True Equality at the Workplace Requires Disability Rights as Core CSR: Supreme Court
Background of the Case
In a landmark judgment reinforcing disability inclusion in public employment, the Supreme Court of India directed Coal India Limited (CIL), a public sector undertaking, to create a supernumerary post and appoint a woman with 57% disability as a Management Trainee.
The ruling arose from a recruitment process initiated by Coal India in 2019, under which the petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee in the visually handicapped category. Despite being shortlisted, called for document verification, and subjected to a medical examination, she was later declared medically unfit on the ground that she suffered from an additional neurological condition.
Proceedings Before the Calcutta High Court
Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court.
Single Judge Decision
A single judge ruled in her favour, holding that:
Coal India, being a public sector corporation, could not deny appointment merely because its recruitment notification did not expressly provide for multiple disabilities.
The medical report declaring her unfit was arbitrary and unsustainable.
Division Bench Reversal
However, in July 2024, a division bench overturned the single judge’s ruling, citing:
Expiry of the recruitment panel
Procedural and technical limitations
This denial on technical grounds prompted the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan took a markedly rights-based approach, rejecting the narrow technical reasoning adopted by the High Court’s division bench.
Wrongful Denial of Employment
The Supreme Court held that:
The petitioner had been wrongly denied employment at the threshold
The employer could not take advantage of its own wrongful act by later citing panel expiry
The Court emphasised that procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice, particularly when the affected individual belongs to a constitutionally protected class.
Independent Medical Assessment
The Supreme Court directed the formation of an independent medical board at AIIMS to reassess the petitioner’s disability.
The AIIMS board confirmed:
57% benchmark disability, well above the statutory threshold required for reservation under law
After interacting with the petitioner, the bench noted her determination, observing that she was “a lady of grit and determination” with a genuine desire to work.
Statutory Framework: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Court placed strong reliance on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly:
Section 2(y): Benchmark Disability
Defines benchmark disability as not less than 40%, which the petitioner clearly met.
Section 3: Equality and Non-Discrimination
Mandates equality before law and protection against discrimination on the ground of disability.
Section 20: Non-Discrimination in Employment
Prohibits denial of employment in government establishments solely on the ground of disability.
Principle of Reasonable Accommodation
The Court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is a statutory and constitutional obligation, not an act of charity.
Constitutional Provisions Relied Upon
The judgment explicitly linked disability rights with core constitutional guarantees:
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Arbitrary exclusion of an otherwise eligible candidate violates substantive equality.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity
The right to work is an integral part of the right to live with dignity.
Article 41 – Right to Work
Directive Principle mandating state responsibility to secure the right to work for all, including persons with disabilities.
Disability Rights as Corporate Social Responsibility
In a significant expansion of CSR jurisprudence, the Supreme Court held that:
Disability inclusion must be treated as a core component of Corporate Social Responsibility
Particularly for public sector undertakings, disability rights are a constitutional obligation, not voluntary philanthropy
The Court categorically stated:
“True equality at the workplace can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility.”
International Law and ESG Framework
The Court aligned Indian disability jurisprudence with international human rights norms, citing:
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
International Labour Organisation (ILO) principles
It further held that disability inclusion forms a vital part of the “Social” pillar of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) norms, and should be viewed as a strategic organisational strength, not a burden.
Gender and Disability Intersectionality
The Court took judicial notice of the intersectional discrimination faced by the petitioner:
She was a single woman
Living with disability
Excluded despite being otherwise eligible
This intersectionality, the Court observed, required heightened constitutional sensitivity.
Final Directions of the Supreme Court
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed:
Creation of a supernumerary post for the petitioner
Appointment as Management Trainee at North Eastern Coalfields, Assam
Allocation of a desk-based role
Provision of assistive facilities, including a separate computer and keyboard
Compliance with the principle of universal design
The Court clarified that the relief was granted in the special facts of the case, but the principles laid down have wider applicability.
Key Judicial Precedents Reinforced
Vikash Kumar v UPSC (2021) – Reasonable accommodation as part of equality
Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India (2016) – Disability rights as a facet of dignity
Union of India v National Federation of the Blind (2013) – Mandatory reservation and inclusion
Conclusion
This judgment marks a decisive shift in Indian equality jurisprudence by:
Embedding disability rights within CSR and ESG frameworks
Rejecting procedural barriers to justice
Affirming that employment is a matter of dignity, not discretion
The ruling sends a clear message: true workplace equality begins when disability inclusion moves from policy rhetoric to enforceable constitutional practice.

Comments
Post a Comment