Supreme Court Stays Uttarakhand Govt Notification Excluding Blind Candidates from Judicial Service Exams

The Supreme Court of India has once again stepped in to protect the rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs) by staying a 2018 notification issued by the Uttarakhand Government that effectively barred blind, visually impaired, and locomotor-disabled candidates from applying under the general category in the state’s judicial service examinations. Calling the move “absurd,” the Court emphasized that such exclusion violates the fundamental principles of equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation guaranteed under the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

This significant order comes in the backdrop of a writ petition filed by Sravya Sindhuri, a blind candidate, who challenged the discriminatory recruitment advertisement for the Uttarakhand Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Background of the Case

In May 2025, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC) issued an advertisement for judicial services recruitment. While the law mandates a 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), the advertisement limited eligibility to only a few subcategories:

• Leprosy cured persons
• Acid attack survivors
• Persons with muscular dystrophy

This arbitrary exclusion left out candidates with blindness, low vision, and locomotor disabilities, despite these disabilities being explicitly included under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

The petitioner argued that the notification was not only unconstitutional but also violative of:

• Article 14 (right to equality),
• Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession), and
• Article 21 (right to life and dignity).

The plea further highlighted that denying blind candidates even the right to apply under the general category—in addition to excluding them from the PwBD quota—amounted to a double exclusion, making it impossible for them to compete at all.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan. On an earlier occasion, the Court had sought responses from the UKPSC and the State of Uttarakhand.

Arguments Advanced

• Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal (Amicus Curiae):
  Pointed out that the Supreme Court has already recognized the right of visually impaired candidates to participate in judicial services in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Uttarakhand notification, therefore, directly contradicted binding precedent.
• Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and UKPSC:
  Initially defended the notification but later agreed that visually impaired candidates should be allowed, subject to further judicial direction.
• Issue of Domicile Restriction:
  The advertisement also restricted PwD candidates to those domiciled in Uttarakhand. The Court observed that this issue requires further examination, as it may violate equality and mobility rights under the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Observations

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala made a strong remark:

“So since she does not qualify to apply for the persons with disability, she can’t apply in general category also? That’s absurd G.O. We will strike it down here and now.”

This reflected the Court’s disapproval of the Uttarakhand Government’s approach, which effectively disqualified blind candidates from both the PwBD quota and the general merit list.

Interim Order of the Supreme Court

While reserving its detailed judgment, the Court passed an interim order to ensure that the upcoming preliminary examination on August 31, 2025, is conducted fairly.

Key Directions:

1. Stay on the 2018 Notification: The Court stayed the operation of the Uttarakhand Government notification dated September 29, 2018.
2. Eligibility Restored: All candidates with benchmark disabilities under the RPwD Act—including blind and locomotor-disabled persons—are allowed to appear in the preliminary exam in the general/SC/ST/OBC categories.
3. Reasonable Accommodation: Such candidates must be provided with a scribe and 20 minutes extra per hour as per examination rules.
4. Application Deadline: Candidates can submit applications physically or via email until Friday, 5 PM (August 22, 2025).

Rights of Persons with Disabilities under the RPwD Act, 2016

The Court’s order is firmly rooted in Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates 4% reservation in government jobs for PwBDs, divided across categories:

• 1% for blindness and low vision
• 1% for hearing impairment
• 1% for locomotor disability, cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, muscular dystrophy
• 1% for autism, intellectual disability, mental illness, multiple disabilities

By excluding blindness and locomotor disabilities, the Uttarakhand notification was in direct violation of the statutory scheme.

Constitutional Dimensions

The petition highlights that such exclusion violates:

• Article 14 (Equality before law): Unequal treatment of different disabilities amounts to discrimination.
• Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom of profession): Denying visually impaired candidates access to judicial services restricts their professional opportunities.
• Article 21 (Right to life with dignity): Exclusion denies PwDs the dignity of equal participation in public employment.

Precedent: Visually Impaired in Judicial Services Case

In the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services case (2023), the Supreme Court held that visually impaired and low vision candidates are fully eligible to apply for judicial posts. That ruling struck down similar exclusionary provisions in state rules, affirming that disability cannot be a ground for disqualification in judicial services recruitment.

The Uttarakhand case follows the same line, reinforcing the Court’s commitment to ensuring that PwDs are not unjustly excluded from public service opportunities.

Broader Implications

This ruling has far-reaching consequences beyond Uttarakhand:

1. Judicial Services Nationwide: Other states will have to ensure compliance with the RPwD Act and Supreme Court precedents.
2. Fair Recruitment Practices: State Public Service Commissions must avoid arbitrary exclusions in job advertisements.
3. Strengthening Disability Rights: The judgment reinforces the constitutional vision of an inclusive society where disability is not seen as a barrier.
4. Examination Reforms: The recognition of scribes and extra time as a right, not a privilege, sets a uniform standard for all examinations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention in Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & Ors. is a landmark step in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities in India. By striking down an “absurd” exclusionary notification, the Court reaffirmed that equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional guarantee, not a concession.

As the Court reserves its detailed judgment, the interim order ensures that blind and locomotor-disabled candidates can fairly compete in the upcoming Uttarakhand Judicial Service Exams. This ruling not only benefits the immediate petitioners but also strengthens the larger disability rights movement in India by aligning state policies with the RPwD Act, 2016 and constitutional values of equality, dignity, and inclusion.

Also Read

Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain AAP MP Sanjay Singh’s Plea Against Closure of 105 Primary Schools in Uttar Pradesh

Family Disapproval Cannot Override Freedom of Two Adults to Choose Each Other: Delhi High Court