Expert Body Decisions on Specified Disabilities are Immune from Judicial Review Absent Perversity or Mala Fide.

The Petitioner, a 32-year-old unemployed male, suffers from "Palmoplantar Keratoderma," a hereditary skin disorder characterized by the thickening of skin on palms and soles, leading to faint or absent thumb impressions

Between 2016 and 2022, the Petitioner faced significant delays and prejudice during Railway Recruitment Board examinations because digital instruments failed to detect his thumb impressions

He submitted a representation on November 1, 2022, requesting the government to notify his condition as a "specified disability" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

The Union of India’s High-Powered Inter-Departmental Committee examined the request on August 20, 2025, but recommended against its inclusion, noting that most cases involve minor limitations and severe cases are already covered under "locomotor disability"

The court applied Section 2(zc) and the Schedule of the RPwD Act, 2016 regarding "specified disabilities" and Section 2(s) which defines a "person with disability" based on long-term impairments and societal barriers.

Courts should not sit in appeal over expert decisions, as held in Basavaiah & Anr. v. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.

Judicial interference is limited to cases of illegality or perversity as per State of U.P. v. Johri Mal.

The definition under Section 2(s) is broad and not restricted by the "benchmark" or "specified" disability quantifications of the Act, as clarified in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC.

The Court observed that the High-Powered Inter-Departmental Committee—comprising technical experts from AIIMS, ICMR, and DGHS—had duly considered the Petitioner's condition and provided a reasoned recommendation against its inclusion as a "specified disability"

Since the Committee followed due process and focused on medical literature and functional limitations, the Court held that judicial intervention was unwarranted as the decision was neither arbitrary nor mala fide

The Court distinguished between a "specified disability" (Section 2(zc)) and the broader definition of a "person with disability" (Section 2(s)). It reasoned that since the Petitioner faced significant "barriers" (e.g., biometric failures) hindering his participation in employment, his status under Section 2(s) must be independently assessed by a medical board rather than dismissed based on the Schedule

The Court directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to constitute a Medical Board within 30 days to examine the Petitioner and issue an appropriate disability certificate; further, if the Petitioner applies for recruitment, his condition must be adjusted as per prevailing rules.