State Government Given Two-Week Ultimatum to Notify Rule Amendments After High Court's Proposal Remains Pending; Supreme Court Warns of Strict Action for Further Delay
New Delhi, September 8, 2026: The Supreme Court of India, in a significant follow-up to its landmark judgment dated March 3, 2025, has issued a stern warning to the State of Madhya Pradesh, directing it to amend the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, within two weeks and publish the changes in the Official Gazette. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, made it unequivocally clear that any further delay would be viewed "very strictly."
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a suo motu writ petition concerning the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from recruitment in judicial services across India. In its path-breaking judgment of March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court had struck down Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which had categorically excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in judicial service. The Court had declared the provision discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
Furthermore, the Court had also struck down Rule 7 of the same Rules to the extent that it imposed additional requirements — either three years of legal practice or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt — on Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates. The Court held that while the minimum aggregate score of 70% could be retained as an eligibility criterion (with relaxations similar to those extended to SC/ST candidates), the twin conditions of securing it "in the first attempt" and the mandatory three-year practice period were discriminatory toward PwD candidates and could not stand.
Directions Issued in the 2025 Judgment
The original judgment had issued a comprehensive set of directions:
- - Visually impaired candidates were declared eligible to participate in judicial service selections, and Rule 6A was struck down.
- - Rule 7's additional requirements were struck down insofar as they applied to PwD candidates.
- - Candidates such as Ayush Yardi and similarly placed persons were directed to be considered for the selection process in line with the judgment.
- - In matters concerning Rajasthan Judicial Service, writ petitioners who contended that a separate cut-off was not applied in the Preliminary Examination were directed to be considered in the next recruitment cycle with a separate cut-off and merit list for PwD candidates.
- - All authorities were directed to complete the selection process, preferably within three months.
Current Proceedings
In the present Miscellaneous Application No. 1143 of 2025, the Court reviewed compliance with its earlier directions. It was informed by Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, that the High Court had already undertaken the necessary administrative exercise on its end and forwarded the requisite proposal for amendment of Rules 5 and 6(A) to the State Government. However, the High Court has received no response from the State of Madhya Pradesh till date.
The Court noted with concern that despite the High Court having fulfilled its obligation by sending the proposal, the State Government has remained inactive, thereby stalling the implementation of the Supreme Court's directions.
Upon instructions from his client, Mr. Surjeet Singh, also appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, gave an assurance before the Court that the State would amend the Rules and notify them in the Official Gazette within two weeks from the date of the order.
Court's Observations
The bench accepted the statement made on behalf of the State but issued a firm caution, making it clear that any further delay on the part of the State would invite strict consequences. The matter has been listed for hearing after three weeks to check compliance with the directions.
The Court also directed that copies of the order be provided to the learned counsel for both the State of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for onward communication to the respective authorities.
Significance of the Judgment
This case represents a watershed moment in the journey toward inclusive governance in India. The Supreme Court's insistence on striking down discriminatory provisions against visually impaired persons in judicial recruitment underscores the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity. The judgment reinforces the principles enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and sends a strong message that systemic barriers against PwD candidates in public employment — particularly in the justice delivery system — will not be tolerated.
Legal experts have noted that the decision could serve as a precedent for similar challenges to recruitment rules in other states that continue to exclude or impose disproportionate conditions on PwD candidates in judicial and other public services.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment of visually impaired candidates in judicial services - Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which excluded visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in judicial service, struck down - Rule 7 prescribing additional requirements of either three-year practice or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates - Directions issued for expeditious amendment and notification of rules to ensure compliance.
Statutory Provision(s): Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
