Introduction:
The decision delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998 marks a significant step in strengthening the rights of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) within public employment. The case, adjudicated by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, addressed a critical concern regarding the denial of unreserved category seats to PwBD candidates who qualify on their own merit without availing relaxations.
The controversy arose in the context of the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a progressive legislation enacted to ensure equality, dignity, and full participation of persons with disabilities in society. Despite its enactment, persistent gaps in implementation, particularly in employment and promotions, led to systemic discrimination. One such issue was the improper categorisation of meritorious PwBD candidates under reserved quotas, even when they had scored above the general cut-off marks.
In its earlier order dated September 12, 2025, the Court had expressed concern that denying general category placement to such candidates undermined the very objective of the Act. It had directed the Union Government to clarify whether adequate measures were in place to ensure that deserving PwBD candidates receive what has come to be known as “upward movement,” meaning their placement in unreserved vacancies based purely on merit.
The present order arose from the Union Government’s response, which included references to executive instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in 2018 and 2022. These instructions sought to delineate the principles governing merit-based selection and reservation for PwBD candidates. The Court was thus tasked with evaluating whether the existing framework adequately balanced meritocracy with affirmative action, while also ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, argued that the existing practices in recruitment and promotion were inconsistent with both constitutional guarantees and statutory provisions under the 2016 Act. It was contended that PwBD candidates who qualify without availing any relaxation should not be confined to reserved categories, as this effectively penalises merit rather than rewarding it. According to the petitioner, such an approach not only diminishes opportunities for deserving candidates but also dilutes the purpose of horizontal reservation.
The petitioner emphasised that reservation for PwBD candidates operates horizontally across all categories, meaning it cuts across vertical classifications such as General, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Therefore, if a PwBD candidate secures marks above the general cut-off, their rightful place is within the unreserved category, thereby preserving reserved seats for those who genuinely require relaxations. Failure to adopt this approach results in a double disadvantage: meritorious candidates are denied recognition, and reserved seats are unnecessarily occupied.
Further, the petitioner highlighted inconsistencies in the interpretation of “relaxed standards.” It was argued that facilities such as scribes or compensatory time are not concessions that dilute merit but are necessary accommodations to ensure a level playing field. Treating such accommodations as relaxations, the petitioner argued, would be discriminatory and contrary to the principle of reasonable accommodation embedded in disability rights jurisprudence.
On the other hand, the Union of India defended its position by placing reliance on Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT in 2018 and 2022. The Union submitted that these instructions clearly establish a framework for distinguishing between candidates selected on “own merit” and those benefiting from relaxed standards. It was argued that candidates who do not avail any relaxation in age, marks, or number of attempts are treated as general candidates and are adjusted against unreserved vacancies.
The Union further clarified that the concept of relaxed standards is narrowly defined and does not include provisions such as scribes or compensatory time. These, according to the Union, are facilitative measures rather than concessions and do not impact the merit of the candidate. Additionally, the Union emphasised that the disability itself is not treated as a relaxation in medical fitness assessments, thereby ensuring that candidates are not unfairly categorised.
The respondent also contended that the existing policy framework adequately preserves the balance between merit and reservation. By allowing meritorious PwBD candidates to occupy unreserved seats, the policy ensures that reserved quotas remain available for those who genuinely require them. The Union maintained that this approach aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, while also fulfilling the objectives of the 2016 Act.
However, the Union acknowledged that implementation at the State and Union Territory level had been uneven. It pointed to ongoing efforts to improve compliance, including the appointment of nodal officers and the involvement of National Law Universities in monitoring the implementation of the Act.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, after carefully considering the submissions and the policy framework presented by the Union, expressed satisfaction that the issue raised in its earlier order had been adequately addressed. The Court endorsed the principle that PwBD candidates who qualify on their own merit, without availing relaxed standards, are entitled to be considered against unreserved vacancies. This endorsement effectively affirms the doctrine of “upward movement” as an integral component of disability rights in public employment.
The Court’s reasoning reflects a nuanced understanding of the interplay between merit and reservation. It recognised that reservation is not intended to limit opportunities for meritorious candidates but to provide a safety net for those who face systemic disadvantages. By allowing upward movement, the policy ensures that merit is rewarded without compromising the purpose of reservation.
A key aspect of the judgment is the Court’s clarification regarding what constitutes “relaxed standards.” It accepted the Union’s position that accommodations such as scribes and compensatory time do not fall within this category. This distinction is significant, as it reinforces the principle of reasonable accommodation, which is central to disability rights. The Court implicitly acknowledged that such measures are essential for ensuring substantive equality and should not be misconstrued as concessions that undermine merit.
The Court also noted that the policy applies not only to direct recruitment but also to promotions, including those based on seniority-cum-fitness and selection criteria. This broad applicability underscores the importance of ensuring fairness at all stages of public employment, thereby promoting inclusivity and equal opportunity.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that the disability of a candidate should not be treated as a disqualifying factor in determining merit. By clarifying that disability is not a relaxed standard in medical fitness tests, the judgment seeks to eliminate discriminatory practices that have historically excluded persons with disabilities from meaningful participation in the workforce.
While endorsing the Union’s policy, the Court did not overlook the gaps in its implementation. It expressed concern that, despite the passage of eight years since the enactment of the 2016 Act, compliance by States and Union Territories remained inadequate. The Court described this state of affairs as “elusive,” indicating a persistent failure to translate legislative intent into practical outcomes.
To address this issue, the Court directed the National Law Universities involved in the “Project Ability Empowerment” initiative to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the Act. This assessment is expected to go beyond mere formalities and involve a substantive evaluation of compliance with statutory mandates, including the establishment of institutional mechanisms, enforcement of rights, and accessibility measures.
The Court also entrusted the National Law University, Delhi, with the responsibility of assessing compliance at the Union level. This decentralised approach to monitoring reflects the Court’s recognition that effective implementation requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels of governance.
Further, the Court highlighted the importance of appointing nodal officers as a means of creating an institutional framework for monitoring and enforcement. It observed that the absence of such a framework had been a major impediment to effective implementation. By facilitating data collection and addressing gaps, nodal officers are expected to play a crucial role in ensuring accountability.
In a firm directive, the Court granted a final opportunity to the Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Ladakh to appoint nodal officers in compliance with its earlier orders. This directive underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring uniform implementation of the law across all regions.
Ultimately, the Court called upon the Union, States, and Union Territories to adhere to the policy of upward movement “in its true letter and spirit.” It emphasised that the policy is not merely a procedural guideline but a reflection of the constitutional mandate of equality, dignity, and inclusion. By reinforcing this principle, the Court has sought to advance the broader goal of creating a more equitable and inclusive society.
The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 22, 2026, when updated status reports on the implementation of the Act are expected to be submitted. This continued oversight indicates that the Court intends to play an active role in ensuring that its directives are effectively implemented.