IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES versus

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 02-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 222 : 2025 INSC 300
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024)
03 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether visually impaired candidates can be said to be ‘not 
suitable’ for judicial service; Whether the amendment made in 
Rule 6A of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and 
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 falls foul of the constitution; 
Whether proviso to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service 
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 violates the 
equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable accommodation; 
Whether relaxation can be done in assessing the suitability of 
candidates when adequate PwD candidates are not available, 
after selection in their respective category; Whether a separate 
cut-off is to be maintained and selection conducted accordingly 
for visually impaired candidates.
Headnotes†
Judicial Services – Judicial Services Examination – Visually 
impaired candidates, eligible to participate – Madhya Pradesh 
Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of 
Service) Rules, 1994 – 2023 amendment – r.6A – Rajasthan 
Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
Act, 2016 – Challenge to amendment in r.6A, MP Judicial 
Service Rules, 1994 excluding visually impaired and low vision 
candidates from appointment in judicial service – Suo moto 
cognizance of letter petitions – Amendment, if falls foul of the 
constitution – Visually impaired candidates, if ‘not suitable’ for 
judicial service:
Held: Visually impaired candidates cannot be said to be ‘not suitable’ 
for judicial service – They are eligible to participate in selection for 
posts in judicial service – Amendment made in r.6A of the 1994 
Rules falls foul of the Constitution, hence, struck down to the extent 
it does not include visually impaired persons who are educationally 
qualified for the post to apply therefor – r.6A is against the guarantee 
of substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act, 2016 and the 
principle of reasonable accommodation therein – The impugned rule 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
223
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
based on the medical report of a doctor cannot have any place in 
the disability jurisprudence that is ever evolving – Such conclusions 
based merely on a clinical assessment of disability, innocent of the 
principle of reasonable accommodation are not a fair and proper 
assessment of the capability of judicial officers with disabilities while 
participating in the selection to the post of judicial officers – Once 
a person has been permitted to the degree of law course, all other 
opportunities, whether in the form of practice as well as appointments, 
assignments whether public or private, would automatically make 
them eligible to participate for selection to the same – The principle 
of legitimate expectation also stands attracted to this case as part 
of the aspect of non-arbitrariness while furthering the equality 
doctrine – India is a signatory to United Nations Convention on the 
Rights of Persons with Disabilities and hence, under an obligation 
to fulfil this object of inclusive equality. [Paras 42, 68(i)]
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and 
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – 2023 Amendment – r.7 – 
Principle of indirect discrimination – The amendment proposed 
to substitute r.7 prescribing the additional requirement, to 
appear in the preliminary examination of the MP Judicial Service 
examination, of either a three-year practice period or securing 
an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt – Challenge 
to the amendment and the consequential advertisement 
dtd.17.11.2023 issued by the High Court of MP – Proviso to r.7, 
if violates the equality doctrine and the principle of reasonable 
accommodation: 
Held: r.7 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 violates the equality doctrine and the principle 
of reasonable accommodation – It is struck down in its application 
to differently abled persons who have the requisite educational 
qualifications for applying to the posts under judicial service – Applying 
the test of indirect discrimination, the ease of practice as well as 
the securing of marks cannot be said to be an equal condition to 
bo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.