In India, one can become a Judge after clearing the judicial examination and those examinations are conducted State wise. Different States have different rules such as Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1994, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 etc. There are certain reservation provisions in each State’s judicial service Rules for SC, ST, OBC and Women candidates. Apart from it, there are certain reservations for physically handicapped candidates. In this post we will discuss about the provisions related to the handicapped candidates contained in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and point out the flaws contained in it.
(toc)
Understanding the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007
The Odisha Superior Judicial Service (OSJS) and Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) Rules, 2007 govern the recruitment and service conditions of judges in Odisha's judicial system. These rules were framed to streamline the selection, training, promotion, and overall administration of judicial officers in the state of Orissa.
Objective of the Rules
The main aim is to:
- Ensure fair and transparent recruitment of judicial officers.
- Maintain high standards of integrity and competence in the judiciary.
- Lay down clear service guidelines for officers once they join the service.
OSJS – Superior Judicial Service
This refers to higher-level judicial posts, including District Judges and above. Recruitment happens either by promotion (from subordinate judiciary) or direct recruitment through a competitive exam & interview. Promotion is based on merit and seniority, in line with High Court recommendations.
OJS – Judicial Service (Subordinate Judiciary)
- This covers entry-level judicial posts like Civil Judge (Junior Division).
- Selection is done via a three-stage competitive exam:
- Preliminary Exam – objective questions.
- Main Exam – descriptive papers in law.
- Viva Voce (Interview) – personality and knowledge assessment.
- The Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) conducts the exam.
Key Provisions in the 2007 Rules
Eligibility Criteria:
- LLB degree and age between 23–35 years (relaxable for reserved categories).
- Reservation: Includes quotas for SC/ST, women, and PwD candidates, aligned with state and central laws.
- Training: Selected candidates undergo judicial training before taking charge.
- Conduct Rules: Officers are expected to maintain high ethical standards and follow the code of conduct.
Provision relating to the Handicapped Candidates:
The Rule 17
Rule 17 of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service (OSJS) and Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) Rules, 2007 envisages the Reservation of posts, wherein 22.50% for STs, 16.25% for SCs, 11.25% are reserved for SEBC candidates. Out of all the posts, 33.33% are reserved for eligible women candidates. The Sub-Rule 5 of the Rule 17 states that one percentum of the vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge which are to be filled up under Rule 15 shall be reserved for Orthopaedically Handicapped Candidates.
The Rule 18
Similarly Rule 18 envisages that in case of SC, ST, Women and Orthopaedically handicapped candidates, there shall be age relaxation of 5 years.
Now upon a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that only the Orthopaedically handicapped candidates are competent to avail the benefit of the reservation and no other kind of handicapped persons, such as ophthalmologically handicapped persons can get the benefit. For the sake of brevity, let use understand the difference between Orthopaedically handicapped persons and othalmologically handicapped persons.
Understanding Orthopaedically Handicapped Persons
The term "Orthopaedically Handicapped" (OH) refers to individuals who have physical disabilities affecting their bones, joints, or muscles. This condition can impact a person’s ability to move, walk, or perform daily tasks easily.
What Does It Mean?
- A person is considered orthopaedically handicapped if they have:
- Limited movement in the limbs (hands or legs)
- Difficulty in walking, standing, or maintaining balance
- Physical deformities like polio-related paralysis, amputations, or spinal injuries
- As per government guidelines, a person must have at least 40% disability certified by a medical board to be officially recognized as OH.
Legal Rights and Benefits
Orthopaedically handicapped individuals are protected and supported under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Some key rights include:
- Reservation in jobs and education
- Concession in transport, taxation, and exams
- Access to assistive devices, wheelchairs, and prosthetics
- Barrier-free environments in public places
- Employment Opportunities
- Government and public sector institutions often reserve a percentage of posts for OH candidates. They are also given relaxation in age, fees, and special exam facilities like scribes or extended time.
Understanding Ophthalmologically Handicapped Persons
Ophthalmologically handicapped refers to individuals who have significant visual impairments, including partial or complete blindness. These conditions affect their ability to see and carry out daily tasks that require vision.
Who Are Considered Ophthalmologically Handicapped?
According to medical and legal standards, this includes:
- Blind persons – complete lack of vision or inability to count fingers from a short distance.
- Low vision individuals – persons who have some vision but are not fully functional without assistive devices or aids. To be officially recognized, the visual disability must be 40% or more, as certified by a medical authority.
Rights and Legal Protections
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ophthalmologically handicapped individuals are entitled to:
- Reservations in education and employment
- Concessions in exams, such as extra time and the use of scribes
- Access to assistive technology like screen readers and Braille
- Barrier-free access in public spaces
Now coming back to the topic, since both the visually impaired persons and orthopaedically handicapped persons are coming under the handicapped category, and their rights are protected under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, both ought to be treated equally.
However, in the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007 only the candidates belonging to orthopaedically challenged category are competent to avail the benefit of reservation under Rule 17 and 18 of the said Rules. The question arises, as to to whether the Visually Impaired candidates are not suitable for the post of Civi Judges and as to whether the said Rule should be amended!
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of “In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services” was please to answer the issue in detail.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in “In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services” took up several cases wherein visually impaired and other disabled candidates were being denied fair opportunities to become judges in different states like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Court looked into the legality and fairness of rules that excluded or restricted persons with disabilities (PwDs) from applying for judicial posts. The primary issues before the Supreme Court was that Madhya Pradesh had a rule that excluded blind and low-vision candidates from judicial posts, Rajasthan wasn’t publishing separate results and cut-offs for disabled candidates, making the selection process unfair and some candidates with disabilities were not selected despite scoring well, due to rigid or unclear eligibility criteria.
The petitioners argued before the Court that excluding disabled candidates violates their right to equality and dignity under the Constitution inasmuch as there should be reasonable accommodations (support systems or adjustments) instead of outright exclusion since other countries and some Indian states allow visually impaired judges, so it’s clearly possible.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the state as well as the High Courts contended that being a judge requires seeing, hearing, and reading, so certain disabilities might prevent efficient work and relied on medical opinions saying some disabilities are not suitable for judicial work. In addition to that it was argued that the States were acting within the law and had taken government permissions for such exclusions.
Observation:
- The Court emphasized that equal opportunity is a fundamental right for all, including PwDs. Denying them a chance based on assumptions or stereotypes is not acceptable.The Court reiterated the concept of "reasonable accommodation"—changes or support that help PwDs work effectively.
- Just because someone is disabled does not mean they’re unfit to be a judge
- To substantiate the view, cases from several notable personalities were referred to, who excelled in the legal field.
Noted Visually Impaired Personalities
Justice Zak Mohammed Yacoob:
He lost his sight at 16 months due to meningitis, served as a judge on the South African Constitutional Court from 1998 to 2013. Despite his blindness, he effectively discharged his judicial duties with the assistance of a legally trained personal assistant, a talking computer, a braille printer, and a note-taker who converted text into braille. While acknowledging that reading case materials took longer, he firmly rejected the misconception that blind individuals are incapable of assessing critical evidence, such as charts, maps, or witness demeanour. He argued that the belief that one must “see” a witness to assess credibility was unfounded. Throughout his tenure, Justice Yacoob strongly advocated for the constitutional protection of the rights of differently-abled individuals, emphasizing the need for accessibility and equality within the justice system
Justice David S. Tatel:
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, adapted to his blindness by employing law clerks and a reader to assist with visual materials. Though less adept with modern technology, he relied on a braille keyboard. He firmly asserted that blindness does not limit a lawyer’s ability to argue cases effectively. Rejecting the imposition of low expectations on blind professionals, he preferred to be recognized as a “judge who happens to be blind” rather than a “blind judge” reinforcing the principle that competence in the legal profession is not diminished by disability.
David Lepofsky:
A distinguished Canadian lawyer, has argued over 30 cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and more than 200 before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Acknowledged as one of Canada’s most influential lawyers, he has leveraged technological advancements to enhance his legal practice. Previously reliant on volunteers to read trial transcripts, he now accesses case materials digitally through screen readers and cloud-based platforms, allowing him to work from anywhere. Despite the inherent challenges, Lepofsky remains steadfast in his commitment to ensuring litigants receive their rightful entitlements, demonstrating perseverance and self-reliance in overcoming professional barriers.
Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta of India:
Conferred with the prestigious title of Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in 2011, has dedicated his career to breaking down barriers for the differently-abled. Initially reliant on clerks for mobility and legal filings, he has substantially reduced this dependence with the advent of assistive technology. While he encountered skepticism from some judges regarding his capabilities, he asserts that the judiciary has largely been supportive. His contributions have been instrumental from facilitating entry of the blind to into the civil services to enforcing disability reservations under Indian law, securing the right of blind individuals to serve as witnesses, and shaping India’s disability legislation- The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Tomer Rosner:
A blind legal advisor to the Israeli Parliament, plays a crucial role in drafting and analyzing legislation, particularly concerning disability rights. Given the extensive volume of legal documents he must review, he employs screen readers and optical character recognition (OCR) technology to access text that is otherwise inaccessible. Despite these technological aids, there remain instances where he relies on personal readers. He acknowledges the challenges inherent in his profession but maintains that with the effective use of technology and adaptive strategies, legal professionals with disabilities can manage their responsibilities with competence and efficiency.
Mr. Jack Chen:
A blind patent attorney at Google, highlighted that the primary challenge for visually impaired lawyers is not completing legal tasks but doing so with efficiency. Tasks such as legal drafting and formatting, particularly those requiring adherence to citation standards like the Bluebook, demand significantly more time. He noted that while blind professionals may take longer in certain tasks, they often outperform their sighted peers in others, particularly in reading speed when using screen readers. His success exemplifies the capacity of blind legal professionals to adapt and excel in highly technical fields through the strategic use of assistive technology.
Yetnebersh Nigussie:
An Ethiopian lawyer and disability rights activist, attributes her ability to pursue a legal career to the loss of her eyesight at the age of five, an event she considers to have spared her from early child marriage. She has dedicated herself to using education as a tool to empower persons with disabilities, particularly women and girls, who often face compounded discrimination. She emphasizes that genuine inclusion requires changing societal mindsets and providing tangible facilities to ensure access to education and healthcare. Arguing that no form of discrimination should be tolerated, she stresses the importance of adopting a holistic approach to human rights, reinforcing the principle that all individuals, irrespective of gender or disability, deserve equal opportunities.
Judge Ronald M. Gould:
Judge Ronald M. Gould of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who has progressive multiple sclerosis, underscores the significance of legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in ensuring that reasonable accommodations are not a matter of discretion but a legally enforceable right. He advocates for systemic reforms that balance accessibility with professional excellence, emphasizing that disabled individuals should not be viewed through the lens of charity but as professionals capable of delivering high-quality legal work when provided with appropriate accommodations.
Nirmita Narasimhan:
A visually impaired lawyer and Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has been instrumental in advancing digital accessibility and policy reforms. A graduate of Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, with additional degrees in German and Music, she played a key role in drafting India’s National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility and has worked extensively with government agencies to integrate accessibility into public programs. Recognized with multiple awards, including the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (2010), she highlights the challenges of working with government institutions, where accessibility is often overlooked and progress is slowed by bureaucratic hurdles. She emphasizes that addressing these systemic hurdles as a broader governance issue affecting everyone, rather than focusing solely on disability, would indirectly lead to more effective accessibility reforms.
Haben Girma:
The first deafblind graduate of Harvard Law School, has established herself as an influential accessibility consultant, working to remove barriers that hinder professionals with disabilities. She engages with legal materials using screen readers, braille displays, and notetaking support. Highlighting the challenges faced by blind legal professionals in accessing visual information, she emphasizes the need for institutions to provide alternative formats, such as text descriptions or tactile graphics. She underscores that access to legal work is not just about individual effort but also about systemic responsibility, urging legal institutions to proactively adopt inclusive practices that ensure equal participation for professionals with disabilities.
Findings of the Supreme Court:
With the aforesaid examples of noted personalities coupled with the analysis of legal provisions, the Supreme Court criticized rules that exclude PwDs outright and called for more inclusive practices and directed for the preparation of separate merit lists and relaxed standards where appropriate for PwDs. Further the Top Court called for reforms in recruitment rules and better implementation of disability rights laws.
More importantly, the provision of Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 was struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service.