The Supreme Court of India is set to consider an important question of law in November 2025—whether the 4% reservation for persons with disabilities (PwDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must be applied horizontally across all vertical categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, EWS, Open category) or whether it is sufficient to apply it only within the open merit category.
The case arises from the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examination, where candidates challenged the manner in which the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) implemented the PwD quota. The dispute has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of reservation laws, especially concerning horizontal versus vertical reservations, and for ensuring adequate representation of persons with disabilities across all social groups.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when a candidate, Dawood Ahmad Bhat, filed a writ petition before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. He argued that the JKPSC applied the 4% PwD reservation only to candidates in the open category, excluding disabled candidates from other vertical reservation categories like SC, ST, OBC, and EWS.
The petitioner claimed that this limited application of reservation deprived him of selection, even though he was otherwise eligible under both the PwD quota and his social category. He argued that if the PwD quota had been distributed horizontally across all categories, he would have secured a seat.
The High Court, however, dismissed his plea, holding that under the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, the 4% reservation for physically challenged persons operates as an overall horizontal reservation. This meant that once the total PwD quota was filled—regardless of whether candidates came from open or reserved categories—the constitutional requirement was satisfied.
Unsatisfied with this ruling, the candidate approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Supreme Court Proceedings
On August 27, 2025, a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard the matter and issued notice to the JKPSC and the High Court of J\&K and Ladakh. The Court will hear the case in detail in November 2025.
The petitioner’s central contention is that the mandate of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires the appropriate government to ensure 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in every category of recruitment.
Thus, the key legal question before the Court is:
- Whether PwD reservation must be implemented separately within each vertical category (SC, ST, OBC, EWS, Open), ensuring representation of disabled persons from all communities?
- Or whether the requirement is satisfied if 4% of the total seats are reserved for PwDs, even if all selected candidates come from a single category (usually the open category)?
What is Horizontal Reservation?
To understand the dispute, it is essential to distinguish between vertical reservation and horizontal reservation.
- Vertical Reservation refers to reservations for constitutionally recognized social categories such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). These are mutually exclusive categories.
- Horizontal Reservation, on the other hand, cuts across vertical categories. Examples include reservation for women, persons with disabilities, and ex-servicemen. Candidates selected under these quotas are adjusted within their respective vertical categories.
For instance, a candidate with a disability belonging to the SC category should ideally be selected as an SC-PwD candidate, ensuring that both social disadvantage and disability disadvantage are accounted for.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that restricting PwD reservation to the open category defeats the very purpose of horizontal reservation, as it disproportionately benefits only certain groups.
- He stressed that disabled persons belonging to socially disadvantaged groups like SCs, STs, and OBCs face a double disadvantage—one due to their caste-based marginalization and another due to their disability.
- By limiting the PwD quota to the open category, the State effectively excludes such doubly disadvantaged candidates from meaningful participation.
- He also contended that this approach violates the spirit of Section 34 of the PwD Act, 2016, which seeks to ensure equal opportunity for persons with benchmark disabilities across all categories.
High Court’s Position
The J&K High Court, however, took a different view. It interpreted the 2005 Reservation Rules to mean that:
- The 4% PwD reservation is overall and not compartmentalized.
- Once 4% of the total seats are allocated to disabled candidates, the requirement under law is met.
- There is no legal mandate to distribute the reservation across each vertical category separately.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the selection made by the JKPSC, where three out of 69 seats were filled by PwD candidates, all from the open category.
Legal Framework: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (PwD Act) plays a central role in this case.
- Section 34 of the Act provides for 4% reservation in government jobs for persons with benchmark disabilities.
- The law does not explicitly clarify whether this 4% must be applied horizontally across each vertical category or as an overall quota.
- This ambiguity has led to different interpretations by various High Courts, creating inconsistency in implementation.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to clarify this ambiguity and set a binding precedent for all states and recruitment agencies.
Why This Case Matters
This case is not just about one examination in Jammu & Kashmir—it raises broader issues of equality, representation, and social justice.
- For Persons with Disabilities: A ruling in favor of compartmentalized horizontal reservation would ensure that disabled candidates from marginalized backgrounds are not excluded from opportunities.
- For Reservation Law: It will clarify how horizontal reservations should function within India’s complex reservation framework.
- For State Governments and Commissions: A binding interpretation will help avoid future disputes and bring uniformity in implementation across the country.
Possible Outcomes
The Supreme Court could adopt one of two approaches:
- Uphold the High Court ruling – holding that PwD reservation is overall and need not be distributed across vertical categories.
- Overrule the High Court ruling – declaring that PwD reservation must be applied horizontally across all social categories, ensuring representation of disabled candidates from SC, ST, OBC, and other groups.
The second outcome would mark a progressive step toward inclusive equality, recognizing the intersectional disadvantages faced by disabled persons from marginalized communities.
Conclusion
The upcoming Supreme Court hearing in Dawood Ahmad Bhat v. Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission is poised to become a landmark in the interpretation of reservation policies under the PwD Act, 2016.
By clarifying whether the 4% PwD quota should apply only in the open category or be compartmentalized horizontally across all vertical categories, the Court’s decision will directly impact thousands of candidates across India.
At its core, the case is about ensuring that persons with disabilities, especially those belonging to disadvantaged social groups, are not left behind in the pursuit of equality and justice. The judgment, expected after the November hearing, could reshape the landscape of disability rights and reservation jurisprudence in India.
Also Read
Supreme Court Insights on Non-Discovery and Innovative Practices
Supreme Court Flags Delay in Reserved Judgments: High Courts Directed to File Monthly Reports
