Supreme Courtjudgment regarding the recruitment of visually impaired and other Persons with Disabilities (PwD) into judicial services. It addresses several Suo Motu Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals concerning discriminatory rules in the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan Judicial Services, such as exclusion of visually impaired candidates and restrictive eligibility criteria like a three-year practice period or high first-attempt scores. The court examines existing constitutional frameworks, international disability jurisprudence, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) to advocate for inclusive equality and reasonable accommodation. The judgment ultimately strikes down discriminatory rules, mandates separate cut-off marks and merit lists for PwD candidates, and emphasizes that visually impaired individuals are suitable for judicial service, citing numerous successful examples of legal professionals with disabilities.
(A) Constitution of India, Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 32 and 136 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rule 6A (as amended on 7.3.2024), Rule 7 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Amendment) Act, 2023 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 34, 101 – Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 12(1)(a) – Service Law – – Reservation for PwD candidates – Recruitment – Judicial services – Exclusion of visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service vide Rule 6A of Rules 1994 – Challenge to validity of Rule 6-A – Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not suitable’ for judicial service? – Held that 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
(Para 67 and 68)
(B) Constitution of India, Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 32 and 136 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rule 6A (as amended on 7.3.2024), Rule 7 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 34, 101 – Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 12(1)(a) – Service Law – Reservation for PwD candidates – Recruitment – Judicial services – Reservation for PwD candidates – Exclusion of visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service vide Rule 6A of Rules 1994 – Challenge to validity of Rule 6-A -ii. Whether the amendment made in Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution? The amendment made in Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 falls foul of the Constitution, and is hence, struck down to the extent that it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally qualified for the post to apply therefor.
(Para 67 and 68)
(C) Constitution of India, Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 32 and 136 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rule 7 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Amendment) Act, 2023 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 34, 101 – Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 12(1)(a) – Service Law – Reservation for PwD candidates – Recruitment – Judicial services – Reservation for PwD candidates – Exclusion of visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the judicial service vide Rule 6A of Rules 1994 – Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1994 violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation? – Held that the proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1994 relating to additional requirements, violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation, and is hereby struck down in its application to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service – Rule 7 of the Rules, 1994 to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, is struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates – The said rule will be applicable to the PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates), but without the requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years’ practice – As a sequel, the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the High Court and the consequential notification dated 17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, set aside as against the PwD candidates and the appellant viz., Ayush Yardi and similarly placed persons, are entitled to be considered for participating in the selection process in the light of this decision.
(Para 67 and 68)
(D) Constitution of India, Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 32 and 136 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rule 6A (as amended on 7.3.2024), Rule 7 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Amendment) Act, 2023 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 34, 101 – Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 12(1)(a) – Service Law – Reservation for PwD candidates – Recruitment – Judicial services – Reservation for PwD candidates – Relaxation – Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available, after selection in their respective category? – Held that relaxation can be done in assessing suitability of candidates when enough PwD are not available after selection in their respective category, to the extent as stated in the relevant paragraphs above, and in the light of existing Rules and Official Circulars and executive orders in this regard, as in the present case.
(Para 67 and 68)
(E) Constitution of India, Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 32 and 136 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rule 6A (as amended on 7.3.2024), Rule 7 – Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Amendment) Act, 2023 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 34, 101 – Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 12(1)(a) – Service Law – Reservation for PwD candidates – Recruitment – Judicial services – Reservation for PwD candidates – Cut-off marks – Whether a separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection conducted accordingly for visually impaired candidates? – Held that a separate cut-off is to be maintained and selection made accordingly for visually-impaired candidates as has been indicated in the relevant paragraphs in line with the judgment in Indra Sawhney – 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).
(Para 67 and 68)
In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired … V. The Registrar General The High Court Of
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 300: (DoJ 03-03-2025)