DEIB India Updates - Mar '25 Edition

Discover key legal insights and societal inclusion steps in DEI India Updates Mar 25 Edition.

1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a ₹15,00,000 cost on the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for rejecting a Dalit woman's candidature despite her eligibility in Divya Kalia v. State of Haryana & Ors. The Court criticised the HPSC for its arbitrary actions, stating that the rejection was discriminatory. The woman had cleared the exam but was denied due to alleged technical grounds such as the absence of a registration number and date on the top-left corner. While scrutinising the rejection of candidature, the Court highlighted the more pressing issue of disqualification because of the woman’s application under the reserved category and stated that it was unfairly disqualified. It ruled that the HPSC's decision lacked a valid reason and violated the principles of equality and further emphasised the need for fairness and accountability in public recruitment processes.

   Read the Judgment here.

   
   

2. The Supreme Court of India in Deeksha M Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors. called for a 30% reservation for women lawyers in the governing councils of district bar associations across Karnataka. This initiative aims to enhance female representation in legal bodies, addressing the current male-dominated structure of bar associations. The Court emphasised the importance of inclusivity and diversity within the legal profession, urging bar associations to implement these reservations promptly. Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court called for the dismantling of "old men's clubs" in all such bar associations.

   Read the Order here. 

   
   

3. The Supreme Court of India in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. has questioned the Union Government regarding the limited number of vacancies allocated to women in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Indian Army, despite the positions being described as gender neutral. A notification dated January 18, 2023, for the JAG Entry Scheme 31st Course, allocated six vacancies for men and only three for women. The Union Government cited a 2012 study recommending a 70:30 male-to-female ratio for JAG posts over ten years, considering factors like working conditions and organisational needs. The Court challenged this rationale, questioning the justification for such fixed ratios and emphasising that merit should be the primary criterion for selection, without arbitrary gender-based quotas. The Court has issued a notice to the Union Government, seeking further clarification on this matter.

   Read the Order here.

   
   

4. The Supreme Court of India in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services with In Re: Recruitment of PwD Candidates in Rajasthan Judicial Services r/w Alok Singh v. State of Adhya Pradesh & Ors. has emphasised that the rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs) should be regarded as fundamental rights, ensuring their full participation in society, especially in judicial service opportunities. The Court highlighted the necessity of "reasonable accommodation," mandating that necessary and appropriate modifications be made to ensure PwDs enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others, and to ensure that they are able to perform their duties effectively. This principle is crucial in eliminating barriers and promoting inclusivity.

   Read the Judgment here.

   
   

5. The Supreme Court in Aditi Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. r/w Sarita Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. r/w In Re: Termination of Civil Jude, Class II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service overturned the dismissal of two female judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, deeming the action punitive and arbitrary. The Court mandated their reinstatement within 15 days, recognising that one officer faced personal challenges, including marriage, COVID-19 infection, miscarriage, and a brother's cancer diagnosis during her probation. The other officer was terminated without a chance to respond to pending complaints. Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasised the need for sensitivity towards women's difficulties and anxieties, highlighting the physical and psychological challenges they endure. The Court stressed that merely increasing the number of women in the judiciary isn't sufficient without ensuring a supportive work environment.

   Read the Judgment here.

   
   

6. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that visually impaired candidates are eligible for appointment in judicial services, striking down provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 1994, that excluded them in In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services v. The Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasised that no candidate should be denied consideration solely due to their disability, highlighting that such exclusions violate principles of substantive equality. Additionally, the Court invalidated requirements for persons with disabilities to have either three years of legal practice or a minimum score of 70% in their first attempt, deeming these criteria discriminatory. This landmark decision underscores the need for affirmative action to ensure inclusivity and non-discrimination in public employment. The judgment mandates that visually impaired candidates must be provided reasonable accommodations, aligning with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

   Read the judgment here.

   
   

7. The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) has introduced a menstrual leave policy, marking a significant step for student welfare. The policy allows students to avail leave during menstruation without academic penalties. NUJS emphasised that the initiative promotes inclusivity and acknowledges menstrual health as a legitimate concern. The decision aligns with broader discussions on gender-sensitive policies in educational institutions. This move is expected to set a precedent for other universities to adopt similar measures.