Can’t treat ‘unequals as equals’: Sikkim High Court on blind vs low-vision job candidates

Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque was hearing a plea of a man who lost his eyesight completely at the age of three.

Highlighting that the principle of reasonable accommodation requires that differing needs must be acknowledged and addressed, the Sikkim High Court said, “Disability law is not merely declaratory of rights; it is transformative in intent, aimed at enabling full participation within the constitutional framework. The responsibility to operationalise these principles in public employment lies with the state.”

Case of Ravi Tamang

• The case arose from a plea filed by Ravi Tamang, a resident of Namchi district who lost his eyesight completely at age three.
• Tamang challenged the selection processes conducted by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) in 2017 and 2022 for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC).
• The petitioner argued before the Sikkim High Court that while posts were reserved for “Persons with Disability (PwD)” under the category of “blindness and low vision,” candidates with low vision were consistently selected over those with total blindness.
• Tamang contended that the current unified classification is discriminatory as it overlooks the unique challenges faced by the totally blind.
• The petitioner sought to separate the low-vision candidates from the blind and low-vision category.

Medical differences

• The Sikkim High Court detailed the medical differences between the two conditions.
• It stated that blindness generally refers to severe or profound loss of vision, where a person has little or no usable sight even after the best possible treatment or correction.
• The Sikkim High Court referred to a loss of vision where acuity (sensitivity in perception) is worse than 3/50, including “total blindness” with no light perception.
• Low-vision refers to partial but significant vision loss where some useful sight remains, but ordinary glasses, contact lenses, medicine, or surgery cannot fully restore vision, the court added.

‘Undermining the objective of equality’

• The Sikkim High Court noted that it is not in dispute that the respondents are more meritorious than the petitioner, but added that we cannot overlook that such a homogenised classification may result in a denial of substantive equality.
• The inherent differences in the nature and extent of disabilities between blind and low-vision candidates “bear directly upon their respective capacities to compete”, particularly in the context of “access to public employment opportunities,” the order observed.
• It added that “treating unequals as equals, in such circumstances, risks undermining the very objective of equality under the law”.

Concept of reasonable accommodation

• The concept of reasonable accommodation emerged in the United States after the enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which sought to address discrimination in employment.
• Initially, the term was applied to religious discrimination, requiring employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so caused undue hardship.
• Later, the concept gained greater legal significance with the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
• Reasonable accommodation challenges the traditional idea of equality as formal equality, which emphasises “even-handedness” and aims to treat everyone in the same way.
• This formal approach tends to overlook individual differences, ignoring their specific needs, which is especially inadequate for persons with disabilities, since equal treatment can amount to a subtle form of discrimination.
• Formal equality fails to effectively advance the rights of persons with disabilities because it cannot account for their particular needs.
• Unlike race, where the primary demand is to be treated the same, persons with disabilities seek both similar treatment (where they are alike) and different treatment (where they differ).
• This is why the concept of reasonable accommodation is essential within anti-discrimination frameworks, as it centres on addressing individual needs.

‘Call on states to go beyond’

• The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calls on states to go beyond the limited idea of formal equality and embrace a more substantive and meaningful form of equality.
• It emphasises the importance of “reasonable accommodation,” which recognises that true equality cannot be achieved through uniform treatment alone; rather, it must consider each person’s unique situation and context.
• The Convention says refusal to make such accommodation results in discrimination.
• It defines “reasonable accommodation” in Article 2 as, “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

Priority to the more disadvantaged

• The reasoning adopted by the High Court of Karnataka in The State of Karnataka v Ms Latha H N deserves endorsement, the Sikkim High Court observed.
• The court correctly recognised that blindness, in itself, cannot lead to a presumption that a candidate is unfit to perform public functions, and that any exclusion based on preconceived notions or stereotypes would offend the constitutional guarantee of equality.
• It was further held that where both candidates with complete blindness and those with low vision are equally capable of discharging the duties of the post, preference may legitimately be extended to the more disadvantaged category.

Court’s conclusion

• The definition of “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasises the interaction between impairment and societal barriers that hinder full and effective participation. This necessitates an understanding of disability in functional terms, the Sikkim High Court noted.
• Further, the Act recognises “benchmark disability” as a threshold of not less than 40 per cent of a specified disability, and within the Schedule of the Act, it distinctly identifies “blindness” and “low vision” as separate conditions, thereby acknowledging their differing nature and impact.
• If the state fails to account for the distinct disadvantages faced by different groups within the disabled category, it risks denying genuine equality of opportunity, particularly to those who are more severely disadvantaged, the Sikkim High Court stated.
• Therefore, in designing any framework of sub-classification, the state must take into account the unique challenges faced by blind and low-vision persons and ensure that the approach is responsive to their differing needs.
• Substantive equality demands not uniform treatment, but a nuanced approach that addresses real disparities.
• Reasonable accommodation, as a legal principle, exists precisely to integrate individuals into the broader social structure and to eliminate discrimination arising from rigid uniformity, the Sikkim High Court said.