Bureaucratic Inaction in Identifying Services Cannot Defer Disability Quota without a statutory exemption : Delhi High Court

• Court: High Court of Delhi

• Bench: Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Talwant Singh

• Case No.: W.P.(C) 1904/2018

• Case Title: Dileep Kumar Shukla v. Union of India & Ors.

• Date of Judgment: January 20, 2020

• Citation: 2020:DHC:338-DB

• Cases Referred: Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 448; Ravi Prakash Gupta v. Union Public Service Commission W.P.(C) 5429/2008; Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772; South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai (2015) 2 SCC 727.

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner, a candidate with a benchmark visual impairment (Low Vision), participated in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2011 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and secured an overall rank of 780. In his preference application, he indicated the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as his 1st preference, followed by other Group 'A' accounts and civil services. He marked the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) [IRS (IT)] and the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise) [IRS (C&CE)] as his 17th and 18th preferences respectively. Because no reservations were explicitly indicated for the Blind/Low Vision (B/LV) category in the IRS cadres within the CSE 2011 notification, the petitioner felt compelled to rank them significantly lower.

Based on his merit rank within the low vision category, he was allocated the Indian Information Service (Junior Grade) Group 'A' [IIS (JG)]. He subsequently approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking an allocation to either IRS (IT) or IRS (C&CE) by tracking the legal statutory quota mandated for the physically handicapped category under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). The CAT dismissed his application on May 17, 2017 , leading to the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Bureaucratic Omission: The petitioner contended that the Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCA) of the IRS cadres failed to provide the mandatory 1% reservation for the B/LV category across the vacancies distributed for the CSE 2011. Under Section 33 of the PWD Act, an establishment can only be exempted from this statutory allocation if a formal, specific Gazette Notification is issued by the appropriate government having regard to the nature of the work. No such exemption notification was ever processed or issued for these services.

• The Backlog Realities: Through subsequent Right to Information (RTI) queries, the petitioner established that hundreds of sanctioned posts remained completely unfilled in both the IRS (IT) and IRS (C&CE) cadres. For instance, as of late 2019, IRS (IT) recorded 543 vacant posts , while IRS (C&CE) revealed 2,202 vacant positions.

• The Institutional Contradiction: The respondent authorities relied on internal minutes from a 2007 departmental meeting which generalized that IRS portfolios were "not considered suitable for persons with visual disabilities". However, the petitioner exposed a clear systemic contradiction: in subsequent CSE rules (such as those notified in 2017 and 2018), both the IRS (IT) and IRS (C&CE) formally recognized the B/LV category and actively provided reservations for visually impaired candidates. This structural change shattered the respondents' argument that the physical nature of the work rendered the cadre inherently unsuitable for visually impaired officers.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an individual government department can bypass the mandatory reservation framework of Section 33 of the PWD Act based on internal suitability policies, in the complete absence of an official executive exemption notification.

2. Whether the completed training and service confirmation of other batchmates can be used as a fait accompli to deny remedial service allocation to a disabled candidate whose statutory rights were compromised by bureaucratic inaction.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order, ruling that statutory welfare protections cannot be structurally deferred or diluted by systemic delays:

• Dismantling of Erroneous Exemptions: The Court found that the CAT had proceeded on an entirely false premise by assuming that the Department of Revenue enjoyed an official legal exemption from reserving vacancies for the B/LV sub-category. Internal meeting logs or circulars are not substitutes for a statutory notification required under the proviso to Section 33.

• Rejection of Bureaucratic Delays: Highlighting established supreme court precedents, the Court observed that the mandate of reserving posts cannot be left at the mercy of delayed administrative identifying processes:

  "The submission made on behalf of the Union of India regarding the implementation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, only after identification of posts suitable for such appointment, under Section 32 thereof, runs counter to the legislative intent with which the Act was enacted. To accept such a submission would amount to accepting a situation where the provisions of Section 33 of the aforesaid Act could be kept deferred indefinitely by bureaucratic inaction."

• No Shielding Behind a Fait Accompli: The Court firmly rejected the respondents' defence that any current intervention would destabilize the civil service cadres due to the passage of time since the 2011 recruitments:

  "The Court would not in the context of failure by the Government to provide reservations for the PH category, be presented with a fait accompli."

Directions Issued

Finding that the unfilled statutory vacancies should have legally been carried forward, the High Court issued the following time-bound operational directions:

1. The Respondents are directed to ascertain, within a period of eight weeks, which specific posts within the IRS (IT) and IRS (C & CE) frameworks earmarked for the PH category can be legally allocated to candidates with blindness or low vision.

2. Within a further period of eight weeks, the authorities must evaluate whether the petitioner can be successfully accommodated into any such earmarked PH vacancies for B/LV and subsequently issue appropriate appointment orders.

3. Upon appointment, the petitioner will not be eligible for arrears of actual pay. However, for the precise calculations of seniorities, future promotions, and notional pay fixations, his appointment will relate back to the original date he joined his service in the IIS (JG) under the CSE 2011 batch.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement

SC once again reaffirms reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in Siddaraju Vs. Govt. of Karnataka case [Judgement Included]

Court: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, V. Ramasubramanian
Case Title: Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 14-15 January, 2020
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2017

Date of Judgement: 14-15 Jan 2020

Author: Rohinton Fali Nariman

Brief:

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to our following earlier posts on various attempts of the Union of India to deny reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities citing Indra Sawhney Judgement,

1. Supreme Court says Section 33 entitles reservation for employees with disabilities in promotion in Group A, B, C and D alike [01 Jul 2016]
2. SC dismisses yet another attempt of Centre to sabotage reservation for employees with disabilities in promotion [03 Mar 2015]
3. SC clarifies 3% reservation in appointment for disabled extends to promotions & deputations as well [10 Oct 2014]
4. Physically Challenged Versus Logically Challenged [10 Dec 2013]

On 14 Jan 2020, a three judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian while hearing Civil Appeal  No. 1567 OF 2017 titled Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors and batch of connected matters, once again reiterated its earlier stand on reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities allowing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in all the groups alike vis. Gp A, B, C or D.

A two judge bench of the SC had earlier clarified the same issue in matter titled Rajeev Gupta Vs. Union of India decided on 30 Jun 2016 had held that the bar against reservation in promotion in the Indra Sawhney judgment did not apply to persons with disabilities. The Court had then held that wherever posts are identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, 3% reservation must be given in direct recruitment as well as in promotion for employees with disabilities in Group A and B as it is given in Group C and D. The Govt. of India decided to however,  challenged it once again when the matter was referred to the present three judge bench to decide the question whether persons with disabilities were entitled to being granted reservation in promotion in view of the bar against reservation in promotion in the Indra Sawhney judgment along with batch of connected matters.

The lead case this time was Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka. In the instant case,  a disabled employee of the Karnataka Government approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking the benefit of reservation in promotion. The High Court dismissed his case in March 2016, before the SC judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s case was pronounced. Siddaraju appealed before the Supreme Court, and on 05 Jan 2017, a two judge bench presided over by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel referred the matter to a larger (i.e. three judge) bench. Justice Goel’s bench felt that the Government’s contention that reservation in promotion was constitutionally impermissible, according to the 1992 SC judgment in Indra Sawhney’s case, deserved further consideration.

The three judge bench has once again reiterated its stand that Indra Sawhney judgement only applied to reservations under Art 16(4) of Constitution of India in favour of backward classes being a vertical reservation. The reservation in favour of persons with disabilities was covered under Article 16(1) and was a horizontal reservation and did not affect the total 50% ceiling of reservation.

Below is the judgement delivered on 14-15 Jan 2020 in the lead case Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka:

Towards Inclusive Education in Delhi: A Landmark Order on Special Educators in Schools by SCPD Delhi in Reshma Parveen Vs. Director of Education NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Court: State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. T. D. Dhariyal
Case No. : Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84
Case Title: Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others
Date of Judgement/Order: 31.12.2019

Brief Introduction

In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.

Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.

Her demands included:

• Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.
• Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.
• Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.
• Quality education access for children with disabilities.

Key Submissions from Respondents

Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:

• North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.
• Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.
• NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.
• EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.
• Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.
• RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.
• NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.

Expert Opinions and Key Observations

Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the Commissioner convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:

• No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.
• Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:
• 1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy
• 1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD
• 1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities
• While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.
• The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.

Directions & Recommendations by the Court

The Commissioner, invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:

1. Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.
2. Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.
3. Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.
4. Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).
5. Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.
6. Curriculum reform:

• NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.
• NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.

7. Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.
8. Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.

On RCI’s concern, the Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.

Reference in Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.

Conclusion and Impact

This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.

The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.

Read the Order 

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:

Court of SCPD expresses displeasure on indifference and arrogant behaviour shown by bureaucrats in implementing RPwD Act 2016 [Judgement Included]

Dear colleagues,

The present case is a classic example of how the siloed approach on the part of the responsible officers at the helm makes it extremely difficult for a statutory authority like the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) to perform their statutory functions.  The Hon'ble Court raises concern in its order in the present case on arrogantly irresponsive, indifference and ineffective approach  which as per the court is indeed a matter of grave concern and can have serious consequences for the persons with disabilities as an extremely proactive approach is needed to facilitate implementation of the socially beneficial Act. 

In the instant case, titled as Case No. 324/1101/2018/06/6061-6064  Dated: 24.09.2019 Suo Motu Vs. Commissioner (T&T), Delhi initiated on the complaint of a decorated Air Force veteran named Group Captain Prabal Malakar (Retd.), who is a wheelchair user and happens to be the Honorary Secretary, Multiple Sclerosis Society of India-Delhi Chapter about the problems of accessibility he faces while visiting hotels and cinema halls in the city. While most respondents took immediate action on the advise of the Hon'ble Court, the respondent  The Commissioner (Trade and Taxes), Govt. of NCT of Delhi who deals with the hotels in the city, did not respond even to several record of proceedings. 

Though the Hon'ble Court of SCPD could have easily enforced the attendance of the respondent under Section 82 of the Act or could have taken punitive provision under section 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, it chose to express its displeasure in its order in the following terms: 

"This reminds me of Dr. Naresh Chandra Saxena, former IAS Officer’s recent Book, “What Ails the IAS and Why It Fails to Deliver” in which he describes how the new reforms that are initiated fail to make any impact because most officers resist change and or are indifferent to the poor and the marginalised ones.  In the context of this case and a few others that I have dealt with as the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities during the last two and a half years, much of the deprivation of the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities happens due to inadequate awareness, sensitivity, indifference to their plight and shying away from their responsibility at almost all the levels.  Its preponderance and pervasiveness at higher echelons has most detrimental effect.   

It further goes on to record,  "I am recording my unpleasant experience and the observations in this order with much reluctance and anguish and I am not relishing having to do so. In fact, I am doing so with a heavy heart and under a painful necessity respecting the call of my bounden duty. I feel that I will be failing in my duty if I let go of the lackadaisical approach, apathy and irresponsiveness for as long a period as five months by Commissioner of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax in November 2018 and eight months by the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes in July 2019 only to say that they cannot and would not do anything in the matter coupled with the arrogance on the part of the public authority especially at the helm of affairs. This manifests abdication of obligation and shying away from the responsibility is a matter of serious concern. No effort should be spared to ensure that the credibility quotient of public/govt. authorities is kept at an all-time high if the RPwD Act is to be implemented in letter and spirit."

The Hon'ble Court of SCPD has passed its order as below:

(i) The respondent Department should send out at least a communication to all the Hotels and Restaurants operating in NCT of Delhi and to the President of the Federation of the Hotels and Restaurants Associations of India to ensure accessibility to their premises (built environment) by 15th June, 2022 and provide accessible public facilities and services to persons with disabilities with immediate effect as the date for the same is already over on 15th June, 2019 as mandated in the RPwD Act, 2016 under intimation to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  I will of course continue taking up with them as well as with the civic authorities and make appropriate recommendations.

(ii)  I reiterate my recommendation to the worthy Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi that a workshop should be organised urgently for officers at all levels in the NCT of Delhi/Corporations etc. and at regular intervals thereafter to make them aware of  the provisions of the RPwD Act and their obligations under it and review the status of implementation of the provisions of the Act.  Need for such workshops has been brought to my notice by various stakeholders, more particularly by the primary stakeholders based on their bitter experiences and the feedback of the participants of the 9 workshops that this court has organised on the provisions of the RPwD Act and reservation for persons with disabilities in collaboration with UTCS since July 2017.

The respondent is duty bound under Section 81 of the RPwD Act 2016 to inform the court of the action taken on the recommendations made by the court within three months.

Read the Court Judgement in the above Case No. 324/1101/2018/06/6061-6064 Dated: 24.09.2019 here (in Word file)  and here (in PDF file)

Delhi High Court Order on recognition of Indian Sign Language as one of the Official Languages

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar

Case No. :WP(C) No. 9546/2018

Case Title: Nipun Malhotra Vs. Union of India

Date of Decision: 09 July 2019

Authored by: Justice DN Patel

 Download:   [PDF 1 MB]

Supreme Court agrees that people above 50% of hearing and visual disability can not perform as judge!! [Judgement included]

Post Script Note: - The judgement below in V. Surendra Mohan (2019) has been overruled by the Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v.U.P.S.C (2021)

Dear Colleagues,

Please recall my earlier posts "Can a blind person work as a judge?" and subsequently  "Want to become a judge?" and "A step further to ensure that Blind can function effectively in Courts" on this subject. 

However, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph on 22 Jan 2019 in the case titled V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, shattered all my progressive writings and efforts to see more blind judges in India. The bench upheld the Tamil Nadu State’s policy of restricting the eligibility of blind and deaf candidates for the reserved posts of 'civil judge' to those with 40-50% of their respective disabilities. The SC Bench held,   "A judicial officer in a state has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable  and that it does not contravene any of the provisions of the Disabilities Act 1995 or any other statutory provision."

I have seen judges's inherent biases and pre-conceived notions about disabling conditions often reflected in their judgements referring to persons with disabilities as unfortunate, handicapped, crippled, wheelchair bound or confined to a wheelchair. This only shows their lack of awareness on disabling conditions and disability rights, however, this judgement has left me totally shaken. A common man's ignorance is pardonable, but for Milord's, whose pen has the ability to impact fate of millions of Indians with disabilities, it can be devastating for the hopes of many of them. The judges need to be well read and aware about the evolving capabilities of persons with disabilities with the advent of technology and science and the concept of reasonable accommodation that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provide. It is easier to label some one as 'incompetent' than set your own house in order. That is what the judiciary has done through this judgement despite the post of a judge identified as suitable to be held by a blind persons by the Expert Committee constituted  by Govt. of India, a bench renders them unsuitable!. Technically the bench should have refrained from stepping in to the shoes of the Expert Committee.

In the instant case, a person with seventy (70) percent blindness was denied appointment as a judge because he was more than fifty (50) percent threshold, the specified outer limit set by the Tamil Nadu State. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion in this case that persons with more than the specified range of blindness are not eligible because they cannot perform functions of a judge!

In the background that several blind lawyers and judges are functioning well and the post is also identified as suitable for persons with disabilities by an Expert Committee under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and that the Act makes no restrictions of degree of  percentage of disabilities for providing job reservations and other benefits etc which are equally available to all persons above 40% disabilities, this judgement looks absurd and unreasonable.  Instead of holding that differentiation based on extent of blindness is invalid and the judiciary should be  working towards facilitating accessibility of ICT, processes and reasonable accommodations for judges with blindness, the Court decided to justify the decision of the Government and the Madras High Court, which took an erroneous stand that completely blind persons cannot perform the so called strenuous tasks of reading, writing, communicating, examining witnesses, following procedures, advising advocates, etc.

Background of the case

In 2012, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission received a requisition from the State Government for filling up the vacancy posts of Civil Judge. The Commission wrote a letter to both the State Government as well as the High Court proposing to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for selection. The High Court communicated its approval to the aforesaid proposal which was also consented to, by the State of Tamil Nadu. The TNPC subsequently went on to publish the notification.

V. Surendra Mohan applied for the role of civil judge, however, his application was rejected on the ground that he was 70% blind (instead of below 50%). He challenged this decision in the Madras High Court upon which he was permitted to sit for the interview. Following his interview, Mohan’s application was again rejected. As a result, V. Surendra Mohan filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. In 2015, the High Court held that the TNPC’s decision was lawful as it was in line with the State’s policy.

In 2019, Mohan appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of his application as well as the policy on the basis of which his application was rejected, alleging it as arbitrary and unjustified.

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph rejected this submission. It remarked that “a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction”.

The Supreme Court’s view that a totally blind person cannot function as a judge is trashed by live examples of  several successful blind judges in India and beyond. Accessible work place, computers with screen reading softwares, pleadings and documents in accessible format and reasonable accommodations is what is needed for their inclusion and this makes so many lawyers and judges do wonderfully well in their workplace.

Surprisingly, neither the State government or the High Court nor the Supreme Court have given any reasons as to justification of  50% disability cut-off when Persons with Disabilities Act makes so such distinction. No empirical evidence or research has been put forward to support that beyond the 50% threshold, a person would not be able to effectively perform his duties as a judge.  Supreme Court blindly relies on the government wisdom on this 50% cut-off, without questioning its scientific basis. It is also unclear as to how an advertisement by TNPSC pursuant to a “letter” from the government attained the status of an overriding legal norm. This matter wasn't referred to by the State to the Experts Committee. Decision was taken by babus based on their own whims and fancies and since it affected judiciary, the court also felt safe as they had not to change any infrastructure to accommodate a blind judge in their system. It is almost another level of apartheid visible in the present order. 

The present judgement also literally backtracks its own judgement dated 22 January 2019 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set deadlines to make public places accessible to persons with visual impairment. It had expressed that “it becomes imperative to provide such facilities so that these persons also are ensured level playing field and not only they are able to enjoy life meaningfully, they contribute to the progress of the nation as well.”  Instead of providing level playing field, this judgement deprives blind candidates from their established legal right  arbitrarily. This order is a black spot on the image of Indian Supreme Court which has otherwise been very proactive for the rights of marginalised communities and has always batted for their inclusion in constitutional spirit. Therefore, this needs to be remedied soon in coming days.

Read the judgement in V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. of 83 of 2019:

Post Script Note: - The judgement below in V. Surendra Mohan (2019) has been overruled by the Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C (2021)