Supreme Court Questions Exclusion of Haemophilia from Disability Job Quota, Issues Notice to Centre

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has initiated a significant judicial review into the scope of reservation benefits under disability law, issuing a notice to the Union Government in a writ petition that challenges the exclusion of haemophilia from job reservations provided by the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The petition, filed by the Haemophilia Federation of India, argues that this exclusion is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria on Friday sought a formal response from the Centre, setting the stage for a potential re-evaluation of how disabilities are classified for affirmative action in public employment. The case, HAEMOPHILIA FEDERATION INDIA & ANR. v UNION OF INDIA & ANR. , brings to the forefront the legislative rationale behind the selective application of reservation benefits.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that the current framework creates an arbitrary and unconstitutional distinction. The plea puts forth a stark choice: either amend the law to include haemophilia within the reservation framework or strike down the exclusionary part of the relevant section.

The Core Legal Challenge: Section 34 of the RPwD Act

At the heart of the dispute is Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. This provision mandates a 4% reservation in government jobs for persons with benchmark disabilities. A "benchmark disability" is defined as a specified disability where the person has not less than 40% of that disability. Haemophilia is officially recognized as a "specified disability" under the Act's Schedule, and individuals with severe haemophilia often meet the 40% benchmark.

However, the petitioners contend that a glaring anomaly exists. While haemophilia is acknowledged as a benchmark disability, it is conspicuously absent from the list of disabilities eligible for the 4% job reservation under Section 34.

"It is the contention of the petitioner that despite being a benchmark disability, it has been excluded for purpose of reservation," the source material highlights, underscoring the central paradox challenged in the petition.

The petition argues that this omission is not a mere legislative oversight but an act of unconstitutional exclusion. It creates a subclass of citizens who are recognized as having a significant disability but are denied the primary affirmative action measure designed to ensure their representation in the workforce. This, the petitioners assert, violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The plea presents two alternative remedies to the Court: 1. Read-In Inclusion: To interpret Section 34 of the RPwD Act in a manner that includes haemophilia within its ambit, thereby extending the 4% reservation benefits to eligible individuals. 2. Strike Down the Exclusion: To declare Section 34 unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes haemophilia, compelling Parliament to rectify the discriminatory classification.

Judicial Scrutiny and Legislative Wisdom

This is not the first time the Supreme Court, and specifically Justice Aravind Kumar, has grappled with this issue. The bench is concurrently hearing another writ petition that challenges the exclusion of individuals with haemophilia from appearing for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examinations.

During a hearing in that related matter in September, the bench’s line of questioning offered a preview of the high level of scrutiny the government's policy will face. As noted in the source, "Justice Kumar had asked what is the legislative wisdom for excluding blood disorder from the reservation." This question goes directly to the doctrine of reasonable classification, a cornerstone of equality jurisprudence under Article 14. For a legislative classification to be valid, it must be founded on an intelligible differentia (a clear basis for distinction) and this differentia must have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.

The Union Government will now be required to articulate this "legislative wisdom" and justify why a person with a 40% locomotor disability is eligible for job reservations, but a person with severe haemophilia—a chronic, debilitating condition that can severely impact daily life, education, and employment prospects—is not.

Understanding Haemophilia: Beyond a "Blood Disorder"

Haemophilia is a rare, inherited genetic disorder where the blood does not clot properly due to a lack of sufficient blood-clotting proteins (clotting factors). This can lead to spontaneous bleeding as well as severe bleeding following injuries or surgery. The most serious complication is deep internal bleeding, especially in joints (hemarthrosis), which causes chronic pain, swelling, and progressive joint damage, often leading to severe arthritis and physical disability.

The legal argument rests on the premise that the functional impact of haemophilia is comparable to, and in many cases more severe than, other disabilities that are currently eligible for reservation. The constant risk of bleeding episodes, the need for regular and expensive infusions of clotting factor concentrates, and the resulting physical limitations create significant barriers to education and stable employment. Proponents of inclusion argue that excluding it from job quotas ignores the socio-economic disadvantages and systemic barriers faced by individuals with the condition.

Broader Implications for Disability Rights Jurisprudence

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications beyond the haemophilia community. It may set a crucial precedent for other "specified disabilities" under the RPwD Act that are not explicitly listed for reservation benefits. A favorable ruling could empower other disability groups to challenge their exclusion and advocate for a more inclusive and functional approach to affirmative action.

The case also reflects the judiciary's evolving role in interpreting and enforcing the RPwD Act, 2016. This legislation marked a paradigm shift from a medical-based model of disability to a social and human rights-based model. It recognizes that disability is not just a health problem but a result of the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society.

A decision to include haemophilia in the reservation matrix would reinforce this rights-based approach, affirming that the purpose of reservation is not merely to accommodate physical limitations but to counteract the systemic discrimination and lack of opportunity that persons with disabilities face.

As similar petitions are reportedly pending in various High Courts, the Supreme Court's definitive ruling in this matter will provide much-needed clarity and uniformity, potentially resolving a nationwide legal ambiguity and advancing the constitutional promise of equality for all persons with disabilities. The Union Government's response will be closely watched by the legal and medical communities as a test of its commitment to the inclusive spirit of the RPwD Act.