Breaking Barriers : Blind Woman Advocate Makes Appearance In Supreme Court

In a landmark moment for disability representation in the legal field, a visually impaired lawyer appeared in a case before the Supreme Court on June 6.

In what is believed to be the first instance of a blind woman advocate appearing before the Supreme Court, Anchal Bhatheja, who was born with low vision due to birth complications and later lost her eyesight completely due to retinopathy of prematurity, represented a petitioner in a case. She lost her vision entirely just before her board examinations.

She, however, completed her schooling with the help of audiobooks and became the first blind CLAT aspirant to get admission into the National Law School of India, Bengaluru. She completed her law degree in 2023.

In her first appearance before the Supreme Court, Batheja represented a petitioner challenging the constitutionality of the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued for recruitment to the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner is a person with 100% visual impairment. 

She mentioned the matter for urgent listing on June 6 before the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice SC Sharma. The bench agreed to list the matter for June 9 (Monday). 

Sharing her experience of appearing in the Supreme Court Bhateja, wrote in LinkedIn:

"It's a moment that brings both joy and a quiet sadness. I'm proud to be here — proud to take up space that was never designed with someone like me in mind. But I also wish I weren't the first. I wish the path had already been walked many times over. Visibility matters. Access matters. And systemic change takes time — but moments like this are reminders that we're moving, however slowly, in the right direction."

In September 2023, Advocate Sara Sunny became the first deaf and mute lawyer to argue a case before the Supreme Court using Sign Language, with the assistance of interpreter Saurav Roychowdhury. The then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud facilitated this by allowing both Sunny and her interpreter to appear on screen during virtual proceedings, highlighting the Court's commitment to accessibility.

Also read - In A Historic First, Supreme Court Appoints Sign Language Interpreter For Deaf Lawyer

Why the Uttarakhand judicial service notification is under challenge?

The advertisement has been challenged as it limits the scope of eligibility under the seats reserved for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). The seats are categorically reserved only for 4 subtypes - Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims, and Muscular Dystrophy. 

The plea states that such a limitation arbitrarily excludes all other benchmark disabilities, including blindness and locomotor disability, in violation of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). 

Notably, S. 34(1)(a) states : Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:

(a) blindness and low vision; 

(c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; 

The petition also highlights that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has overlooked the request of the petitioner for alloting a scribe during the exams. 

The plea mainly challenges the exclusion on three main aspects : (1) its violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; (2) it is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services V. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh; (3) the eligibility under the PwBD category has been also denied for not a being a domicile of the Uttrakhand state. 

In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

The Court emphatically held that "visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service. 

The following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner towards Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (respondent no.1); Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand (respondent no.2) and State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Department of Social Welfare (respondent no.3) : 

A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, insofar as it prevents persons who are not domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand from applying in the reserved PWBD category and accordingly avail of the reasonable accommodation that they are entitled to, under the RPWD Act, 2016;

B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the aforesaid advertisement, insofar as it restricts eligibility for persons with benchmark disabilities only to the subcategories of Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims, and Muscular Dystrophy;

C. Direct Respondent No. 1 to revise and re-issue the Advertisement dated 16.05.2025 to allow all persons with benchmark disabilities who are not domiciled in the state of Uttarakhand, as well as the persons who have other disabilities besides the 4 specified subcategories, to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division);

D. Direct Respondent No. 2, to ensure strict adherence to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Suo Motu WP. (Civil) No. 2 of 2024 dated 03.03.2023, and to file a status/compliance report within a time bound schedule;

E. Direct Respondent No. 3 to undertake a fresh exercise for identifying posts suitable for reservation for PwDs, in compliance with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, Rule 11 of the RPWD Rules, and the applicable guidelines and directions issued by the Central Government, while accounting for principle of reasonable accommodation, advancements in assistive technologies, and the functional requirements of the posts;

The petition had been filed with the assistance of AOR Vikram Hegde. 

Advocate Anchal Bhateja 

Case Details : SRAVYA SINDHURI v. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.