Supreme Court Disability Reservation Judgment India 2026 | Sudhanshu Kardam v CAG Case

Case Summary

• Case name: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Ors.

• Date of judgment: 12 March 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice Vikram Nath; Honourable Justice Sandeep Mehta

• Counsel: Mr Rahul Bajaj (for the appellant); Ms Archana Pathak Dave, ASG (for CAG).

• Key Legislation: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Sections 32, 33, and 34.

• Core Issue: Denial of appointment to candidates with mental illness despite recommendation by the SSC, based on a post being previously identified as "unsuitable."

Introduction and Factual Matrix

This appeal addresses the recurring and sensitive problem of aligning central recruitment processes with the statutory mandate to provide reservation and reasonable accommodation to persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD). The dispute arises out of the Staff Selection Commission’s CGLE-2018 recruitment. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) returned the dossiers of selected candidates, including Shri Amit Yadav (assessed with 55% mental illness disability), on the ground that the post of Auditor was not identified as suitable for those with mental illness.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially ordered a medical fitness assessment for appointment. However, the High Court set this aside. The Supreme Court permitted the appeal, ultimately directing the CAG to accommodate the candidates in Group C posts identified as suitable under a new 2021 Ministry notification.

Legal Issues for Analysis

Several legal issues arise from the judgment, of immediate interest to practitioners dealing with disability and administrative law:

• Retrospective Suitability: The effect of the DEPwD’s 4 January 2021 notification which re-identified posts. The Court considered whether an updated list should permit appointment even for recruitment cycles that began earlier.

• Administrative Roles: The respective obligations of the recruiting agency (SSC) and the employer (CAG) in updating allocations when suitability lists are revised.

• Judicial Remedies: The scope of courts to direct the creation of supernumerary posts to protect statutory rights.

• Fitness vs. Suitability: The interplay between a medical board’s fitness assessment and the statutory designation of a post’s suitability.

Statutory and Administrative Framework

The RPwD Act envisages an expert committee mechanism under Section 33 to identify suitable posts and mandates periodic reviews (at least every three years). The 4 January 2021 notification superseded the 2013 list, expanding categories to include mental illness and specific learning disabilities as eligible for reservation.

The judgment treats this notification as a decisive instrument. It reinforces the principle that disability rights are dynamic; administrative agencies must act on updated lists rather than relying on outdated classifications. The Court noted that there remained "no impediment whatsoever" for accommodating the candidates once the revised list identified suitable Group C posts.

Role of Judicial Remedies and Proportionality

The Supreme Court balanced administrative procedures with the statutory scheme by directing practical relief: SSC was ordered to forward dossiers within two weeks, and CAG was ordered to appoint the candidates.

The direction to create supernumerary posts is particularly significant. It prevents the State from using "procedural finality" or the fact that advertised posts are filled to defeat the substantive rights of PwBD. This equitable remedy ensures that the State's duty under the RPwD Act is honored without displacing other merit-based selections.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

• Recruitment Compliance: Agencies must apply the most current DEPwD lists to ongoing recruitment cycles.

• Employer Obligations: Public employers must proactively constitute medical boards and provide reasonable accommodation as per updated statutory identifications.

• Shared Responsibility: Practitioners must recognize the multi-layered responsibility between the recommending body (SSC) and the appointing authority (CAG).

Operative Direction of the Court

The respondent No.2-SSC is directed to forward the dossiers of the appellant and R3 – Shri Amit Yadav to the CAG within two weeks. Upon receipt, the CAG must consider them for appointment against Group ‘C’ posts. If the originally advertised posts have already been filled, the respondents are mandated to create supernumerary posts. The appointments shall take effect from the date of joining.

Extract from the Ministry Notification (2021)

The Central Government notified the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which extended the benefit of reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in new categories, including autism, specific learning disability, and mental illness. In exercise of powers conferred upon section 33 of the Act, the Central Government notified a list of Group A, B, C, and D posts identified as suitable for PwBD. This list supersedes the previous 2013 notification.

CAG Additional Affidavit Extract

The CAG stated that while posts like Auditor were not initially identified as suitable for candidates with mental illness in 2018, the subsequent 4 January 2021 Notification identified Group C posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II as suitable. Following this change in the rule position, the CAG expressed readiness to accommodate the candidates upon receipt of their dossiers from the SSC.