Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Validity Of Rule Excluded Visually Challenged Candidates From MP Judicial Service

The Supreme Court today (December 3) reserved the judgment on suo motu matter regarding a rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh that excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.

The Rule in question is Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rule 1994, which completely excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial service.

On May 21, a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Karol had granted interim relief to the thirty-one specially abled candidates who appeared in the main examination, who appeared for the final examination to be allowed to appear for an interview if they had secured minimum marks as provided for the SC/ST candidates.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan remarked that the Court heard this matter on the International Day of Persons with Disability celebrated on December 3 after the intervenor Dr. Sanjay Jain, addressed the Court through Advocate Rahul Bajaj.

Jain, Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, said: "Disability does not lie in my impairment but social barriers."

In this matter, cognizance was taken via a letter sent to former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by the mother of one of the visually impaired candidates against such exclusion.

Converting the letter petition into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the CJI-led Bench had issued notice to the Secretary General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

Today, final arguments were concluded by Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, amicus curiae. He took the Court through the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 and argued that beneficial provisions such as Section 34 providing for reservation are also extended to judicial officers, officials of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

He also submitted that Madhya Pradesh has adopted the Madhya Pradesh Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 which provides for a reservation of 6 percent.

As for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Agarwal stated that a reply had been filed based on an opinion taken from the Dean of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College. He said: "The medical opined inter alia opined that persons affected by disability such as blind and low vision cannot perform the duty of as a judge of High judicial services."

He argued that the reply is not sustainable in law because in the letter addressed to the Dean of Netaj College, the High Court did not implore the possibility of persons with disability being able to discharge the function of judicial officers after being provided with reasonable accommodation.

Justice Pardiwala inquired: "We have judicial academies in States...the object of such academies is to impart training to the newly recruited judge. He may be outstanding academically. But he has to undergo 1 year training in the academy and then he would be allotted judicial work. Any suggestions that persons with disability, blind or part-vision, should undergo some special type of training when it comes to discharging duty as a judge?"

To this, Agarwal submitted that indeed training and sensitisation are required not just of the judicial officers but also of the staff working with the judicial officers having disability. But it does not end here. There needs to be sensitisation of the other judicial officers towards the judicial officers with disability. All this may be undertaken by the concerned High Courts through SoP as and when the recruitment takes place.

He also referred to the Expert Committee constituted by the Union which had concluded that persons with visual impairment including blind and those with low vision can perform judicial functions.

Justice Pardiwala agreed and added: "What is required is empathy and compassion and not a hostile attitude".

Further, Agarwal briefly argued that persons with 40 percent disability are not eligible to be appointed as judicial officers no longer hold good in law in light of the 2016 Act and the Vikas Kumar judgment.

He took an example of the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in which the Court allowed a visually-challenged woman with a disability of 75 percent, who is also a lawyer, to be given reservation and directed that High Court authorities to conduct a special written examination for the post of Civil Judge Class-II by providing the facility of a scribe and also extra time.

Further, he submitted that once persons with disability are recruited, the employer is mandated to provide reasonable accommodation for their meaningful participation.

On this, Justice Pardiwala assumed that if the reservation is to be provided, the High Courts will have to specify some eligibility criteria and that is a domain of policy decision.

Agarwal suggested that the Court will have to consider laying down the parameters on the eligibility criteria which supposedly should be lower than the eligibility criteria for the general population. The minimum eligibility criteria will have to be specified in the preliminary, and main examination and also in the interview.

Suggestions by amicus

1. Identify specific courtrooms in both lower and upper cadre which could be presided over by persons with disability.

2. State Government is mandated to provide infrastructure like scanners, screen readers, etc.

3. Recruitment of additional persons to assist the persons with disability to discharge their functions.

4. Adjustments in performance appraisal criteria for persons with disability.

5. Uniform policy for all States on reservation.

Case Details: IN RE RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH.,SMW(C) No. 2/2024