The Supreme Court of India is set to examine a pivotal legal question with far-reaching consequences for candidates with disabilities: Does holding a temporary disability certificate render a person ineligible for reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in competitive exams and public employment?

This question arises in the context of increasing concerns that genuinely disabled individuals with time-bound medical certification are being denied reservation benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, on the grounds that their certificate is not "permanent."

The matter reached the Supreme Court after a candidate challenged the denial of PwD reservation in a recruitment process despite holding a government-issued temporary disability certificate indicating over 40% benchmark disability, which is the minimum required for availing quota benefits under the law.

The petitioner had undergone medical assessment by a competent medical board, but the certificate issued was valid for only one year. The recruitment agency declined to recognize it for PwD quota, insisting on a permanent disability certificate.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, which declined to interfere, prompting a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has now agreed to examine the legal issue, stating:

“Prima facie, we are of the view that the nature of disability—temporary or permanent—should not be the sole deciding factor when the benchmark disability threshold is met.”

“We will interpret the statute in light of the objects and purpose of the RPwD Act, which aims to ensure equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.”

The bench issued notice to the Union Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), and the exam-conducting body, seeking clarity on policy and procedural guidelines.

Under the RPwD Act, 2016, persons with benchmark disabilities (i.e., not less than 40%) are eligible for reservation in education and public employment. However, the law is silent on whether the certificate must be permanent, creating a grey area frequently exploited by administrative bodies to reject candidates.

Legal experts argue that temporariness of the certificate does not equate to lack of disability, and that medical review periods are common in progressive or post-traumatic conditions.

This case could establish a binding precedent on how disability is interpreted in the context of government recruitment and educational admissions.

• Thousands of candidates with temporary or periodically reviewed disabilities risk exclusion from the reservation system.

• The case will also test the boundaries of statutory interpretation under welfare legislation aimed at social justice.

• The verdict could ensure uniformity in the application of PWD reservation across states and institutions.

Case Title:  XYZ v. Union of India & Ors. (Name anonymized for privacy)