Disability Rights | Twin Conditions In RWPD Act Creating Barriers, Says Supreme Court While Granting Relief To Person With Colour Blindness

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the conditions of disabilities falling within defined categories and meeting the criteria of "benchmark disabilities" under the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act). While hearing a case of a person with colour blindness who was denied appointment in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), the Court said that these conditions were creating barriers and advocated the need to adopt a different yardstick.

Applying the principle of "reasonable accommodation", the Court granted relief to the appellant.

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

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

"The twin conditions of falling within defined categories, and also a threshold condition of a minimum percentage, of such disabilities, in fact are a barrier," added the judgment authored by Justice S Ravindra Bhat

The Court emphasized the necessity of a more rational and inclusive approach to accommodate individuals who may not neatly fit into the established categories of PWDs.

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

The  bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal against the Madras HC judgment which had ruled in favour of the respondent(TANGEDCO) asserting its right to reject the appellant's candidature on the grounds of colour blindness.

The case revolved around a job application for the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the appellant. The appellant, who was initially considered qualified for the role, was subsequently found to be color blind during a medical examination. This raised concerns about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an engineer, which frequently involve working with color-coded power cables and wires.

As a result of these concerns, TANGEDCO rejected the appellant's candidature. The appellant challenged this decision under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Madras High Court initially ruled in his favor, directing TANGEDCO to offer him the position.

However, TANGEDCO appealed this decision, leading to a reconsideration by the division bench of the Madras High Court. The division bench's judgment highlighted the evolving doctrine of proportionality, indicating that TANGEDCO's decision had a reasonable basis, even by this modern standard. Consequently, the division bench's judgment reversed the previous order, leading the appellant to seek redress from the Supreme Court

The Court noted that TANGEDCO had not explicitly indicated that colour vision deficiency, in any form or degree, serves as a disqualifying factor for the role of an Assistant Engineer

The Court emphasized that the appellant, being a graduate in electrical engineering, possessed knowledge and experience related to the role's functions. Additionally, practical experience during the course exposed the candidate to equipment defects and solutions for breakdowns. Thus, the Court established the need for some form of accommodation.

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

The Court cited the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India 2021 (13) SCR 823 , which distinguishes between formal equality and substantive equality. Substantive equality aims to achieve equal outcomes, and the principle of reasonable accommodation plays a critical role in this. The Court observed that reasonable accommodation entails accommodating disabled individuals based on their capacities.

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

Reference was also made to Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India (2022), where the Supreme Court directed the FTII to accommodate students with colour blindness.

The Court finally concluded that while TANGEDCO's concerns about colour vision impairment were acknowledged by the Court, the organization was reminded of its obligation to operate within the framework of "reasonable accommodation" as defined by Section 2(y).

The Court clarified that reasonable accommodation involves "appropriate modification and adjustments" that employers, like TANGEDCO in this case, must make to facilitate the employment of individuals with disabilities. This duty does not impose a "disproportionate or undue burden" on the employer.

Accordingly, it ordered “The impugned judgment cannot stand; it is set aside. TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay,”.

The court expressed its gratitude to Advocate on Record Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui for his assistance.

Case title: Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

For Appellant: AOR A. Velan

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment