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

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores