Supreme Court Agrees To Hear PIL Seeking Appointment Of Persons With Disabilities In District Judiciary

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 15) issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation raising the issue of exclusion of Persons With Disabilities from appointment to the District Judiciary in many States.

The petitioner contends that the judicial service rules of many States do not provide for the PwD (Persons with Disability) Quota, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issue.

Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (Act of 2016) mandates a reservation of not less than 4% for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwD) in government establishments. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows : 

34. Reservation.—(1) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:—
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities:

It is the contention of the petitioners that 'government establishments' would incorporate within its fold the appointment of judges to the district/lower judiciary.

The petition raises contentions regarding alleged contraventions of the Act in the appointment of judicial officers in different states.

These include : (1) The process excludes persons with specified disabilities from appearing for the appointment as judges, violating their fundamental rights;

(2) Violation of the 4% reservation mandate for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act;

(3) The Chief Commissioner/State Commissioner has not been consulted for decisions about which disabilities are to be excluded, as mandated by Section 34 read with Section 33 (Identification of posts for reservation) of the Act;

(4) Existing inconsistencies in the reservation percentages among different states, with some states providing less than 4% reservation and excluding persons with benchmark disabilities.

These discrepancies in the appointment of judicial officers result in the denial of adequate representation for persons with disabilities in the judicial services. The existing judicial services rules of different states are not only ultra vires the Act but also violative of articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner essentially demands (1) declaring appointment rules excluding quota for persons with benchmark disability as a violation of Section 34 of the Act of 2016 and in the teeth of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution; (2)  appointment of an expert body to examine and bring uniformity to the rules that exist in every High Court/State/Union Territory in relation to persons with disabilities for appointment in the District Judiciary. Exclusion of a particular disability should be based on reasons arrived at after proper examination by the experts.

"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the exclusion of any specified/benchmark disability under the RPwD Act by High Courts/State Governments/Union Territories, which does not align with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, and violative of Section 34/33 of the Act as well as Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution," the plea stated.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh and AoR Shashank Singh appeared for the petitioner.

Case Details : DR. RENGA RAMANUJAM vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000222 - / 2024