The court ruled that visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial service, striking down discriminatory rules and emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation and separate cut-off marks for persons with disabilities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Amendment to Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994 - Exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial service recruitment deemed unconstitutional - Court emphasizes the need for reasonable accommodation and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment. (Paras 67, 68)

(B) Judicial Service Recruitment - The court ruled that visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial service positions, striking down provisions that imposed additional requirements such as three years of practice or a minimum score of 70% in the first attempt. (Paras 67.1, 68)

(C) Indirect Discrimination - The court found that the rules imposed indirect discrimination against visually impaired candidates, violating the principles of equality and reasonable accommodation. (Paras 43, 44)

(D) Separate Cut-off Marks - The court mandated that separate cut-off marks be maintained for visually impaired candidates to ensure fair representation in the recruitment process. (Paras 63, 64)

Facts of the case:
The case involved challenges to amendments in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules that excluded visually impaired candidates from recruitment, leading to claims of discrimination and violation of constitutional rights. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from judicial service recruitment was unconstitutional and mandated reasonable accommodations to ensure their participation. (Paras 67, 68)

Issues: The main issues included the suitability of visually impaired candidates for judicial service, the constitutionality of the amendments to the recruitment rules, and the need for separate cut-off marks for PwD candidates. (Paras 29, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the principle of reasonable accommodation is essential for ensuring equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, and that the rules must be amended to reflect this principle. (Paras 41, 42)

Result: The court struck down the amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules that excluded visually impaired candidates and mandated the establishment of separate cut-off marks for PwD candidates in future recruitment processes. (Paras 68, 69)

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted. This judgment is organized under the following heads for easy reference and understanding:

SL.NO.		HEADS
I		INTRODUCTION
II		RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
III		SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS & SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS
	A	SUO MOTU W.P. (CIVIL) NO.2 OF 2024 [IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS]
	A.1	SUBMISSIONS OF DR. SANJAY JAIN – INTERVENOR
	B	SUO MOTU W.P. (CIVIL) NO.6 OF 2024 [IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES’ CANDIDATES IN RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICES VS. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS]
	C	AYUSH YARDI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [SLP(C) NO.12179 OF 2024]
	D	ALOK SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [SLP(C) NO.7683 OF 2024]
	E	MANVENDRA SINGH RATHORE & ORS. ALISHA KHAN VS. HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [W.P.(C) NOS.484 AND 494 OF 2024]
IV		ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION
V		DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
	A	EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK & NEED FOR ELEVATING RIGHT AGAINST DISABILITY - BASED DISCRIMINATION TO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
	B	NTERNATIONAL DISABILITY JURISPRUDENCE, DOCUMENTS AND COMMITMENT
	C	RPwD ACT - PROVISIONS AND GUARANTEES
	D	JUDICIAL APPROACH - PROGRESS MADE THUS FAR
	E	RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH
	F	INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION
	G	RELAXATION IN SELECTION CRITERIA & SEPARATE CUTOFF FOR DISABLED CANDIDATES - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE
	H	SHINING EXAMPLES TO SHOW- ‘IT CAN BE DONE’
VI		CONCLUSION
VII		RESULT

I. INTRODUCTION

2. January 4, 2019 was chosen as the World Braille Day by the United Nations to commemorate the birthday of Louis Braille and to remember him as the man who invented the system ‘Braille’ in 1829, which is used by the visually impaired for reading and writing, till date. Louis Braille who became completely blind in both eyes by the age of five, had developed this system by himself at the age of 20 inspired by the communication system devised by Captain Charles Barbier of the French Army, and offered professorship at the National Institute for Blind Youth, Paris, where he taught history, geometry and algebra while also having an ear for music. Almost two centuries ago from now, Louis Braille had understood that what the visually impaired needed was not pity or sympathy but accommodation and an enabling atmosphere in which communication played an important role. In his own words, “access to communication in the widest sense is access to knowledge, and that is vitally important for us if we (the Blind) are not to go on being despised or patronized by condescending sighted people. We do not need pity, nor do we need to be reminded we are vulnerable. We must be treated as equals and communication is the way this can be brought about.” His words are a poignant and resounding reminder of the fervent appeal of Persons with Disabilities¹[For short, “PwD”] to be afforded equal opportunities so as to enable them to enjoy a life of dignity and progress in all spheres on par with their able-bodied counterparts.

3. “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” This prophetic dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) can well be said to capture the spirit of what we are called upon to decide today. To draw a parallel, the Constitution of India is blind to the differences between able-bodied and differently abled citizens in matters of providing equal opportunity to all citizens in all spheres of life, including employment, and envisages equality and non-discrimination. This principle is to be enforced by the Constitutional Courts, by adopting a rights-based approach, providing an enabling environment and atmosphere, and ensuring that PwD are provided with equal opportunities, and accommodati