Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"46. Thus, the principle of indirect discrimination hereinbefore applied to counter gender-based discrimination, can also be applied to the facts of the present case, where disabled/visually 24 of 48 impaired legal practitioners are sought to be equated with their able-bodied counterparts in the matter of application of certain conditions for participation for selection to the post of judicial officers. Applying such a test of indirect discrimination, the ease of practice as well as the securing of marks cannot be said to be an equal condition to both classes of citizens, viz., disabled and ablebodied lawyers, given that the atmosphere in which they operate cannot be said to be the same. This is also a perfect example of how unequals are sought to be treated equally, and that itself would be a negation of the principle of substantive equality. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that the rule relating to practice or in the alternative, to secure 70% in the first attempt in the examinations, is a case of indirect discrimination as the provisions are facially neutral but discriminatory in operation. In view of the same, Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, to the extent it prescribes the additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, is liable to be struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates. Accordingly, the impugned Rule will be applicable to PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates) but without the requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years' practice. This issue stands answered in the said terms."

26 of 48

30. Equality does not mean uniform treatment of all, regardless of their circumstances. To achieve substantive equality, the State must en- deavor to dismantle the social and economic barriers that impede persons with disabilities from realizing their full potential and only then, can gen- uine opportunities become truly accessible to them. Accordingly, the em- phasis must be on ensuring real and effective access rather than mechani- cal uniformity. This approach resonates with the constitutional philosophy enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 16 & 41 of the Constitution of India, which permits reasonable classification, protective discrimination and af- firmative measures in order to alleviate structural disadvantages. Persons with disabilities do not enter the competition at an equal footing with their able-bodied counterparts, thus, imposing uniform standards only fur- ther entrenches inequality under the guise of impartiality. Thus, relax- ations by way of age concessions, modified selection criteria etc. are jus- tified and warranted in order to propagate equality, as intended by the framers of the Constitution. Such actions fall under the ambit of 'reason- able accommodations' as provided in the RPWD Act and without making these special considerations, the promise of a fulfilling life made to the disabled citizens would ring hollow. As such, relaxation in selection process is a necessary instrument for achieving genuine, substantive and transformative equality.

(emphasis added)

35. Further, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal Vs. Union of India, 2021(3) SCR 823 un- derlined that formal equality may not always translate into substantive equality. Speaking through Justice Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the fol- lowing was opined: -

"28. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". The right to equality under the Indian Constitution has two facets - formal equality and substantive equality. While formal equality means that every person, irrespective of their attributes must be treated equally and must not be discriminated against; substantive equality is aimed at producing equality of outcomes through different modes of affirmative action. The principle of reasonable accommodation is one of the means for achieving substantive equality, pursuant to which disabled individuals 38 of 48 must be reasonably accommodated based on their individual capacities. Disability, as a social construct, precedes the medical condition of an individual. The sense of disability is introduced because of the absence of access to facilities."

CONCLUSION

39. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the question framed above is answered in the following terms: -

"Implementing relaxation in selection standards for persons with disabilities in order to provide them reasonable accommodations, in terms of Sections 2(y) & 3(5) of the RPWD Act, does not violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. If the selection process carried out on strict equal terms in a mechanical manner, the cause of substantive equality would fail. Thus, providing differential treatment to the persons with disabilities treatment to remove disadvantage does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State bears the responsibility to remove barriers that obstruct genuine opportunities for persons with disabilities and such relaxation ensures that equality becomes real, meaningful and transformative 45 of 48 rather than merely formal and illusory. As such, the relaxation in selection criteria for persons with disabilities is not a concession but a constitutional obligation to achieve substantive equality in furtherance of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution and the statutory framework of the RPWD Act."