A formidable legacy in securing disability rights

Administrative reforms for accessibility: One of Chandrachud’s most significant administrative achievements was the establishment of the Supreme Court’s Accessibility Committee, chaired by Justice Ravindra Bhat. This was the first such initiative in the court’s history, aiming to systematically address barriers faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs) within the judiciary. The committee proposed a range of measures to enhance accessibility, and some of these have already been implemented. For instance, an Accessibility Help Desk has been set up at the Supreme Court. Justice Chandrachud also facilitated the setting up of Miti Cafe, an eatery in the Supreme Court run predominantly by PwDs.

That said, Chandrachud’s bold and visionary intent did not always get translated into an equally proactive approach by the court’s bureaucracy, for instance in evolving the modalities for enabling sign language interpretation of Constitution Bench proceedings.

Judicial contributions to disability rights: The former CJI’s judicial pronouncements reflected a hard-to-match sensitivity to the challenges faced by PwDs. Indeed, in his last week, he delivered three rulings with wide-ranging ramifications. First, in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Ors., the Supreme Court paved the way for a candidate with muscular dystrophy to pursue medicine. Rather than going by the assessment conducted by the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) Disability Boards which focus more on disability than ability, the apex court appointed Dr Satendra Singh, the founder of Doctors with Disabilities, to conduct an independent evaluation of Om Rathod to create a roadmap for his admission to the MBBS course.

The difference in approach led to a difference in outcome. Dr Singh found that, with an accessible environment and reasonable accommodations, Rathod could thrive in medical school. Not only did the bench clear the way for him to pursue medicine, it issued directions to create many more Om Rathods in the country. These notably included directing the NMC to constitute a board with suitable disabled representation to revise its disability assessment norms and to come up with updated and more inclusive guidelines.

Second, under the former CJI, the apex court enabled two persons with disabilities — Siddharth Sharma and Tishan Gangid — to become judicial officers, by insisting that the Rajasthan judiciary declare a separate cut-off for PwDs in its judicial service exams. The Court also issued guidelines for the declaration of separate minimum qualifying marks and cutoff for PwDs in all exams for recruitment to the district judiciary across the country. This is likely to facilitate the participation of more persons with disabilities in the country’s judiciary.

Third, in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Ors., the Court directed the Union government to come up with a set of non-negotiable accessibility norms in all sectors within three months. It struck down the existing approach of the Centre framing aspirational guidelines with no baseline level of compliance which can be easily understood and meaningfully enforced.

Encouraging representation: Chandrachud’s tenure was also marked by efforts to encourage the participation of PwDs in the legal profession. Notably, he allowed Sarah Sunny, a hearing-impaired lawyer, to appear before the Court with the assistance of a sign language interpreter. While long overdue, such measures help bring people into the mainstream who were otherwise confined to the margins. However, these interventions must evolve from exceptions to standard practices with the onus being on the court, and not just the lawyer concerned, to ensure full and effective participation.

The present CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, faces the challenge of building on Chandrachud’s legacy. Key priorities include implementing the remaining recommendations of the Accessibility Committee, most notably formulating an equal opportunity policy for Supreme Court staff, evolving norms for providing pleadings in accessible formats to lawyers with disabilities, and making disability training and sensitisation a part of the Court’s annual calendar. The Supreme Court would also do well to ensure that lawyers with disabilities are inducted into its accessibility committee and prioritise the hearing and disposal of pending cases concerning PwDs.

Justice Chandrachud’s tenure has set a high benchmark, one that demands not just maintenance but continuous improvement in the quest for a truly inclusive judiciary.

Rahul Bajaj & Vaishnavi Chaudhry are advocates. The views expressed are personal

Get Current Updates on…

See more