Case Ruling
The Supreme Court quashed a Madhya Pradesh judicial services rule that barred visually impaired and low-vision candidates from judicial appointments. The Court ruled that such exclusion is discriminatory and violates the principles of equality and reasonable accommodation.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that such candidates are eligible for judicial service. The Court emphasized that disability is no barrier to professional excellence.
Background of the Case
The case challenged a Madhya Pradesh rule that disqualified visually impaired candidates from judicial service. Petitioners argued that this violated their fundamental rights.
The State of Madhya Pradesh defended the rule, citing practical difficulties. However, the Court rejected this claim, stating that assistive technologies can help visually impaired judges perform their duties effectively.
Petitioner’s Stance
The rule violated constitutional rights and disability laws.
Assistive technologies allow visually impaired persons to work efficiently.
Many visually impaired professionals have excelled in law and judiciary.
Respondent’s Stance
The rule aimed to ensure efficiency in the judiciary.
The State raised concerns about practical challenges.
The government was open to policy changes for disabled candidates.
Court’s Observations
Equality includes reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Several disabled professionals have succeeded in law, including:
Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob (South Africa)
Justice David S. Tatel (U.S. Court of Appeals)
S.K. Rungta, Milan Mittal, and Rajesh Asudani (India)
Assistive technologies ensure accessibility in the legal profession.
Conclusion
The ruling strengthens disability rights and promotes inclusion in public services. It affirms that disabled individuals can excel in judicial roles with the right support.
