LI Network
Published on: October 19, 2023 at 10:30 IST
The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the criteria for “benchmark disabilities” under the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act), emphasizing that these conditions may be creating barriers for certain individuals.
This discussion occurred during a case involving a person with color blindness who was denied an appointment as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) at the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO).
Applying the principle of “reasonable accommodation,” the Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
The Court noted that the RPwD Act is designed to promote the participation and empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). However, it pointed out that the benefits of affirmative action are limited to specific categories of PwDs, such as those with orthopedic, visual, hearing, and mental disabilities, among others.
These benefits are linked to the concept of “benchmark” disabilities, which grant affirmative action and other advantages to PWDs who meet a defined disability threshold, typically 40 percent or more. This distinction based on specified categories and threshold conditions, according to the Court, creates significant barriers.
The Court highlighted the need for a more rational and inclusive approach to accommodate individuals who may not fit neatly into the established categories of PWDs. It acknowledged that certain individuals, like the appellant, may be well-qualified for certain roles despite not fitting the traditional categories of disabilities.
The Court’s decision underscores the importance of reasonable accommodation, which involves making necessary modifications and adjustments to facilitate the employment of individuals with disabilities. It also emphasizes that this duty should not impose an unreasonable burden on employers.
In this particular case, the appellant, who had color blindness, was initially found to be qualified for the role of an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) but was later rejected by TANGEDCO during a medical examination. The Court recognized the appellant’s qualifications and practical experience and ordered TANGEDCO to appoint him to the position.
This decision by the Supreme Court promotes inclusivity and reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, ensuring that they are not excluded based on rigid categories but are evaluated based on their abilities and qualifications.
Case title: Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director,