NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that visually impaired candidates could not be said to be “not suitable” for judicial service, citing examples of accomplished blind individuals who have excelled and made significant contribution to the field of law.
Visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for the posts under the judicial service, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan said, striking down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excluded the visually impaired and low-vision candidates for appointment in judicial service. It also quashed the proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, relating to the additional requirement (of three-year law practice or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt) for the differently abled who have the requisite educational qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service, saying it violated the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation.
The top court clarified that “for the purpose of rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities, particularly in employment, and more specifically in respect of the issues covered in this judgment, there can be no distinction between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).”
It directed the respective authorities “to proceed with the selection process for the appointment of judicial officers in the light of this decision and complete the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.” It gave similar relief to candidates from Rajasthan.
The Bench cited the examples of senior advocate SK Rungta, visually impaired lawyer; Centre for Internet and Society Policy director Nirmita Narasimhan, who played a key role in drafting India’s National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility; former judge of the South African Constitutional Court Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Justice David S Tatel; distinguished Canadian lawyer David Lepofsky; and several others to drive home the point that visual impairment was not a real hurdle to success in the legal field.
The judgment came on petitions highlighting the denial of reservations to such candidates in judicial services of certain states, including MP from where the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to the top court last year against a rule in the MP Judicial Services Rules. The letter was converted into a PIL by the top court.