1. The Supreme Court heard petitions and a suo motu case about the lack of proper quota and inclusion of visually impaired candidates in judicial service exams in state of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh .
2. The main issue was whether visually impaired persons are suitable for judicial service and whether separate cut-offs should be maintained for them.

Key Rulings

1. The Court said visually impaired persons cannot be denied the opportunity to apply for judicial service.
2. It struck down Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired candidates.
3. It also struck down the proviso to Rule 7(A special condition or exception that is added to Rule 7.), which unfairly required disabled candidates to either:
   1. Have three years of legal practice, or
   2. Score 70% marks in the first attempt.

Why the Court Struck Down These Rules

1. The Court said these rules violated the equality principle and reasonable accommodation as guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
2. It also said that such indirect discrimination — like rigid cut-offs and extra hurdles — must be removed to ensure substantive equality.
3. The Court emphasized that disability rights must be treated as fundamental rights, on par with other constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Key Principles Affirmed

1. Right Against Disability-Based Discrimination is to be treated as a fundamental right.
2. Reasonable Accommodation is not optional — it is part of Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity).
3. Inclusivity is a constitutional value and part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Court's Directions

1. The Court directed that the selection process must continue and be completed within three months.
2. A separate cut-off and merit list must be maintained for visually impaired candidates at every stage — prelims, mains, and interview.
3. If sufficient PwD candidates are not available, cut-off relaxations should be given — similar to those given to SC/ST candidates.
4. The judgment also clarified that there should be no distinction between persons with disabilities and benchmark disabilities when it comes to employment rights.

Impact of the Judgment

1. Sets a nationwide precedent that visually impaired persons are equally eligible for public services like judiciary.
2. Ensures that disability is not a barrier to participation in public employment.
3. Encourages affirmative action and inclusive hiring practices across government services.

Aspect	Before the Judgment	After the Judgment
Eligibility of Visually Impaired Candidates	Visually impaired persons were excluded from applying to judicial services in Madhya Pradesh.	Visually impaired candidates are now eligible to apply and compete equally for judicial posts.
Rule 6A (MP Judicial Rules)	Excluded visually impaired candidates even if they were educationally qualified.	Struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Proviso to Rule 7 (MP Rules)	PwD candidates had to have either 3 years’ legal practice or 70% marks in first attempt.	These extra conditions were removed. Basic qualifications are enough, with relaxations allowed.
Cut-off Marks	PwD candidates had to meet the same cut-off marks as General/OBC/SC/ST categories.	Separate cut-offs must be maintained for visually impaired candidates at all stages of selection.
Merit List for PwD	No separate merit list for disabled candidates; lack of clarity and transparency.	Authorities must now prepare separate merit lists for visually impaired candidates.
Unfilled Reserved Seats for PwD	Reserved seats for PwD were often converted to general category if not filled.	These seats must be retained, carried forward, or filled with proper efforts — not casually reassigned.
Legal Status of Disability Rights	Disability rights were seen as part of welfare policy, not at the level of fundamental rights.	Supreme Court recognised disability rights as fundamental rights, equal to rights under Articles 14–16.
Principle of Reasonable Accommodation (It means changing the rules, process, or environment slightly so that people with disabilities are not left out or unfairly judged.)	Often ignored or treated as optional by authorities.	Now mandatory, backed by law, international conventions, and part of the right to equality and dignity.

 

The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a historic step toward equal opportunity and dignity for persons with disabilities in India. By striking down exclusionary rules and affirming that disability rights are fundamental rights, the Court has set a strong precedent for inclusive governance and fair recruitment.

 

Also Read
UPSC Foundation Course	UPSC Daily Current Affairs
UPSC Monthly Magazine	CSAT Foundation Course
Free MCQs for UPSC Prelims	UPSC Test Series
ENSURE IAS NOTES	Our Booklist