For many years, India’s approach to disability rights has been rooted in a medical model, viewing disabilities primarily as clinical deficiencies rather than societal identities warranting accommodation. This perspective is starkly visible in the state’s continued use of arbitrary percentage ceilings that restrict individuals with disabilities from accessing public employment and higher education opportunities. These ceilings, which quantify disability in numerical terms, stand at odds with the progressive social model introduced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and fundamentally violate constitutional guarantees of equality.
On March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India, through a bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vikram Nath, delivered a landmark judgment in Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court overturned a High Court decision that had upheld the exclusion of a candidate with a 90% permanent locomotive disability from the position of Assistant District Attorney (ADA). Despite topping the merit list in the reserved category, the candidate was denied the position due to an arbitrary eligibility cap set between 40% and 60% disability in the recruitment advertisement.
Judicial Intervention and Its Implications
This ruling underscores a systemic crisis in India’s approach to disability inclusion, where bureaucracy often treats inclusion as a mere administrative task rather than a constitutional directive. The judgment challenges the so-called ‘Goldilocks zone’ in Indian disability law, where individuals must be disabled enough to qualify for quotas yet able enough to meet bureaucratic convenience. This paradox not only discriminates against individuals with disabilities but also shifts the burden of the state’s failure to accommodate onto the individuals themselves.
The Medical versus Legal Dichotomy
The persistence of percentage ceilings is rooted in an outdated reliance on medical assessments to determine legal capacity. The Supreme Court emphasized that certain professional roles, such as an ADA, require mental acuity and legal expertise, which are not necessarily impeded by physical impairments. The court criticized the use of static medical evaluations, which fail to reflect individuals’ actual capabilities, especially in light of advancements in assistive technology.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court referenced the case Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021), which dismantled the precedent set by V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, where visual and hearing impairment caps were permitted for judicial officers. The court reaffirmed that reasonable accommodation is a constitutional obligation, requiring the state to adapt environments rather than disqualifying individuals based on physical limitations.
More Read
A Call for Systemic Change
The Prabhu Kumar decision aligns with other progressive rulings, such as Om Rathod v. Director of Health Sciences and Anmol v. Union of India, advocating for the dismantling of administrative frameworks based on outdated and discriminatory assumptions. The judiciary has mandated regulatory authorities to implement individualized, evidence-based functional assessments, moving away from rigid percentage-based classifications.
Transforming the Approach to Disability Inclusion
To operationalize the standards set by the Supreme Court, India must adopt a rights-based, multidisciplinary framework. This includes implementing Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs), utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO ICF), and embracing an accommodation-first assessment model. These steps would shift the focus from quantifying disabilities to evaluating individuals’ true potential and capabilities.
The legal community is tasked with leading this transformation from medical gatekeeping to functional competency assessment. The Supreme Court’s imposition of exemplary costs on the state government in Prabhu Kumar serves as a stark reminder that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation is not just an administrative oversight but a violation of constitutional rights.
As India continues its journey toward realizing the transformative vision of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, it must confront the reality that while physical impairments can be measured, human dignity and potential cannot be reduced to mere numbers. The ongoing reliance on percentage ceilings is a convenient but misplaced fiction that inhibits true inclusivity. It is imperative that the focus shifts from counting impairments to fostering genuinely inclusive environments, ensuring that the promise of inclusion becomes a lived reality.
Surbhi Meshram is an Assistant Professor of Law and PhD Scholar at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
