Visually impaired candidates now get separate cut-offs at every stage — not just a single exam.

One exam, two sets of rules: The Supreme Court’s new deal for visually impaired judicial aspirants

When a visually impaired candidate sits for a judicial services examination in India today, they face a system that was never built for them. The preliminary test, the mains, the interview — each stage treats them as if they are competing on a level field. They are not. The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu proceeding taken up on 7 November 2024, finally said so. In In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud issued a set of interim directions that fundamentally restructure how every High Court and Public Service Commission must recruit persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) into the District Judiciary. The stakes could not be higher: thousands of candidates, hundreds of judicial posts, and the constitutional promise of equality under Article 32.

The problem the Court saw

The case began as a suo motu writ — SMW (C) No. 2/2024 — and was clubbed with connected petitions including SMW(C) No. 6/2024, W.P.(C) No. 484/2024, and W.P.(C) No. 494/2024. The Court took note of systemic barriers that PwBD candidates, particularly visually impaired persons, face at every stage of judicial service recruitment. The existing processes, the Court found, did not adequately accommodate disabled candidates. A candidate who is blind might score high enough to qualify in the general category but still be shut out because no separate cut-off exists for their disability category. A candidate with low vision might clear the preliminary exam but never make it to the mains because the cut-off is set for the general pool. The system, in short, was treating disability as an afterthought.

The Court’s response was swift and structural. It did not merely ask for reports. It issued binding interim directions that apply to every High Court and every recruiting authority in the country.

What the Court ordered: five directions that change the game

The operative order, set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the judgment, contains five distinct directions. Each one targets a specific bottleneck in the recruitment pipeline.

First: separate qualifying marks in the preliminary exam

The Court directed that recruiting authorities must provide separate qualifying marks for PwBD candidates in the preliminary examination. These marks must ordinarily be at par with those fixed for SC/ST candidates, or lower if the rules so prescribe. Where the rules are silent, the competent authority may fix such marks. This is not a suggestion — it is a mandate. The effect is immediate: a PwBD candidate no longer has to clear the same cut-off as a general category candidate to move to the next stage.

Second: a separate cut-off after prelims, with a 10-to-20-times multiplier

After the preliminary examination, the Court directed that a separate cut-off must be prescribed for PwBD candidates. The number of candidates who qualify must be 10 to 20 times the number of reserved posts. And critically, this cut-off must be bifurcated by disability category — blindness/low vision, deaf/hard of hearing, locomotor disability, and others — as required under Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court specifically cited the practice of the High Court of Jharkhand as a model: that High Court already provides separate cut-offs for different categories of PwBD candidates. The Court directed all other High Courts to follow this approach.

Third: separate qualifying marks in the mains examination

The same logic applies to the mains. Recruiting authorities must lay down separate qualifying marks for PwBD candidates, again at par with SC/ST candidates or lower as the rules permit. A PwBD candidate who clears this separate threshold is eligible to move to the interview stage, regardless of how the general pool performed.

Fourth: a separate cut-off at the interview stage, with a 3-to-5-times multiplier

Even at the interview stage, the Court directed that a separate cut-off must be prescribed. Only those PwBD candidates who have cleared the mains with qualifying marks will be called for the interview, but the number called must be 3 to 5 times the number of PwBD vacancies. This ensures that the interview does not become a final filter that eliminates candidates who have already proven their merit in the written exams.

Fifth: horizontal reservation in final selection

The most significant direction concerns the final selection. The Court clarified that PwBD reservation in judicial services is horizontal in nature. This means that a PwBD candidate who clears the minimum qualifying marks and is otherwise eligible for a General, OBC, SC, ST, or EWS seat on their own merit shall be counted towards the total reserved vacancies. In other words, disability-based reservation operates distinctly from vertical reservation categories. A visually impaired candidate who qualifies on merit for a General category seat does not consume a PwBD vacancy — they are counted against the General category, and the PwBD vacancy remains available for another candidate.

THE PLAY: If you are a PwBD candidate appearing for a judicial services exam, you now have a separate qualifying mark at every stage — prelims, mains, and interview — and a separate cut-off that ensures enough candidates from your disability category move forward. The High Court of Jharkhand’s model of bifurcating cut-offs by disability type is now the national standard.

The doctrine that matters: horizontal reservation and the disability law framework

The Court’s directions rest on a clear reading of Section 34(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. That provision mandates reservation of posts for persons with benchmark disabilities. But the Court went further. It held that this reservation is horizontal — it cuts across vertical categories like caste and economic status. A PwBD candidate who is also an SC candidate, for example, can be counted against the SC quota if they meet the SC cut-off, and the PwBD vacancy remains untouched. This interpretation resolves a long-standing ambiguity that has plagued recruitment processes across the country.

The Court also drew on the practice of the High Court of Jharkhand, which already provides separate cut-offs for different categories of PwBD candidates. By citing this as a model, the Court signaled that it expects all High Courts to adopt similar bifurcation. The days of a single, undifferentiated cut-off for all PwBD candidates are over.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a ready-made checklist. If you represent a PwBD candidate who was denied a separate cut-off at any stage of a judicial services exam, you now have a binding Supreme Court direction to cite. For CFOs and founders who may not deal with judicial recruitment directly, the principle is broader: the Court has affirmed that disability-based accommodation is not a concession — it is a structural requirement of equality. Any recruitment process that fails to provide separate qualifying marks and cut-offs at every stage is now legally vulnerable.

The Court also directed that the order be circulated to the Registrars General of all High Courts for prospective compliance. High Courts have been asked to bring their recruitment rules into conformity and report compliance. The matter is listed after two weeks for further orders.

The bottom line

Every High Court and Public Service Commission in India must now provide separate qualifying marks and cut-offs for PwBD candidates at every stage of judicial service recruitment — prelims, mains, and interview — with category-wise bifurcation by disability type, and horizontal reservation in final selection, or face legal challenge.