SUJATA BORAversusCOAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

                   [2026] 1 S.C.R. 590 : 2026 INSC 53

                               Sujata Bora
                                    v.
                        Coal India Limited & Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026)
                                13 January 2026
           [J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant was wrongly denied employment, despite
       having qualified for the interview, and declared unfit on the ground
       that she had multiple disability but had applied as a visually
       handicapped candidate (since the notification advertising the
       vacancies did not provide for “multiple disability”); intersectionality
       of disability with gender justice.

                                   Headnotes†
       Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – “reasonable
       accommodation” – Constitution of India – Art.41 r/w 14 & 21;
       Art.142 – Advertisement was published by Coal India Limited
       (CIL) for recruitment of Management Trainees – Notification
       advertising the vacancies did not provide for “multiple
       disability” and the appellant applied for the post under the
       Visually Handicapped (VH) category – Appellant was denied
       employment despite having qualified for the interview on
       the ground that she was not only suffering from visual
       disability but also from residuary partial hemiparesis – Writ
       petition filed by Appellant – Single Judge found that CIL,
       a Public Sector Corporation could not refuse appointment
       in the multiple disabilities category and quashed the Initial
       Medical Examination (IME) result however, since, the
       appellant had approached the Court after the completion
       of the recruitment process, she was allowed to participate
       in the ensuing recruitment process (2023) in the reserved
       category for persons with disability – Order set aside by
       Division Bench – Challenge to – All India Institute of Medical
       Sciences directed to constituted a Board of experts and for
       co-opting Dr. Satendra Singh working on disability rights for


* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                              591

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


     a long time, for assessment as regards disability – Report
     submitted, according to which the appellant suffers 57% of
     disability, which is above the benchmark disability, i.e., 40%:
     Held: Appellant at the first instance was wrongly denied her
     employment pursuant to the 2019 notification – The Single Judge
     of the High Court moulded the relief in view of the passage of time
     and directed her to be considered from the IME stage for the 2023
     recruitment – By interim order passed earlier, one post was also
     kept vacant – On facts, Division Bench of the High Court was not
     justified in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge merely
     because the panel had expired – The report from AIIMS finds
     her with 57% disability, rendering her eligible for the appointment
     under the reserved quota – Appellant qualified for the interview
     in 2019 selection and was denied employment due to no fault of
     hers – Her disability exceeded the benchmark disability and only
     because the notification advertising the vacancies did not provide
     for “multiple disability” and the appellant applied as a visually
     handicapped candidate, she was denied employment – Order of
     Division Bench of High Court set aside – A supernumerary post
     be created for the appellant – Chairman of Coal India to provide
     a suitable position/posting commensurate with the ability of the
     appellant, and in such circumstances, she be provided a suitable
     desk job with a separate computer and keyboard, as per universal
     design as defined u/s.2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
     Act, 2016 – Chairman of CIL to post the appellant at North Eastern
     Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office at Margherita, Tinsukia,
     Assam – Order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
     this case, in view of Art.41 r/w 14 & 21 of the Constitution and in
     exercise of power u/Art.142.[Paras 8, 29-31]

     Constitution of India – Article 142 – Intersectionality of
     disability with gender justice:
     Held: In the present case, a single woman is before this Court
     who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability she
     encounters – Technicalities like expiry of panel for the year or the
     factum of interim order reserving a vacancy having come to be
     passed after the expiry of panel cannot come in the way of our
     doing complete justice – Especially when the denial of employment
     in 2019 was no fault of her’s. [Para 23]
592                                                             [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Disability rights – Corporate Social Responsibilty And Disability
       Rights – UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
       (Guiding Principles), as endorsed by the United Nations Human
       Rights Council in 2011; Working paper “Disability and CSR
       Reporting: An analysis comparing reporting practices of 40
       selected multinational enterprises”, produced by the ILO
       Global Business and Disability Network, referred:
       Held: Rights of persons with disabilities have to be viewed from
       the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility in order to protect
       and further such rights – True equality at the workplace can be
       achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights as a
       facet of Corporate Social Responsibility – Disability inclusion is a
       vital component of the “Social” dimension in the Environmental,
       Social and Governance (ESG) framework – Rights of Persons with
       Disabilities Act, 2016. [Paras 27, 28]

                                Case Law Cited
       Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India, 2024 INSC 775 :
       [2024] 10 SCR 673; Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 256 :
       [2025] 2 SCR 1142; Om Rathod v. Director General of Health
       Services [2024] 10 SCR 2187 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130; Ch.
       Joseph v. Telangana SRTC [2025] 8 SCR 320: 2025 SCC OnLine
       SC 1592; Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 858 : [2024]
       11 SCR 970; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCR
       206 : (1980) 3 SCC 625; Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025
       SCC OnLine SC 2257 – referred to.
       Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954) – referred to.

                         Books and Periodicals Cited
       “Disability and CSR Reporting: An analysis comparing reporting
       practices of 40 selected multinational enterprises”, produced by
       the ILO Global Business and Disability Network; 2024 guide on
       “Putting the ‘I’ in ESG: Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities as
       Strategic Advantage of Sustainability Practices for Corporates
       and Investors”, the ILO Global Business and Disability Network.

                                  List of Acts
       Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Constitution of India.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                              593

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


                               List of Keywords
     Employment wrongly denied; “multiple disability”; Applied as a
     visually handicapped candidate; “reasonable accommodation”;
     Disability rights; Visual disability; Residuary partial hemiparesis;
     Above benchmark disability; Directive principles; Fundamental
     rights; Coal India Limited (CIL); Public Sector Corporation could
     not refuse appointment in the multiple disabilities category; Visually
     Handicapped (VH) category; Management trainee (personnel and
     HR); Document verification (DV) and Initial Medical Examination
     (IME); UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
     (Guiding Principles), as endorsed by the United Nations Human
     Rights Council in 2011; Supernumerary post; Order passed in peculiar
     facts and circumstances of the case; Corporate Social Responsibility.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in MAT No. 2325 of 2023

                           Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Prashant Shrikant Kenjale,
     B Dhananjay, Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, M/s Juristrust Law Offices.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Vivek Narayan Sharma, Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha, Akash
     Singh, Adhiraj Wadhera, Dinesh Sharma, Rajeev Kumar Jha,
     Shubham Awasthi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

     J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

       Lack of physical sight does not equate to a lack of vision.
                               - Stevie Wonder

1.   An advertisement was published by Coal India Limited (CIL) for
     recruitment of Management Trainees in 2019. The appellant applied
594                                                            [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       for the post under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category. appellant
       was selected for the interview. By a communication of 1st July 2021
       appellant was called for document verification (DV) and Initial Medical
       Examination (IME). The appellant appeared for the IME in September
       2021, however, she was declared unfit on the ground that she was
       not only suffering from visual disability but also from residuary partial
       hemiparesis. Aggrieved the appellant filed WPA No. 970 of 2023
       before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.
2.     A learned Single Judge (Lapita Banerjee J.) after a thorough analysis
       of the relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
       Act, 2016, (for short ‘RPwD Act’) and the relevant notifications
       found that CIL being a Public Sector Corporation could not refuse
       appointment in the multiple disabilities category and that it was
       incumbent upon CIL to suitably modify the recruitment notifications.
       The learned Single Judge found that the IME result of 23.09.2021
       that declared the appellant unfit, was liable to be quashed. However,
       since, the appellant approached the Court after the completion of the
       recruitment process. The Court allowed the appellant to participate
       in the ensuing recruitment process (2023) in the reserved category
       for persons with disability. The learned Single Judge made it clear
       that the recruitment process of the appellant will be considered from
       the stage of IME, and if found eligible she will be given appointment
       as Management Trainee upon compliance of all formalities. The
       learned Single Judge’s judgment was dated 10.08.2023. It must also
       be pointed out that pending the disposal of the writ petition, by an
       interim order dated 27.03.2023, one post was ordered to be kept
       vacant in the cadre of management trainee (personnel and HR).
3.     CIL carried the matter to the Division Bench. The Division Bench,
       by the impugned, order found that the writ petition was filed after
       the expiry of the panel and even the interim order was passed after
       the expiry of panel and hence, directing the authorities to consider
       the candidature in respect of the same recruitment process or in the
       next recruitment process was not tenable. The Division Bench set
       aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
4.     Aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter to this Court. This Court, by
       multiple orders on 28.11.2025, 12.12.2025 and 18.12.2025, directed
       the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to constitute a Board of
       experts and for coopting Dr. Satendra Singh who has been working
       on disability rights for a long time.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                             595

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


5.   The order dated 18.12.2025 which incorporates all the earlier orders
     reads as under.
           “1. Our order dated 28-11-2025 reads thus:-
           1. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a visually
           handicapped person with 60% low vision in both eyes and
           also has residual functional partial Hemiparesis.
           2. In terms of qualification, the petitioner has graduated with
           the degree in Economics and pursued post graduation from
           Assam Women’s University in MBA (Human Resources).
           3. The respondent no.1 is a Maharatna Public Sector
           Undertaking under the Ministry of Coal, Government of India.
           4. It appears from the materials on record that in pursuance
           of the advertisement dated 16.12.2019 issued by the
           respondent no.1- company, the petitioner applied for the
           post of a Management Trainee in Personnel and HR
           discipline.
           5. She applied as a reserved candidate in the Visually
           Handicapped (VH) category.
           6. It is her case that she produced two certificates dated
           7.4.2012 and 2.1.2021 respectively, issued by the District
           Social Welfare Officer, Jorhat, Government of Assam and
           the Public Works Department, Government of Assam
           through the Joint Director of Health Sciences, Jorhat,
           respectively, both of which certified that the petitioner is
           visually impaired to the extent of 60-70% visual disability.
           7. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent no.1
           that the disability is not to the extent of 60-70% but is to
           the extent of 30%.
           8. What we have understood is that if it is the case of the
           respondent no.1 that the disability is to the extent of 30%,
           then the petitioner cannot be said to be falling within the
           ambit of “person with benchmark disability”.
           9. What is important in the present case is to ascertain
           whether the disability is a functional disability or not.
           10. For this purpose, we direct the Director of All India
           Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi to
596                                                     [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       constitute a Board of experts and one of the members in
       the said Board should be Dr. Satendra Singh.
       11. Dr. Satendra Singh has been working on disability
       rights, since a long period of time.
       12. Once, we receive the report of the Medical Board, we
       shall proceed to pass further orders.
       13. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on
       05.12.2025 along with the copy of this order.
       14. Registry shall inform the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi
       about the order passed by this Court today and also furnish
       full set of papers to the Director, AIIMS at the earliest.
       15. Post this matter for further hearing on 18.12.2025.”
       2. After the aforesaid Order, a further Order was passed
       dated 12-12-2025. The same reads thus:-
       “1. The matter was mentioned today in the morning bringing
       it to our notice that despite there being a specific order
       passed by this Court dated 28-11-2025, the Director of the
       All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi
       has not constituted a Board of Experts.
       2. We had also stated in so many words that one of the
       Members in the Board should be Dr. Satendra Singh.
       3. The main matter is coming up for hearing on 18-12-2025.
       4. We once again remind the Director, AIIMS of our
       order dated 28-11-2025. We are further informed that the
       petitioner namely Sujata Bora is in Delhi past one week.
       She has been examined so far only by two Doctors and
       not in accordance with our Order dated 28-11-2025. The
       Director, AIIMS is requested to look into the matter at the
       earliest.
       5. The Registry shall communicate this order to the Director,
       AIIMS at the earliest.”
       3. In pursuance of our Order dated 28-11-2025, referred
       to above, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
       Delhi has forwarded the Medical Report.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                           597

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


           4. The final impression in the Report dated 16-12-2025
           reads thus:-
           “The candidate is diagnosed with right sided 7th nerve
           palsy, lagophthalmos, exposure keratopathy and 6th nerve
           palsy in the right eye. The left eye visual acuity and visual
           field does not correlate with the clinical examination
           findings and ocular investigations, therefore visual
           disability cannot be assessed. To confirm benchmark
           multiple disability because of presence of right side facial
           paralysis, opinion may be taken from PMR department/
           multiple disability board. Neurosurgery department has
           review old available record, but if current neurosurgical
           status evaluation is needed, detailed neurological
           examination, new MRI and other investigations will be
           required by them.”
           5. According to the AIIMS, New Delhi for the purpose of
           confirming the benchmark, multiple disability because of
           presence of right side facial paralysis, opinion should be
           taken from PMR department/multiple disability board, i.e.,
           Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department.
           6. The report further reveals that the Neurosurgery
           Department has looked into the old records available but
           for the purpose of current neurosurgical status evaluation,
           a detailed neurological examination with new MRI and
           other investigations should be undertaken.
           7. Let the needful be done at the earliest and a fresh
           Report be submitted before us.
           8. One copy of this Report dated 16-12-2025 be furnished
           to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
           as for the learned counsel appearing for the respondents –
           Coal India Limited.
           9. Post it on 8-1-2026 as part-heard.
           10. The petitioner – Sujata Bora is personally present in
           the Court today.
           11. We are informed that she is in Delhi past couple of days.
598                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            12. We request the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi to undertake
            the necessary further investigations of Ms. Bora from
            tomorrow itself.
            13. The Registry to inform about this order to the Director,
            AIIMS, New Delhi at the earliest.
            14. Dasti permitted.
            15. Ms. Sujata Bora shall reach the office of the
            Director, AIIMS, New Delhi tomorrow, i.e., 19-12-2025 by
            10.30 a.m.”
6.     In pursuance thereto, the appellant was medically examined by a
       Committee of doctors appointed by the All India Institute of Medical
       Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The examination was for the purpose
       of assessment as regards disability.
7.     We have received a report dated 01st January, 2026. According to
       the report, the appellant suffers 57% of disability, which is above the
       benchmark disability, i.e., 40%.
8.     The Division Bench on facts was not justified in setting aside
       the judgment of the Single Judge merely because the panel had
       expired. The appellant at the first instance was wrongly denied
       her employment pursuant to the 2019 notification. The learned
       Single Judge moulded the relief in view of the passage of time
       and directed her to be considered from the IME stage for the 2023
       recruitment. By interim order passed earlier, one post was also kept
       vacant.
9.     Today the situation is, the report from AIIMS finds her with 57%
       disability, rendering her eligible for the appointment under the
       reserved quota.
10. We had an opportunity to interact with the appellant, and we have
    found her to be a lady of grit and determination. She wants to excel
    in her field and work hard.
11. We heard Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, the learned counsel
    appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, the
    learned counsel appearing for the CIL.
12. We are of the view that the appellant qualifies for the appointment
    to the post of Management Trainee.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         599

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


     CONCEPT OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
13. This Court in a series of judgments has highlighted the concept of
    “reasonable accommodation” - a concept enshrined in the RPwD
    Act and which emanates from Article 41 of the Constitution of India
    read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In Omkar
    Ramchandra Gond v. The Union of India, 2024 INSC 775, this
    Court held as under: -
           “40. …Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, defines “reasonable
           accommodation” to mean necessary and appropriate
           modification and adjustments, without imposing a
           disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case,
           to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or
           exercise of rights equally with others. The concept of
           reasonable accommodation would encompass within
           itself the deployment of a purposive and meaningful
           construction of the NMC Regulations of 13.05.2019
           read with the Appendix H-1 guidelines in a manner as to
           further the objectives of the RPwD Act. The reasonable
           accommodation as defined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD
           Act should not be understood narrowly to mean only
           the provision of assisting devices and other tangible
           substances which will aid persons with disabilities. If the
           mandate of the law is to ensure a full and effective
           participation of persons with disabilities in the society
           and if the whole idea was to exclude conditions that
           prevent their full and effective participation as equal
           members of society, a broad interpretation of the
           concept of reasonable accommodation which will
           further the objective of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of
           the Directive Principles of State Policy is mandated.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

14. Reiterating the holding in Omkar (supra) in Anmol v. Union of India,
    2025 SCC OnLine SC 387, this Court held as under: -
           “20. As would be clear from the above, flexibility in
           answering individual needs and requirements is an
           essential component of reasonable accommodation. There
           cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. However, in the
600                                                         [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          guidelines appendix H-1 to regulations of 13.05.2019
          of “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient
          strength and range of motion” are considered essential
          to be eligible for the medical course.”
15. In Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 SCC
    OnLine SC 3130, this Court while explaining how without the gateway
    right of reasonable accommodation, a person with disability would
    be excluded from the mainstream held as under: -
          “29. The principle of reasonable accommodation
          is not only statutorily prescribed but also rooted
          in the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons
          with disabilities under Part III of the Constitution.
          Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right.
          It is a gateway right for persons with disabilities to
          enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution
          and the law. Without the gateway right of reasonable
          accommodation, a person with disability is forced to
          navigate in a world which excludes them by design. It
          strikes a fatal blow to their ability to make life choices
          and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks of
          daily life to actions undertaken to realise personal
          and professional aspirations - all are throttled when
          reasonable accommodations are denied. Reasonable
          accommodation is a facet of substantive equality and
          its failure constitutes discrimination. In Vikash Kumar v.
          UPSC, this Court adjudicated on whether a person with
          a writer’s cramp is entitled to a scribe for writing the
          examination. Allowing the use of a scribe, this Court
          held that the benchmark standard can only be applied
          where expressly stipulated. Section 2(s) of the RPWD Act
          defines a person with disability as a person with long term
          physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which,
          in interaction with barriers, hinders their full and effective
          participation in society equally with others. Therefore, a
          person - to be considered as a person with disability - does
          not have to qualify any benchmark. The principle that the
          rights and entitlements cannot be constricted by adopting
          a benchmark as a condition precedent was also upheld
          by this Court in Avni Prakash v. NTA.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                          601

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


16. In Ch. Joseph v. Telangana SRTC, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592,
    highlighting the concept of alternative employment as a facet of
    reasonable accommodation, this Court held as under: -
           “17. The Respondents’ defence based solely on internal
           circulars and a mechanical reading of Regulation 6A(5)(b)
           cannot override this obligation. Retirement on medical
           grounds must be a measure of last resort, only
           after the employer exhausts all reasonable avenues
           for redeployment. This principle is inherent in the
           concept of “reasonable accommodation”, which is
           now recognised as an aspect of substantive equality
           under Articles 14 and 21. The failure to explore alternate
           employment before resorting to medical retirement
           is not merely a procedural lapse—it is a substantive
           illegality that violates the Appellant’s right to livelihood
           and equal treatment.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

17. In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2024)16 SCC 654, explaining
    how reasonable accommodation seeks to achieve individual justice
    by encompassing dignity, autonomy, choice of the individual and
    furthers non-discrimination, this Court held as under: -
           “38. As highlighted by the Committee on the Rights
           of Persons with Disabilities in General Comment 6,
           reasonable accommodation is integral to the principle of
           inclusive equality, acting as a facilitator for substantive
           equality. [ General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/
           GC/2, para 25.] The General Comment articulated the
           relationship between reasonable accommodation and
           accessibility as follows:
                “23. The duty to provide reasonable
                accommodation is an ex nunc duty, which
                means that it is enforceable from the moment
                an individual with an impairment needs it in
                a given situation (workplace, school, etc.)
                in order to enjoy her or his rights on an
                equal basis in a particular context. Here,
                accessibility standards can be an indicator,
602                                                        [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                but may not be taken as prescriptive.
                Reasonable accommodation can be used
                as a means of ensuring accessibility for an
                individual with a disability in a particular
                situation. Reasonable accommodation
                seeks to achieve individual justice in the
                sense that non-discrimination or equality is
                assured, taking the dignity, autonomy and
                choices of the individual into account. Thus,
                a person with a rare impairment might ask for
                accommodation that falls outside the scope
                of any accessibility standard. The decision
                to provide it or not depends on whether
                it is reasonable and whether it imposes a
                disproportionate or undue burden.””
                                               (emphasis supplied)

       FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF
       STATE POLICY
18. Explaining how directive principles and fundamental rights are two
    wheels of a chariot, this Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,
    (1980) 3 SCC 625, speaking through Chief Justice YV Chandrachud
    in a memorable passage held as follows: -
          “56. The significance of the perception that Parts III
          and IV together constitute the core of commitment
          to social revolution and they, together, are the
          conscience of the Constitution is to be traced to
          a deep understanding of the scheme of the Indian
          Constitution. Granville Austin’s observation brings
          out the true position that Parts III and IV are like two
          wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the
          other. You snap one and the other will lose its efficacy.
          They are like a twin formula for achieving the social
          revolution, which is the ideal which the visionary
          founders of the Constitution set before themselves.
          In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on
          the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV.
          To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                           603

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


           disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony
           and balance between fundamental rights and directive
           principles is an essential feature of the basic structure
           of the Constitution.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

19. Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barsky v. Board of
    Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954), said:
           “The right to work I have assumed was the most precious
           liberty that man possesses. Man has indeed, as much right
           to work as he has to live, to be free and to own property.
           To work means to eat and it also means to live.”
20. It is the most precious liberty because it sustains and enables a
    person to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. Life means
    something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against
    the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which
    life is enjoyed. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which, is a directive
    Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall in particular,
    direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women
    equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
21. Article 41 reads as under:
           “41. Right to work, to education and to public
           assistance in certain cases
           The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity
           and development, make effective provision for securing the
           right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases
           of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and
           in other cases of undeserved want.”
22. Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles, though not enforceable
    by any court, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of
    the country. The principles contained in Articles 39(a) and 41 must
    be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and
    interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights.

     INTERSECTIONALITY OF DISABILITY WITH GENDER
23. In the present case, we are also concerned with the intersectionality of
    disability with gender justice. Here is a case where a single woman is
604                                                        [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       before us who has the urge to succeed notwithstanding the disability
       she encounters. Can technicalities like expiry of panel for the year
       or the factum of interim order reserving a vacancy having come to
       be passed after the expiry of panel cannot come in the way of our
       doing complete justice? We certainly do not think so, especially when
       the denial of employment in 2019 was no fault of her’s. We say this
       on the special facts obtaining in this case.
24. In Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257,
    this Court held as under: -
            “85. Similarly, in M. Sameeha Barvin v. Joint Secretary,
            Ministry of Youth and Sports, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad
            6456, a female athlete with 90% loss of hearing and
            lack of speech ability was denied participation in
            the World Deaf Athletics Championship due to her
            female gender and the additional vulnerability in
            travel associated with her disability. In the said case,
            one of us (R. Mahadevan, J.) discussed the concept
            of intersectionality to emphasize that addressing
            difficulties and barriers faced by a person from the
            perspective of only one axis of discrimination may
            not ensure substantive equality for them if they face
            multiple axes of discrimination. Therefore, a study of
            equality from an intersectional point of view subscribes
            to the understanding that factors or markers of
            discrimination do not operate in isolation. Hence,
            reasonable accommodation of persons placed at the
            intersections of various grounds of discrimination, can
            also not be unidimensional. The relevant portions of
            the judgment are reproduced below:
                 “16. In the Indian context, it is often seen
                 that the factors like caste and gender are
                 intrinsically linked. Similarly, disability and
                 gender are linked in a way that make females
                 with disabilities more vulnerable to such
                 cumulative or compounded disadvantage
                 and resultant discrimination. Here, it is
                 important to emphasize that the difficulties
                 and barriers faced by a person facing any
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                    605

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.


                one axis of discrimination, for example-
                gender, are different from a person facing
                multiple axis of discrimination like disability,
                caste and gender together. The different
                identities within the same person intersect
                and co-exist in a way so as to give the
                individual a qualitatively different experience
                than any one of the individual markers
                of discrimination or any of the individual
                characteristics. Therefore, where the axis of
                discrimination intersect, it is essential to view
                such cases from the lens of intersectionality
                in order to understand that the barriers,
                the challenges, the stigma as well as the
                practical difficulties faced by such persons
                are not only more intense, but also different
                and unique which call for a more in-depth and
                all-encompassing approach for addressing
                their grievances and ensuring substantive
                equality to them. Intersectionality, therefore,
                rejects a narrow or limited understanding
                of equality where the factors or markers of
                discrimination are isolated or are in singular
                spheres.
                                     xxxxxxxxx
                24. In the Convention on the Rights of Persons
                with Disabilities as observed by the Committee
                in General Comment No. 6, “intersectional
                discrimination can be direct, indirect, denial of
                reasonable accommodation, or harassment”.
                This approach has also been reiterated by the
                Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC wherein,
                the supreme court has held that “disability-
                based discrimination is intersectional in nature
                and policy of reasonable accommodation thus
                cannot be unidimensional”. The Convention on
                the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
                Committee (CEDAW), which promotes action in
                order to support persons with disabilities and
606                                                       [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


               their families and caregivers, also recognises
               that the categories of discrimination cannot
               be reduced to watertight compartments. In
               General Recommendation No. 25, the CEDAW
               committee suggests “the adoption of special
               measures for women to eliminate multiple
               rounds of discrimination”.”
          86. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt in our
          minds that redressal of a disadvantage cannot be
          devoid of an understanding of the other impediments
          that an individual may face on account of other identity
          markers that may cause such an individual to be
          stigmatized and marginalized. The avowed objective
          of substantive equality may be rendered unworkable if
          actions and measures to achieve the said goal suffer
          from a parochial understanding of discrimination.
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

       CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILTY AND DISABILITY RIGHTS
25. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding
    Principles), as endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council
    in 2011, have the following to say on the aspect of “the Corporate
    Responsibility to Respect Human Rights”:
          “12. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect
          human rights refers to internationally recognized human
          rights – understood, at a minimum, has those expressed
          in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles
          concerning fundamental rights set out in the International
          labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental
          Principles and Rights at Work.
          … Depending on circumstances, business enterprises
          may need to consider additional standards. For instance,
          enterprises should respect the human rights of individuals
          belonging to specific groups or populations that require
          particular attention, where they may have adverse
          human rights impacts on them. In this connection, United
          Nations instruments have elaborated further on the
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                          607

                    Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.



           rights of indigenous peoples; women; national or ethnic,
           religious and linguistic minorities; children; persons with
           disabilities; and migrant workers and their families…”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

26. The working paper “Disability and CSR Reporting: An analysis
    comparing reporting practices of 40 selected multinational
    enterprises”, produced by the ILO Global Business and Disability
    Network, concluded that:
           “The rights of the people with disabilities are human
           rights. Consequently, enterprises have an obligation to
           respect these rights, avoid infringement, and address
           adverse human rights impacts with which they are
           involved. Thereby following the current approach of
           CSR endorsed by the UN and the EU.
           Providing equal rights to people with disabilities
           implies addressing it from a non-discrimination angle,
           and not exclusively as a diversity or inclusion issue.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

27. Thus, it is abundantly clear that rights of persons with disabilities have
    to be viewed from the prism of Corporate Social Responsibility in
    order to protect and further such rights. True equality at the workplace
    can be achieved only with the right impetus given to disability rights
    as a facet of Corporate Social Responsibility.
28. Disability inclusion is a vital component of the “Social” dimension
    in the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) framework. In
    its 2024 guide on “Putting the ‘I’ in ESG: Inclusion of Persons with
    Disabilities as Strategic Advantage of Sustainability Practices for
    Corporates and Investors”, the ILO Global Business and Disability
    Network urged “companies and investors to view disability
    inclusion not just as a compliance issue, but as a strategic
    advantage that enhances business performance, resilience,
    and societal impact.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

29. The appellant qualified for the interview in 2019 selection and
    was denied employment due to no fault of hers. Her disability
608                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       exceeded the benchmark disability and only because the notification
       advertising the vacancies did not provide for “multiple disability” and
       the appellant applied as a visually handicapped candidate, she was
       denied employment.
30. Keeping in mind the above principle we direct that a supernumerary
    post be created.
31. We are sure that the Chairman of Coal India will provide a suitable
    position/posting commensurate with the ability of the appellant, and
    in such circumstances, she be provided a suitable desk job with a
    separate computer and keyboard, as per universal design as defined
    under section 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
32. We request to the Chairman of Coal India Ltd. to post the appellant
    at North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd., having an office at
    Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam.
33. We clarify that we have passed this order, in the peculiar facts and
    circumstances of this case, keeping in mind Article 41 read with
    Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution.
34. We make it clear that we have passed this order additionally in
    exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
35. We place on record our sincere gratitude to Mr. Vivek Narayan
    Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Coal India Ltd., for
    using his good offices and bringing around a very happy end to this
    litigation.
36. We also express our deep and sincere gratitude towards all the
    doctors who examined the appellant and also the Director of AIIMS,
    New Delhi.
37. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of the Division
    Bench of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in MAT 2325/2023.
    The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

       Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey