Polity & GovernancePriority2025-03-03

SC Allows Visually Impaired Candidates in Judiciary

Why focus: GS2 Polity — tests Article 14/16 reasonable accommodation and PwD Act provisions in Assertion-Reason format.

In News

What Happened

On March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India struck down discriminatory provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which completely barred visually impaired and low-vision candidates from entering the judiciary. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled that visually impaired individuals are fully eligible to be judicial officers.

Why It Matters

This landmark judgment elevates the right against disability-based discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, to the stature of a Fundamental Right. It decisively shifts India's legal framework from a medical model of disability to a rights-based approach, ensuring top public offices are inclusive.

Background

History & Context

The case, 'In Re: Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services' (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 2024), was initiated after the mother of a blind law graduate wrote a letter to then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud in January 2024. She challenged a June 2023 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which explicitly excluded visually impaired candidates. Taking suo motu cognizance in March 2024, the Supreme Court clubbed similar petitions from Rajasthan. Historically, blind candidates faced systemic barriers under the archaic assumption that physical sight was strictly necessary to assess witness demeanor or manage voluminous court records.

What Changed

▶
Struck Down Blanket Exclusion: BEFORE, Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Service Rules strictly excluded visually impaired and low-vision candidates. NOW, Rule 6A has been declared unconstitutional and struck down, granting them full eligibility to apply.
▶
Quashed Discriminatory Eligibility Criteria: BEFORE, a proviso to Rule 7 imposed harsher conditions uniquely on differently-abled candidates, requiring either three years of Bar practice or a 70% aggregate score in their LLB on the first attempt. NOW, this proviso is quashed for violating the equality doctrine.
▶
Mandated Separate Cut-offs: BEFORE, PwD candidates often faced the same rigid cut-off marks as general candidates, leading to indirect discrimination. NOW, the Court directed authorities to maintain separate and reasonable cut-off marks for PwD candidates at every stage of the selection process.
▶
Elevation of the RPwD Act: BEFORE, the RPwD Act, 2016 was viewed merely as statutory law. NOW, the Supreme Court declared it has 'quasi-constitutional significance,' equating the right against disability discrimination to a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.
▶
Implementation of Substantive Equality: BEFORE, neutral procedural barriers severely disadvantaged PwD candidates. NOW, the Court firmly applied the principle of 'reasonable accommodation,' mandating affirmative action (such as scribes and assistive technology) rather than mere formal equality.

What Did NOT Change

The core requirement to prove legal acumen and merit remains unchanged. The Supreme Court did not order automatic appointments for visually impaired candidates, nor did it exempt them from the judicial service examinations; they must still successfully clear the prescribed exams, albeit with reasonable accommodations and separate cut-offs.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

This judgment is a direct real-world application of Class 11 Political Science NCERT ('Indian Constitution at Work'), Chapter 2: Rights in the Indian Constitution. It specifically breathes life into Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment). The judgment illustrates the concept of 'Substantive Equality'—teaching that treating unequals equally can lead to discrimination, and that the State must provide 'reasonable accommodation' to marginalized groups to ensure true equality of opportunity.

Common Misconceptions

✗ Visually impaired individuals cannot serve as judges because they cannot observe a witness's physical demeanor to tell if they are lying.

✓ The Supreme Court clarified that judicial assessment relies on the consistency, logic, and corroboration of evidence rather than visual cues of demeanor. Visually impaired judges worldwide rely on audio cues, transcripts, and legal reasoning.

Traditional cinematic and archaic legal tropes heavily emphasize a judge physically watching a witness sweat or flinch, ignoring the reality of modern evidence-based adjudication.

✗ The RPwD Act, 2016 only mandates a 4% reservation for lower-tier administrative jobs, not high-level constitutional or judicial posts.

✓ Section 34 of the RPwD Act applies to all 'government establishments'. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial services fall under this mandate, requiring inclusive recruitment at the highest levels of the state apparatus.

Because historically, specific departmental rules (like the MP Judicial Service Rules) illegally bypassed the central RPwD Act by citing the 'nature of duties', leading people to assume the Act didn't apply to judges.

Practice Questions

Q1

How Many Correct

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment on the recruitment of visually impaired candidates in judicial services: 1. The Supreme Court declared that the right against disability-based discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016 holds the same stature as a Fundamental Right. 2. The Court upheld Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules which required differently-abled candidates to possess 3 years of legal practice to prove their competence. 3. The judgment mandates that the High Courts must maintain separate cut-off marks for PwD candidates at every stage of the judicial selection process. How many of the above statements are correct?

Q2

Match the Following

Match List I (Legal Concept/Provision) with List II (Application in the 2025 SC Judgment on Visually Impaired Candidates): List I: A. Direct Discrimination B. Indirect Discrimination C. Reasonable Accommodation D. Substantive Equality List II: 1. Providing affirmative conditions like scribes and assistive technology to overcome disability barriers. 2. Applying identical cut-off marks to all candidates, which disproportionately disadvantages PwD candidates. 3. Acknowledging that the Constitution requires treating unequal situations differently to ensure a level playing field. 4. Explicitly barring visually impaired candidates from applying to the judiciary via Rule 6A. Select the correct code:

Q3

Assertion & Reason

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court struck down the rule that required differently-abled candidates to secure at least 70% aggregate marks in their law degree to be eligible for the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services. Reason (R): The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 explicitly prescribes a uniform 50% qualifying mark for all disabled candidates across all competitive examinations in India. Select the correct answer:

Up next