Supreme Court Holds Visually Impaired Eligible for Judicial Service; Strikes Down MP Rules Excluding PwD and Directs Separate Cut-offs and Relaxations

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a cluster of suo motu petitions and appeals concerning recruitment of persons with disabilities (PwD), including visually impaired candidates, to the subordinate judiciary in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The matters arose from a letter petition and multiple writ petitions and SLPs challenging amendments and notifications of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules and the selection process followed by the High Courts, and raised questions on exclusion, reasonable accommodation and separate cut-offs for PwD candidates.

The Court held that visually impaired candidates could not be said to be “not suitable” for judicial service and struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 insofar as it excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates. The Court also struck down the proviso to Rule 7 to the extent it required either three years’ bar practice or a 70% aggregate in the first attempt as an eligibility condition for PwD candidates, ruling that such facially neutral provisions operated as indirect discrimination. The Court directed High Courts and recruiting authorities to treat PwD (including PwBD) as a category entitled to reasonable accommodation, to maintain separate cut-offs and merit lists for PwD at each stage, and to apply relaxations consistent with the RPwD Act, 2016 and the DoPT office memorandum where suitable candidates were not otherwise available. The Court ordered the authorities to complete selection processes in light of the judgment, preferably within three months, and clarified that PwD and PwBD could not be distinguished for rights and entitlements.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service and they are eligible to participate in selection for posts in judicial service." The judgment further invoked the rights-based approach and reasonable accommodation, noting that “access to communication in the widest sense is access to knowledge, and that is vitally important for us…” and emphasised that the RPwD Act, 2016 embodied substantive equality and positive obligations on the State.

Background

The matters originated from a letter to the Chief Justice of India and several writ petitions and special leave petitions challenging: (i) omission and amendment in Madhya Pradesh rules that removed reservation or disqualified visually impaired candidates; (ii) the imposition of a 70% first-attempt bar or three years’ practice requirement in Rule 7; and (iii) the failure of the Rajasthan selection to declare separate cut-offs and merit lists for PwD candidates. Petitioners included visually impaired law students and candidates (notably Ayush Yardi and Alok Singh) who contended that the amended rules and selection practices violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and international obligations under the UNCRPD.

Respondent High Courts relied on medical opinions and earlier administrative exemptions under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016 to defend their rules and processes. The Court drew upon domestic precedent including Vikash Kumar and Jeeja Ghosh, the RPwD Act, DoPT circulars on relaxation of suitability standards, and international instruments. It analysed equality under a rights-based model, held that the challenged provisions produced indirect discrimination, and directed that reasonable accommodation and separate cut-offs were necessary to give effect to substantive equality. The Court set aside the impugned notifications and High Court orders to the extent indicated, allowed similarly placed appellants to be considered, and directed authorities to complete selection and report compliance within three months. No costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 300; Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 with Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.6 of 2024 and connected appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 3496-3497 of 2025 arising out of SLPs) Case Title: In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services; In Re: Recruitment of PwD Candidates in Rajasthan Judicial Services; Alok Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors.; Ayush Yardi v. State of M.P. & Anr.; Manvendra Singh Rathore & Ors. v. High Court of Rajasthan & Ors.; Alisha Khan v. High Court of Rajasthan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Counsel (assisted as Amicus Curiae); Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Advocate-on-Record; Dr. Sanjay S. Jain (Intervenor and intervening expert) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and for the State Governments (appearing in official capacity; specific names as per agency records)