Context:
- Landmark Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that visually challenged candidates cannot be deemed unsuitable for judicial service.
- Bench & Judgment: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the 122-page judgment emphasizing inclusivity as a core constitutional principle.
- Call for Constitutional Amendment:
- The court urged Parliament to amend Article 15 to explicitly include ‘disability’ as a ground for non-discrimination.
- Noted that this has been a long-standing demand of the disability rights movement.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance, Social Issues, Judiciary)
Impact on Judicial Service Recruitment:
- Elimination of Indirect Discrimination:
- Barriers like rigid cut-offs or procedural hurdles that exclude PwDs must be removed.
- Educational Qualification Over Disabilities:
- PwD candidates who meet the required qualifications must not be ignored in judicial appointments.
- Relaxation in Suitability Criteria:
- If sufficient PwD candidates are not available in their category, flexibility in assessment must be considered.
- Separate Cut-off for Visually Impaired:
- A distinct selection criterion must be maintained for visually impaired candidates.
Context & Significance:
- The ruling was based on a suo motu case, initiated after a letter from the mother of a visually impaired aspirant in Madhya Pradesh.
- Reinforces substantive equality by ensuring that judicial services become more inclusive for PwDs.
- Sets a precedent for broader accessibility reforms in public service recruitments.
