Should Reservation for Blind Persons Be Split Between Total and Partial Blindness? Bombay HC Answers

The Bombay High Court has declined to direct a separate quota for totally blind candidates within the 1% reservation earmarked for “blindness and low vision” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, but ordered the State of Maharashtra to take immediate steps to improve their representation in public employment.

The Court held that the statutory framework does not permit sub-classification and directed the State to consider identifying posts exclusively for totally blind candidates.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “Section 34(1)(a) does not contemplate further classification within the benchmark disability of ‘blindness and low vision.’ Similar is the position with regard to other benchmark disabilities of ‘deaf and hard of hearing,’ ‘locomotor disabilities,’ intellectual disabilities.’ Thus, various sub-species of particular type of disability have been clubbed together for providing combined 1% reservation to all similar disabilities.”

The Court further held, “Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners for further sub-classifying the disability relating to vision into 0.5% reservation for totally blind candidates and 0.5% reservation for low vision candidates would be causing violence to Section 34 of the Act of 2016.”

The Bench emphasized that neither Section 33 of the 1995 Act nor Section 34 of the 2016 Act was under challenge in these petitions, and thus judicial directions to alter the scheme were impermissible.

The petitions were filed highlighting the exclusion of totally blind candidates from State services despite statutory reservations, as employers overwhelmingly prefer low vision candidates who can compete better.

The grievance was that posts reserved for “blindness and low vision” were being entirely consumed by low vision candidates, leaving no representation for those with total blindness.

Petitioners sought a direction mandating that at least 50% of such posts be reserved exclusively for totally blind candidates and also challenged the methodology for identifying suitable posts.

The Court traced the statutory evolution from the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that India enacted the latter after ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007.

Under the 2016 Act, Section 34 mandates reservation of at least 4% of vacancies in every government establishment for persons with benchmark disabilities, with 1% each for (a) blindness and low vision, (b) deaf and hard of hearing, (c) locomotor disability, and 1% for intellectual and multiple disabilities. The Bench extracted the full text of Section 34 in its judgment and noted that the language of the provision does not envisage sub-classification among the combined categories.

While rejecting the plea for creating a 0.5% sub-quota, the Court acknowledged the factual position that hardly any totally blind candidate had been appointed to State services and that most vacancies under Section 34(1)(a) were being filled by low vision candidates.

Referring to the Government Resolution dated 18 June 2007, the Court noted that it had provided for granting priority to candidates with higher degrees of disability, including those who are completely blind. The Bench remarked that the GR was issued under the 1995 Act and that there was no clarity whether similar provisions had been adopted after the 2016 Act came into force.

It also noted the Government Resolutions dated 20 April 2023 and 31 July 2025 but found that they did not make any specific provision to enhance representation of totally blind candidates.

In light of this, the Court issued the following directions, “State Government shall take necessary steps to ensure better participation of totally blind candidates in State services. For that purpose, it shall undertake necessary measures to ensure that totally blind candidates are not kept away from the process of appointments on account of their inability to compete with low vision candidates. The State Government shall also consider identification of certain category of posts only for blind candidates. Necessary action shall be taken by the State Government within a period of four months.”

The Court declined to go into the challenge regarding the identification of posts, noting that the grievance was based on provisions of the 1995 Act and lacked relevant pleadings under the 2016 Act. Both petitions were disposed of with the above directions.

Case Title: Harshad Govind Jadhav & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., along with Satyashodh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Judgment: August 22, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne