Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000120-000120 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 38094/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedents on reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act; overrules Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in MAT 2325/2023 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; administrative law; disability rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that a Public Sector Undertaking cannot refuse to accommodate candidates with multiple disabilities when the RPwD Act mandates inclusive recruitment and reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental gateway right under Articles 14, 21 and the Directive Principles (Article 41). The Court directed constitution of a medical board, confirmed benchmark disability, and ordered creation of a supernumerary post with universal‐design modifications. It emphasized corporate social responsibility and intersectional discrimination concerns in recruitment. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, with visual impairment and residual hemiparesis, applied under the VH category in Coal India’s 2019 Management Trainee recruitment and was declared unfit at IME. A Single Judge quashed the IME result and allowed her to participate afresh in 2023; a Division Bench set aside that relief. The Supreme Court directed an AIIMS board to assess her benchmark disability (confirmed at 57%), held the initial exclusion unlawful, and ordered a supernumerary post with reasonable accommodations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Public Sector Undertakings and recruitment authorities |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative tribunals, and private sector employers in disability recruitment policies |
| Overrules | Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in MAT 2325/2023 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- PSU recruiters must modify notifications to include candidates with multiple disabilities and cannot confine to single‐disability categories.
- Reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y) is a fundamental, gateway right linked to Articles 14, 21 and Directive Principles (Article 41).
- Creation of supernumerary posts under Article 142 is available to effectuate disability rights when regular panels expire.
- Universal design requirements (Section 2(ze)) must govern job‐site accommodations, including separate computer and ergonomic desk.
- Intersectionality of disability with gender demands tailored accommodations beyond one‐size‐fits‐all solutions.
- Corporate Social Responsibility and ESG frameworks obligate PSUs to respect disability rights in recruitment as a strategic imperative.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Review of High Court orders: Single Judge quashed IME and allowed 2023 participation; Division Bench reversed on panel expiry.
- Constitution of AIIMS medical board (including Dr. Satendra Singh) under Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction; confirmation of 57% benchmark disability.
- Analysis of RPwD Act’s definitions of benchmark disability, reasonable accommodation (Section 2(y)) and universal design (Section 2(ze)).
- Reliance on precedents (Omkar Gond, Anmol, Om Rathod) establishing reasonable accommodation as a fundamental, gateway right.
- Synergy of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 21) and Directive Principles (Articles 37, 39(a), 41) for securing right to livelihood.
- Application of intersectionality principle (Jane Kaushik) to ensure substantive equality for women with disabilities.
- Corporate responsibility under UN Guiding Principles and ILO CSR reporting standards mandates inclusive recruitment.
- Equitable remedy: direction to create a supernumerary post with universal design accommodations under Article 142.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Applied under the Visually Handicapped category with certified 60–70% visual disability and residual hemiparesis.
- IME declaration of unfitness violated RPwD Act’s inclusive recruitment mandate and reasonable accommodation requirement.
- Delay in litigation was not a bar to equitable relief; Single Judge’s moulded remedy was just.
Respondent (Coal India Limited)
- Submitted disability was only 30%, below benchmark; appellant did not qualify as a “person with benchmark disability.”
- Recruitment notification did not provide for “multiple disability” category; relief after panel expiry was impermissible.
- Alleged panel expiry and interim order post-expiry rendered Single Judge’s direction untenable.
Factual Background
The appellant, a visually impaired candidate with residual hemiparesis, applied in 2019 for a Management Trainee post under Coal India Limited’s VH category. After clearing interview, she was declared unfit at the Initial Medical Examination for combined disabilities. A Single Judge quashed that result and allowed her to participate in the 2023 recruitment process; the Division Bench set aside that order on the ground of panel expiry. The Supreme Court directed AIIMS to assess her benchmark disability (confirmed at 57%) and held the original exclusion unlawful, ordering creation of a supernumerary post with reasonable accommodations.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(y), RPwD Act: defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary modifications without undue burden to ensure equal participation.
- Section 2(s), RPwD Act: defines “person with disability” and “benchmark disability” threshold at 40%.
- Section 2(ze), RPwD Act: defines “universal design” for accessible environments and workplaces.
- Articles 14, 21 and Directive Principles (Articles 37, 39(a), 41) read together mandate the right to livelihood and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.
- Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to pass equitable orders, including supernumerary posts, to do complete justice.
Procedural Innovations
- Supreme Court-directed constitution of an expert medical board at AIIMS under its supervisory jurisdiction.
- Use of Article 142 to craft a supernumerary post as a bespoke remedy for disability discrimination.
- Mandating universal design workplace accommodations as part of judicial relief.
- Engagement of disability rights expert (Dr. Satendra Singh) in medical evaluation process.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – upholds and applies established RPwD Act jurisprudence on reasonable accommodation.