Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 53
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2026
SUJATA BORA APPELLANT
VERSUS
COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
J. B. PARDIWALA & K. V. VISWANATHAN, J.J.
Lack of physical sight does not equate to a lack of vision.
- Stevie Wonder
1. An advertisement was published by Coal India Limited (CIL) for
Signature Not Verified
recruitment of Management Trainees in 2019. The appellant applied for
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.01.13
13:31:13 IST
Reason:
the post under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category. appellant was
1
st
selected for the interview. By a communication of 1 July 2021 appellant
was called for document verification (DV) and Initial Medical
Examination (IME). The appellant appeared for the IME in September
2021, however, she was declared unfit on the ground that she was not
only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial
hemiparesis. Aggrieved the appellant filed WPA No. 970 of 2023 before
the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
2. A learned Single Judge (Lapita Banerjee J.) after a thorough
analysis of the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, (for short ‘RPwD Act’) and the relevant
notifications found that CIL being a Public Sector Corporation could not
refuse appointment in the multiple disabilities category and that it was
incumbent upon CIL to suitably modify the recruitment notifications.
The learned Single Judge found that the IME result of 23.09.2021 that
declared the appellant unfit, was liable to be quashed. However, since,
the appellant approached the Court after the completion of the
recruitment process. The Court allowed the appellant to participate in
the ensuing recruitment process (2023) in the reserved category for
persons with disability. The learned Single Judge made it clear that the
recruitment process of the appellant will be considered from the stage
of IME, and if found eligible she will be given appointment as
2
Management Trainee upon compliance of all formalities. The learned
Single Judge’s judgment was dated 10.08.2023. It must also be pointed
out that pending the disposal of the writ petition, by an interim order
dated 27.03.2023, one post was ordered to be kept vacant in the cadre
of management trainee (personnel and HR).
3.
CIL carried the matter to the Division Bench. The Division Bench,
by the impugned, order found that the writ petition was filed after the
expiry of the panel and even the interim order was passed after the
expiry of panel and hence, directing the authorities to consider the
candidature in respect of the same recruitment process or in the next
recruitment process was not tenable. The Division Bench set aside the
judgment of the Single Judge.
4. Aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter to this Court. This
Court, by multiple orders on 28.11.2025, 12.12.2025 and 18.12.2025,
directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to constitute a Board
of experts and for coopting Dr. Satendra Singh who has been working
on disability rights for a long time.
5. The order dated 18.12.2025 which incorporates all the earlier
orders reads as under.
“1. Our order dated 28-11-2025 reads thus:-
1. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a visually
handicapped person with 60% low vision in both eyes and
3
also has residual functional partial Hemiparesis.
2. In terms of qualification, the petitioner has graduated with
the degree in Economics and pursued post graduation from
Assam Women's University in MBA (Human Resources).
3. The respondent no.1 is a Maharatna Public Sector
Undertaking under the Ministry of Coal, Government of India.
4. It appears from the materials on record that in pursuance
of the advertisement dated 16.12.2019 issued by the
respondent no.1- company, the petitioner applied for the post
of a Management Trainee in Personnel and HR discipline.
5. She applied as a reserved candidate in the Visually
Handicapped (VH) category.
6. It is her case that she produced two certificates dated
7.4.2012 and 2.1.2021 respectively, issued by the District
Social Welfare Officer, Jorhat, Government of Assam and the
Public Works Department, Government of Assam through the
Joint Director of Health Sciences, Jorhat, respectively, both of
which certified that the petitioner is visually impaired to the
extent of 60-70% visual disability.
7. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent no.1
that the disability is not to the extent of 60-70% but is to the
extent of 30%.
8. What we have understood is that if it is the case of the
respondent no.1 that the disability is to the extent of 30%, then
the petitioner cannot be said to be falling within the ambit of
“person with benchmark disability”.
9. What is important in the present case is to ascertain
whether the disability is a functional disability or not.
10. For this purpose, we direct the Director of All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to constitute
a Board of experts and one of the members in the said Board
4
should be Dr. Satendra Singh.
11. Dr. Satendra Singh has been working on disability rights,
since a long period of time.
12. Once, we receive the report of the Medical Board, we
shall proceed to pass further orders.
13. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on
05.12.2025 along with the copy of this order.
14. Registry shall inform the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi
about the order passed by this Court today and also furnish
full set of papers to the Director, AIIMS at the earliest.
15. Post this matter for further hearing on 18.12.2025.”
2. After the aforesaid Order, a further Order was passed
dated 12-12-2025. The same reads thus:-
“1. The matter was mentioned today in the morning bringing
it to our notice that despite there being a specific order passed
by this Court dated 28-11-2025, the Director of the All India
Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi has not
constituted a Board of Experts.
2. We had also stated in so many words that one of the
Members in the Board should be Dr. Satendra Singh.
3. The main matter is coming up for hearing on 18-12-
2025.
4. We once again remind the Director, AIIMS of our order
dated 28-11-2025. We are further informed that the petitioner
namely Sujata Bora is in Delhi past one week. She has been
examined so far only by two Doctors and not in accordance
with our Order dated 28-11-2025. The Director, AIIMS is
requested to look into the matter at the earliest.
5. The Registry shall communicate this order to the Director,
5
AIIMS at the earliest.”
3. In pursuance of our Order dated 28-11-2025, referred to
above, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
has forwarded the Medical Report.
4. The final impression in the Report dated 16-12-2025
reads thus:-
th
“The candidate is diagnosed with right sided 7 nerve palsy,
th
lagophthalmos, exposure keratopathy and 6 nerve palsy in
the right eye. The left eye visual acuity and visual field does
not correlate with the clinical examination findings and ocular
investigations, therefore visual disability cannot be assessed.
To confirm benchmark multiple disability because of
presence of right side facial paralysis, opinion may be taken
from PMR department/multiple disability board.
Neurosurgery department has review old available record,
but if current neurosurgical status evaluation is needed,
detailed neurological examination, new MRI and other
investigations will be required by them. ”
5. According to the AIIMS, New Delhi for the purpose of
confirming the benchmark, multiple disability because of
presence of right side facial paralysis, opinion should be taken
from PMR department/multiple disability board, i.e., Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation Department.
6. The report further reveals that the Neurosurgery
Department has looked into the old records available but for
the purpose of current neurosurgical status evaluation, a
detailed neurological examination with new MRI and other
investigations should be undertaken.
7. Let the needful be done at the earliest and a fresh Report
6
be submitted before us.
8. One copy of this Report dated 16-12-2025 be furnished to
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Coal
India Limited.
9. Post it on 8-1-2026 as part-heard.
10. The petitioner – Sujata Bora is personally present in the
Court today.
11. We are informed that she is in Delhi past couple of days.
12. We request the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi to undertake
the necessary further investigations of Ms. Bora from
tomorrow itself.
13. The Registry to inform about this order to the Director,
AIIMS, New Delhi at the earliest.
14. Dasti permitted.
15. Ms. Sujata Bora shall reach the office of the Director,
AIIMS, New Delhi tomorrow, i.e., 19-12-2025 by 10.30 a.m.”
6. In pursuance thereto, the appellant was medically examined by a
Committee of doctors appointed by the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The examination was for the purpose of
assessment as regards disability.
st
7. We have received a report dated 01 January, 2026. According to
the report, the appellant suffers 57% of disability, which is above the
benchmark disability, i.e., 40%.
7
8. The Division Bench on facts was not justified in setting aside the
judgment of the Single Judge merely because the panel had expired.
The appellant at the first instance was wrongly denied her employment
pursuant to the 2019 notification. The learned Single Judge moulded the
relief in view of the passage of time and directed her to be considered
from the IME stage for the 2023 recruitment. By interim order passed
earlier, one post was also kept vacant.
9. Today the situation is, the report from AIIMS finds her with 57%
disability, rendering her eligible for the appointment under the
reserved quota.
10. We had an opportunity to interact with the appellant, and we have
found her to be a lady of grit and determination. She wants to excel in
her field and work hard.
11. We heard Mr. Prashant Srikant Kinjale, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, the
learned counsel appearing for the CIL.
12. We are of the view that the appellant qualifies for the appointment
to the post of Management Trainee.
CONCEPT OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
13. This Court in a series of judgments has highlighted the concept of
“reasonable accommodation” - a concept enshrined in the RPwD Act
8
and which emanates from Article 41 of the Constitution of India read
with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In Omkar
Ramchandra Gond v . The Union of India , 2024 INSC 775, this Court
held as under: -
“40. …Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, defines “reasonable
accommodation” to mean necessary and appropriate
modification and adjustments, without imposing a
disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to
ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or
exercise of rights equally with others. The concept of
reasonable accommodation would encompass within itself
the deployment of a purposive and meaningful construction
of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019 read with the
Appendix H-1 guidelines in a manner as to further the
objectives of the RPwD Act. The reasonable accommodation
as defined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act should not be
understood narrowly to mean only the provision of assisting
devices and other tangible substances which will aid
persons with disabilities. If the mandate of the law is to
ensure a full and effective participation of persons with
disabilities in the society and if the whole idea was to
exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective
participation as equal members of society, a broad
interpretation of the concept of reasonable
accommodation which will further the objective of the
RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of
State Policy is mandated.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14.
Reiterating the holding in Omkar (supra) in Anmol v. Union of
India , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387, this Court held as under: -
“20. As would be clear from the above, flexibility in
answering individual needs and requirements is an
essential component of reasonable accommodation. There
cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. However, in the
9
guidelines appendix H-1 to regulations of 13.05.2019 of
“both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient
strength and range of motion” are considered essential to
be eligible for the medical course.”
15. In Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services , 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3130, this Court while explaining how without the gateway
right of reasonable accommodation, a person with disability would be
excluded from the mainstream held as under: -
“29. The principle of reasonable accommodation is not
only statutorily prescribed but also rooted in the
fundamental rights guaranteed to persons with
disabilities under Part III of the Constitution.
Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right. It is
a gateway right for persons with disabilities to enjoy all
the other rights enshrined in the Constitution and the
law. Without the gateway right of reasonable
accommodation, a person with disability is forced to
navigate in a world which excludes them by design. It
strikes a fatal blow to their ability to make life choices
and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks of daily
life to actions undertaken to realise personal and
professional aspirations - all are throttled when
reasonable accommodations are denied. Reasonable
accommodation is a facet of substantive equality and its
failure constitutes discrimination. In Vikash Kumar v.
UPSC, this Court adjudicated on whether a person with a
writer's cramp is entitled to a scribe for writing the
examination. Allowing the use of a scribe, this Court held
that the benchmark standard can only be applied where
expressly stipulated. Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act defines a
person with disability as a person with long term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in
interaction with barriers, hinders their full and effective
participation in society equally with others. Therefore, a
person - to be considered as a person with disability - does
10
not have to qualify any benchmark. The principle that the
rights and entitlements cannot be constricted by adopting a
benchmark as a condition precedent was also upheld by this
Court in Avni Prakash v. NTA.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In Ch. Joseph v. Telangana SRTC , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592,
highlighting the concept of alternative employment as a facet of
reasonable accommodation, this Court held as under: -
“17. The Respondents' defence based solely on internal
circulars and a mechanical reading of Regulation 6A(5)(b)
cannot override this obligation . Retirement on medical
grounds must be a measure of last resort, only after the
employer exhausts all reasonable avenues for
redeployment. This principle is inherent in the concept
of “reasonable accommodation”, which is now
recognised as an aspect of substantive equality under
Articles 14 and 21. The failure to explore alternate
employment before resorting to medical retirement is
not merely a procedural lapse—it is a substantive
illegality that violates the Appellant's right to livelihood
and equal treatment.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In Rajive Raturi v . Union of India , (2024)16 SCC 654, explaining
how reasonable accommodation seeks to achieve individual justice by
encompassing dignity, autonomy, choice of the individual and furthers
non-discrimination, this Court held as under: -
“38. As highlighted by the Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities in General Comment 6, reasonable
accommodation is integral to the principle of inclusive
equality, acting as a facilitator for substantive equality.
[ General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para
25.] The General Comment articulated the relationship
11
between reasonable accommodation and accessibility as
follows:
“23. The duty to provide reasonable accommodation
is an ex nunc duty, which means that it is enforceable
from the moment an individual with an impairment
needs it in a given situation (workplace, school, etc.)
in order to enjoy her or his rights on an equal basis
in a particular context. Here, accessibility
standards can be an indicator, but may not be
taken as prescriptive. Reasonable accommodation
can be used as a means of ensuring accessibility
for an individual with a disability in a particular
situation. Reasonable accommodation seeks to
achieve individual justice in the sense that non-
discrimination or equality is assured, taking the
dignity, autonomy and choices of the individual
into account. Thus, a person with a rare
impairment might ask for accommodation that
falls outside the scope of any accessibility
standard. The decision to provide it or not depends
on whether it is reasonable and whether it imposes
a disproportionate or undue burden.””
(emphasis supplied)
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF
STATE POLICY
18. Explaining how directive principles and fundamental rights are
two wheels of a chariot, this Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of
India , (1980) 3 SCC 625, speaking through Chief Justice YV
Chandrachud in a memorable passage held as follows: -
12
“56. The significance of the perception that Parts III and
IV together constitute the core of commitment to social
revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the
Constitution is to be traced to a deep understanding of
the scheme of the Indian Constitution. Granville
Austin's observation brings out the true position that
Parts III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot, one no
less important than the other. You snap one and the other
will lose its efficacy. They are like a twin formula for
achieving the social revolution, which is the ideal which
the visionary founders of the Constitution set before
themselves. In other words, the Indian Constitution is
founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III
and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is
to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This
harmony and balance between fundamental rights and
directive principles is an essential feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution .”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barsky v . Board of
Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954), said:
“The right to work I have assumed was the most precious
liberty that man possesses. Man has indeed, as much right to
work as he has to live, to be free and to own property. To work
means to eat and it also means to live.”
20. It is the most precious liberty because it sustains and enables a
person to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. Life means
something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against
the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which
life is enjoyed. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which, is a directive
13
Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall in particular,
direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women
equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
21. Article 41 reads as under:
“ 41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in
certain cases
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and
development, make effective provision for securing the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases
of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and
in other cases of undeserved want.”
22. Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles, though not
enforceable by any court, are nevertheless fundamental in the
governance of the country. The principles contained in Articles 39(a)
and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding
and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights.
INTERSECTIONALITY OF DISABILITY WITH GENDER
23. In the present case, we are also concerned with the
intersectionality of disability with gender justice. Here is a case where
a single woman is before us who has the urge to succeed
notwithstanding the disability she encounters. Can technicalities like
14
expiry of panel for the year or the factum of interim order reserving a
vacancy having come to be passed after the expiry of panel cannot
come in the way of our doing complete justice? We certainly do not
think so, especially when the denial of employment in 2019 was no fault
of her’s. We say this on the special facts obtaining in this case.
24. In Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257, this
Court held as under: -
“85. Similarly, in M. Sameeha Barvin v. Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Youth and Sports, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad
6456, a female athlete with 90% loss of hearing and lack
of speech ability was denied participation in the World
Deaf Athletics Championship due to her female gender
and the additional vulnerability in travel associated with
her disability. In the said case, one of us (R. Mahadevan,
J.) discussed the concept of intersectionality to
emphasize that addressing difficulties and barriers
faced by a person from the perspective of only one axis
of discrimination may not ensure substantive equality
for them if they face multiple axes of discrimination.
Therefore, a study of equality from an intersectional
point of view subscribes to the understanding that
factors or markers of discrimination do not operate in
isolation. Hence, reasonable accommodation of persons
placed at the intersections of various grounds of
discrimination, can also not be unidimensional. The
relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below :
“16. In the Indian context, it is often seen that the
factors like caste and gender are intrinsically
linked. Similarly, disability and gender are linked
in a way that make females with disabilities more
15
vulnerable to such cumulative or compounded
disadvantage and resultant discrimination. Here, it
is important to emphasize that the difficulties and
barriers faced by a person facing any one axis of
discrimination, for example-gender, are different
from a person facing multiple axis of discrimination
like disability, caste and gender together. The
different identities within the same person intersect
and co-exist in a way so as to give the individual a
qualitatively different experience than any one of
the individual markers of discrimination or any of
the individual characteristics. Therefore, where the
axis of discrimination intersect, it is essential to
view such cases from the lens of intersectionality in
order to understand that the barriers, the
challenges, the stigma as well as the practical
difficulties faced by such persons are not only more
intense, but also different and unique which call for
a more in-depth and all-encompassing approach for
addressing their grievances and ensuring
substantive equality to them. Intersectionality,
therefore, rejects a narrow or limited understanding
of equality where the factors or markers of
discrimination are isolated or are in singular
spheres .
xxxxxxxxx
24. In the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities as observed by the Committee in General
Comment No. 6, “intersectional discrimination can be
direct, indirect, denial of reasonable accommodation,
or harassment”. This approach has also been reiterated
by the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC
wherein, the supreme court has held that “disability-
based discrimination is intersectional in nature and
policy of reasonable accommodation thus cannot be
unidimensional”. The Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women Committee (CEDAW),
16
which promotes action in order to support persons with
disabilities and their families and caregivers, also
recognises that the categories of discrimination cannot
be reduced to watertight compartments. In General
Recommendation No. 25, the CEDAW committee
suggests “the adoption of special measures for women
to eliminate multiple rounds of discrimination”.”
86. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt in our
minds that redressal of a disadvantage cannot be
devoid of an understanding of the other
impediments that an individual may face on
account of other identity markers that may cause
such an individual to be stigmatized and
marginalized. The avowed objective of substantive
equality may be rendered unworkable if actions and
measures to achieve the said goal suffer from a
parochial understanding of discrimination .
(Emphasis supplied)
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILTY AND DISABILITY RIGHTS
25. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(Guiding Principles), as endorsed by the United Nations Human
Rights Council in 2011, have the following to say on the aspect of “the
Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights”:
“12. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect
human rights refers to internationally recognized human
rights – understood, at a minimum, has those expressed in
the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles
concerning fundamental rights set out in the International
17
labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work.
… Depending on circumstances, business enterprises may
need to consider additional standards. For instance,
enterprises should respect the human rights of individuals
belonging to specific groups or populations that require
particular attention, where they may have adverse human
rights impacts on them. In this connection, United Nations
instruments have elaborated further on the rights of
indigenous peoples; women; national or ethnic, religious
and linguistic minorities; children; persons with
disabilities ; and migrant workers and their families…”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. The working paper “Disability and CSR Reporting: An analysis
comparing reporting practices of 40 selected multinational
enterprises”, produced by the ILO Global Business and Disability
Network, concluded that:
“ The rights of the people with disabilities are human
rights. Consequently, enterprises have an obligation to
respect these rights, avoid infringement, and address
adverse human rights impacts with which they are
involved. Thereby following the current approach of
CSR endorsed by the UN and the EU.
Providing equal rights to people with disabilities
implies addressing it from a non-discrimination angle,
and not exclusively as a diversity or inclusion issue .”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Thus, it is abundantly clear that rights of persons with disabilities
have to be viewed from the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility in
18
order to protect and further such rights. True equality at the workplace
can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as
a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility.
28. Disability inclusion is a vital component of the “Social” dimension
in the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) framework. In its
2024 guide on "Putting the ‘I’ in ESG: Inclusion of Persons with
Disabilities as Strategic Advantage of Sustainability Practices for
Corporates and Investors", the ILO Global Business and Disability
Network urged " companies and investors to view disability inclusion
not just as a compliance issue, but as a strategic advantage that
enhances business performance, resilience, and societal impact ."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The appellant qualified for the interview in 2019 selection and was
denied employment due to no fault of hers. Her disability exceeded the
benchmark disability and only because the notification advertising the
vacancies did not provide for “multiple disability” and the appellant
applied as a visually handicapped candidate, she was denied
employment.
30.
Keeping in mind the above principle we direct that a
supernumerary post be created.
31. We are sure that the Chairman of Coal India will provide a
19
suitable position/posting commensurate with the ability of the
appellant, and in such circumstances, she be provided a suitable desk
job with a separate computer and keyboard, as per universal design as
defined under section 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016.
32.
We request to the Chairman of Coal India Ltd. to post the
appellant at North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office
at Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam.
33. We clarify that we have passed this order, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, keeping in mind Article 41 read with Article
14 & 21 of the Constitution.
34. We make it clear that we have passed this order additionally in
exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
35. We place on record our sincere gratitude to Mr. Vivek Narayan
Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Coal India Ltd., for using
his good offices and bringing around a very happy end to this litigation.
36. We also express our deep and sincere gratitude towards all the
doctors who examined the appellant and also the Director of AIIMS,
New Delhi.
37. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of the
20
Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in MAT
2325/2023. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
………….....................J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
…………...................J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi
th
13 January, 2026.
21