Moideen Kunhi Versus Govt. of Kerala [PDF 72 KB]

SC slaps Rs.10 lakhs fine on SpiceJet for discriminating with a flier with disability [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice A K Sikri and Justice R K Agrawal

Case No.:  WP(C) No. 98 of 2012 

Case Title: Jeeja Ghosh and Anr Versus Union of India and Others 

Date of Judgement: 12 May 2016

Brief:

This is in continuation to our  earlier two posts titled Jeeja Ghosh, a prominent Indian disability right activist discriminated by Spicejet Pilot dated 19 Feb 2012 and Supreme Court of India issues notice to SpiceJet for deplaning disabled woman dated 05 April 2012.

In a remarkable judgement in a clear case of disability discrimination, a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal of Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the budget airline Spicejet to pay a sum of Rs 10 Lakh (One Million Indian Rupees) as damages to a flyer living with cerebral palsy, who was forcibly offloaded in 2012, saying the manner in which she was de-boarded depicts "total lack of sensitivity".

The apex court noted that the flier with disability Ms. Jeeja Ghosh was not given "appropriate, fair and caring treatment" which she required with "due sensitivity" and the decision to de-board her was "uncalled for".

"On our finding that SpiceJet acted in a callous manner, and in the process violated Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), 2008 guidelines resulting in mental and physical suffering experienced by Ghosh and also unreasonable discrimination against her, we award a sum of Rs 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to her," observed the Bench.

Ms. Ghosh was offloaded from a SpiceJet flight on February 19, 2012 from Kolkata when she was going to attend a conference in Goa hosted by NGO ADAPT (Able Disable All People Together), the second petitioner in the case.

The bench said the decision to offload Ghosh was taken by the airlines without any medical advise or consideration and her condition was not such which required any assistive devices or aids.

"Even if we assume that there was some blood or froth that was noticed to be oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she was seated in the aircraft (though vehemently denied by petitioner), nobody even cared to interact with her and asked her the reason for the same. No doctor was summoned to examine her condition. Abruptly and without any justification, a decision was taken to de-board her without ascertaining as to whether her condition was such which prevented her from flying. This clearly amounts to violation of Rule 133-A of Rules, 1937 and the CAR, 2008 guidelines," the bench said.

Download the Judgement

• WP(C) No. 98/2012 Titled Jeeja Ghosh and Anr Versus Union of India and Others 
• Or Read the embedded Judgement in PDF below:

HC Order fail to bring relief to disabled MBBS aspirant this year despite clearing NEET [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

In the instant case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a matter of discrimination on the grounds of disability, the petitioner not only failed to get any practical relief while she missed her crucial year of MBBS even after clearing NEET Examination but also the stipulation that only persons up to 70% disability can be considered for MBBS course remained unchallenged. 

Thus in fact, this case can not be used by any other candidate with a disability  to seek admission in MBBS if he has more than 70% disability. The petitioner has to clear the NEET exam all over again next year thereby wasting her crucial year of life which can never be replenished to her. Is it true justice? Were respondent burdened with any cost for this lapse? How can the petitioner with 80% disability be considered next year again under the same rules that debar a candidate above 70%? What is the guarantee that her percentage of disability will not be used by the respondent to once again to deny her the seat even if she has the perseverance to clear the NEET the next year?

Brief of the case. 

The petitioner, Ms. Sanjana Sinha, when she was seventeen, had undergone amputation of her left leg, and got an artificial leg/prosthetic limb fitted, her disability adjudged as 80%. After qualifying NEET examination, she applied to Faculty of Medical Sciences for admission to MBBS course against the seats reserved for persons with disabilities. 

Although initially she found her name in the merit list and rank list, later she was declared not eligible for admission to MBBS due to her disability, which is 80%. The petitioner challenged this through the Writ petition, by contending that with the external aid/prosthetic limb her disability is less than 70%, within the prescribed range. The petitioner did not challenge the rule limiting the eligibility to 70%!

Division Bench comprising of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Badar Durrez Ahmed observed “A welfare legislation…… needs to be given a purposive interpretation, inasmuch as to give benefit to a person with disability so that he/she don’t feel less privileged than a normal person. Moreover, we find that the petitioner has a brilliant academic carrier and has also qualified the NEET examination but for the disability, she would have got the admission in the course.” 

The Court also observed that having disability of 80% is a more appropriate case to be given benefit of the Act, since with the external aid/prosthetic limb, the disability would come within the range as permissible under the Regulation i.e. between 40/50-70. 

The Court allowed the Writ petition in following terms: “We may only state here that the petitioner was a successful candidate for the academic year starting 2013-2014. At this point of time, no direction can be issued to give admission to the petitioner on the basis of the said examination. The only direction that can be given is, in view of our discussion, the respondent shall not deny admission to the petitioner if she is successful in a future NEET examination on the ground that she has a disability of 80%.”

Download a copy of Judgement:

• W.P.(C) 6041/2013  Sanjana Sinha Versus University of Delhi and Anr.
• Or read the Judgement embedded herein below:

Kerala HC quashes HPCL's stipulation denying distributorship on groud of blindness [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

In a writ petition W.P.(C).No.29046/2013 titled Baby P. Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the Honorable Kerala High Court vide its judgement dated 30 May 2016 has quashed the stipulation that ‘totally blind person is ineligible’ for LPG distributorship as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, P. Baby of Thiruvananthapuram, a totally blind person, applied for LPG Distributorship at Kodiyathoor in Kollam under S.C.(C.C) category. But his application was rejected by the respondent on two grounds, one of them being that a ‘totally blind person’ was ineligible to apply for LPG distributorship & the other being lack of own space for operating the agency. The petitioner had submitted that he was willing to take on rent adequate space to run the agency.

Quashing a part of the norms formulated by the petroleum company that allowed denying distributorship to persons who are completely blind, the court held that it amounts to violation of the constitutional right to equality before law and denies equal opportunity to blind persons.

In the judgment, the court said if a disability doesn't prevent a person from performing a job, such a disability cannot be the reason for denying the job. Denying a job citing disability can only be allowed if the disability prevents the person from performing the functions associated with the job. Denial of jobs citing disability becomes necessary only in special circumstances such as driving, the court said. 

The petroleum company had contended that if a blind person such as the petitioner is granted LPG distributorship, he won't be able to inspect complaints related to cylinders and that inspection of cylinders to rectify complaints is a job that requires maintenance of the highest safety standards. However, the court said those who formed the norms ousting blind persons completely from grant of distributorships are unaware of the fact that they are able to perform such tasks that require a high degree of specificity. 

Delivering the judgment, Justice Muhammed Mustaque, opined that the above stipulation of classification  was unreasonable, since it  had no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. The bench opined:- “The classification in the case in hand appears to have been made based on the broad generalization that the Distributorship can be run only by persons of certain abilities. Such a classification ex facie appears to be unreasonable and unsustainable. Though, the object of such prescription appears to be that in order to carry out day-to-day affairs, constant vision of the Distributors is required. The vision of eye sight, in fact, has nothing to do with the functions being discharged by the Distributors. A blind person is also endowed with a vision. Though, he cannot physically see an activity, with his insight vision he can run a Distributorship. Therefore, the object of classification must have a nexus with the purpose and intent to be achieved.

The modern technological advantages and improvement of social conditions of the blind cannot be ignored while considering the functional duties attached with Distributorship.” The court further elaborated its stand, by employing the Doctrine of strict scrutiny developed by American courts, wherein the general presumption available for a statute,  on its validity cannot be invoked for an executive action, but the onus is cast on the proponent of the classification to establish its constitutionality.

The Court thereupon proceeded, to determine the constitutionality of the stipulation and whether the same   causes reverse discrimination. Answering the query in affirmative the court ruled:-“The blind persons cannot be treated as a separate class except for affirmative action or for the purpose of functional duty attached with an office or post. They are equally competent and have all competitive and cognitive skills similar to the able bodied persons except lacking visionary functions. Therefore, they can be treated as a separate class for the purpose of affirmative actions or for any other purpose relating to the functional competence of the duties attached to the post/office.

As has been noted above, the doctrine of scrutiny casts a duty on the policy makers to justify discrimination and not otherwise. In this case, absolutely no materials have been placed before this Court to justify classification.” Terming the stipulation as violative of Article 14, the court observed:- “The equal opportunities for a blind person cannot be negated unless the functions that have to be discharged by him intrinsically, cannot be separated from his disability, such as persons like drivers or such other functionaries who may require vision for carrying out the function. A blind person would be also able to discharge the same functions as that of an able bodied person without any impediment as far as LPG Distributorship is concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the stipulation in the Brochure that a “totally blind person is ineligible” is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the clause as above is set aside.”

Judgement dated 30.05.2016

W.P.(C).No.29046/2013 Baby P. Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Media stories  

Times of India - Disability not a bar for jobs they can perform: HC

The Hindu (HC Questions denial of job to visually impaired)

The Live Law- Kerala HC quashes stipulation that ‘totally blind person is ineligible’ for LPG distributorship as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India