Alok Singh
On 6th June, 2025, Advocate Anchal Bhatheja made history as the first blind woman advocate to present a case before the Supreme Court. She was born with low vision due to complications at birth and eventually became completely blind because of retinopathy of prematurity. She lost her sight just before taking her board examinations. Additionally, she was the first blind student to gain admission to the National Law School of India in Bengaluru after taking the CLAT.
In her initial appearance before the Supreme Court, Batheja represented a petitioner contesting the constitutionality of an advertisement dated 16th May, 2025, regarding the recruitment for the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner, who is 100% visually impaired, had the case urgently listed for June 6.
The event represented an important moment for disability representation within the legal profession. Earlier this year, Advocate Sara Sunny made history as the first deaf and mute lawyer to present a case before the Supreme Court using sign language, supported by her interpreter, Saurav Roychowdhury. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud contributed significantly to this landmark achievement by allowing Sunny and her interpreter to participate in the virtual proceedings on screen. This action highlights the Court’s dedication to promoting accessibility.
The Uttarakhand Judicial Service notification (dated 16th May, 2025) is being challenged for arbitrarily restricting PwBD reservation to only a few subcategories: Leprosy Cured, Acid Attack Victims, and Muscular Dystrophy, excluding others like blindness and locomotor disability.
It was contended that the exclusion violates Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which mandates 4% reservation across broader disability categories. The plea also argues a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution and non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services V. Registrar General, which upheld the eligibility of visually impaired candidates for judicial posts. Additionally, the notification restricts eligibility based on Uttarakhand domicile, which the petitioner claims is unconstitutional.
