BREAKING BARRIERS: A BLIND WOMAN ADVOCATE’S LANDMARK APPEARANCE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
1
45
0
By Falguni Mundhra
Introduction
On 6 June 2025, Anchal Bhatheja, who went blind because of retinopathy of prematurity, presented a case in front of the Supreme Court of India. After being born with limited sight, Bhateja lost her eyesight just before her board exams, still she graduated and became the first visually impaired student to enter the National Law School of India.
During her first time at the Supreme Court, she opposed a Judicial Service announcement by the Uttarakhand Government that left people who are blind out of the seats reserved for people with benchmark disabilities (PwBD).
Jayanth Bhateja made sure to mention Sravya Sindhuri’s petition as a central issue in his opening case of Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & Ors., but also underscored the critical importance of accessibility, representation, and the rule of law in ensuring equal opportunity for all.
This article examines:(i) the pioneering nature of Bhateja’s appearance;(ii) the scope and substance of the impugned Uttarakhand notification;(iii) the legal underpinnings of the challenge, including constitutional guarantees, statutory mandates, and binding precedent;(iv) the specific reliefs sought; and(v) the broader ramifications for disability inclusion in India’s judicial system.
1. Pioneering Advocacy and Disability Representation
Anchal Bhatheja’s case at the Supreme Court turned out to be a key moment for representing disabilities in the field of Indian law. In spite of going blind just before her exams, she managed to finish school by making use of computer software and book readers.
The achievement of being admitted to NLS Bengaluru and going on to receive a degree in law with her blindness proves that inclusive law schools are beneficial.
In the LinkedIn post, Bhateja expressed pride in “taking up space that was never designed with someone like me in mind,” while simultaneously lamenting that hers should not have to be a “first.”
Her words resonate as a clarion call for systemic reforms to ensure that such pioneering moments are neither singular nor unexpected.
2. The Impugned Uttarakhand Judicial Service Notification
On the 16th of May 2025, the Uttarakhand government ran an advertisement for hiring people to serve as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
In the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) section, seats were given just to people with leprosy, acid‐attack injuries, muscular dystrophy, and dwarfism, ignoring the group known as “blind and low vision.”
Ms. Sravya Sindhuri, a legally blind person, stressed that she could not obtain a scribe during her written exams.
By deciding to receive reservations only from certain types of disability and by requiring individuals to be domiciled in the state, the notification didn’t help many of the Indian citizens entitled to equal rights.
3. Legal Foundations of the Challenge
3.1 Constitutional Violations
The petition contends that the impugned advertisement violates:
Article 14 (Right to Equality): By arbitrarily excluding blind candidates from PwBD reservation, the State has denied equal protection under the laws.
Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession): Restricting professional entry based on disability sub‐categories impairs the fundamental right to practice one’s profession.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Denial of reasonable accommodations, such as a scribe, infringes the right to live with dignity and pursue a livelihood.
3.2 Statutory Mandate under the RPwD Act, 2016
Section 34(1)(a) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 makes it a requirement for Government institutions to earmark four per cent of jobs for PwBD, and assign one per cent each to:
people with blindness and low vision.
the category of deafness and hard of hearing.
a condition where the locomotor system is impaired.
intellectual disability is another kind of developmental disability.
problems with one’s mind.
Since the Uttarakhand notification does not include “blindness and low vision” in the reserved sub‐categories, it is against what the law states.
3.3 Overlooked Supreme Court Precedent
In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh² the two-Judge Bench clearly ruled that visually impaired and low vision candidates deserve to take part in the process of selecting judges.
As per the decision, there should be no rule that excludes “blindness and low vision” in the list of benchmark disabilities for reservation purposes.
The decision by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was not in line with the authority set by the courts.
4. Reliefs Sought
The petitioners, represented by Anchal Bhatheja with assistance from AOR Vikram Hegde, seek the following reliefs:
Quash the 16 May 2025 Advertisement to the extent it:
Restricts PwBD reservation to only four specified sub-categories; and
Bars non-Uttarakhand domiciles from applying under the PwBD category.
Issue a direction to re‐publish the Advertisement, extending eligibility to all persons with benchmark disabilities—including “blindness and low vision” and “locomotor disability”—and to non-domicile candidates, in compliance with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016.
Mandate the Uttarakhand High Court’s Registrar General to file a status report demonstrating adherence to Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services within a stipulated timeframe.
Direct the State of Uttarakhand to reassess posts suitable for PwBD reservation, ensuring alignment with Section 34(1), Rule 11 of the RPwD Rules, and Central Government guidelines, while accounting for reasonable accommodations and contemporary assistive technologies.
5. Broader Significance and Implications
This situation is about much more than who wins or loses in the ad debate.
It underscores that courtrooms, the interview process, and recruitments should all be formulated to be accessible to all people, not just some.
Bhateja appears on screen and does meaningful work, acting as an example and pointing out that more can still be done to overcome discrimination.
The petition confirms that the judiciary should make statutes effective by making sure the rights promised in the constitution and other statutes are not ignored by officials.
If the judgment favours the disabled, it would bring uniformity of compliance in States, and updates would take place in the procedures followed for employment, national exams, and reasonable accommodation for the disabled everywhere.
Conclusion
The Sravya Sindhuri petition, argued by Anchal Bhatheja before the Supreme Court, represents a confluence of personal triumph and principled legal advocacy.
By challenging the Uttarakhand Judicial Service notification’s exclusionary provisions, the case seeks to vindicate constitutional rights to equality, profession, and dignity, and to enforce statutory mandates under the RPwD Act, 2016.
More than a dispute over vacancies, it is a clarion call for India’s judicial and administrative machinery to embrace inclusivity, not just in letter, but in spirit and practice.
A decision affirming the petitioners’ contentions will not only rectify a specific injustice but also pave the way for systemic reforms, ensuring that future generations of lawyers are judged by their merits, not by barriers in the law.
References & Citations
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 49 of 2016, § 34(1)(a).
Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Suo Motu WP (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 (India).
Constitution of India, arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21.
Advertisement for Uttarakhand Judicial Service (Civil Judge, Junior Division), No. ___, dated May 16, 2025.
