Back
Flags 's Disability Reservation Gap: Notice Issued in Key PIL
In a significant move for disability rights, the has issued notice to the Union government and on a challenging the exclusion of candidates with autism, intellectual disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and mental illness from reservation benefits in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2026. A led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed responses, signaling scrutiny over compliance with the .
The petitioner, Siddhant Tomar appearing in person, argues this creates a " " that undermines constitutional guarantees.
The Exclusion That Sparked the Battle
The PIL targets the CSE 2026 notification, which allegedly bars persons under —encompassing autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, and mental illness—from reservation quotas. While these candidates can sit for the exam, they are denied post-selection benefits like service allocation, unlike other categories.
Filed as , the plea traces the issue to government notifications identifying suitable posts for persons with disabilities. It contends many roles are viable for the excluded groups, making the bar arbitrary.
Petitioner's Core Grievances: A Constitutional Challenge
Tomar asserts the exclusion violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 16 (equal opportunity in public employment), and 21 (right to life and dignity) of the Constitution. He highlights the RPwD Act's mandate for 4% reservation in government jobs for benchmark disabilities, arguing 's stance defeats this inclusive framework.
Drawing on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing and non-discrimination, the petitioner claims the policy ignores statutory duties and perpetuates inequality. Government lists of suitable posts, he notes, include positions feasible for those with the specified conditions, rendering the exclusion unjustified.
Procedural Punch: Court's Swift Directions
On , the Bench accepted notice from counsel for ( ) and ( ). Key orders included:
"Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on."
Respondents must file counter affidavits within four weeks, with two weeks for rejoinder. Notably:
"The counter affidavit on behalf ofshall be filed by an officer of an appropriate level in consultation with the other departments of the, which have been arrayed as party respondents except the, on whose behalf a separate counter affidavit shall be filed."
This ensures coordinated, high-level government input, underscoring the case's gravity.
Implications for Inclusive Hiring
While interim, the order sets the stage for deeper examination of 's policies against RPwD Act obligations. A favorable ruling could expand reservation access, aligning civil services with India's disability inclusion commitments. Listed for hearing on , it spotlights tensions between exam administration and rights enforcement—watch this space for potential precedent on equity.
