Is Corporate Social Responsibility Evolving Through Judicial Support for Disability Rights?
Supreme Court affirms disability rights, reasonable accommodation, and dignity in public employment, strengthening substantive equality under the Constitution.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has traditionally been understood as a voluntary commitment by corporations to contribute to social welfare beyond profit-making. However, contemporary judicial trends indicate a normative shift, where CSR is increasingly intertwined with enforceable human rights obligations, particularly in relation to persons with disabilities. Indian constitutional courts have played a transformative role in this evolution by integrating disability rights into the framework of substantive equality, reasonable accommodation, and inclusive workplaces.
This evolution is most vividly illustrated in the Supreme Court decision in Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Others (2026), where the Court located disability inclusion within the social dimension of CSR and ESG obligations, thereby converting corporate benevolence into a rights-based mandate.
Facts of the Case
- Coal India Limited (CIL), a Maharatna Public Sector Undertaking, issued a recruitment advertisement in 2019 for Management Trainees.
- The appellant, a woman with visual impairment and residual partial hemiparesis, applied under the Visually Handicapped (VH) category.
- She cleared the interview stage but was declared medically unfit during the Initial Medical Examination on the grounds of multiple disabilities.
- The Calcutta High Court (Single Judge) held that CIL failed to comply with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and directed consideration in the next recruitment cycle.
- The Division Bench reversed this relief, citing the expiry of the selection panel.
- The appellant approached the Supreme Court, which ordered an independent medical assessment by AIIMS.
AIIMS confirmed that the appellant suffered 57% disability, exceeding the benchmark disability threshold, thereby qualifying her for appointment under the reserved quota.
Issues for Consideration
- Whether the Division Bench was justified in setting aside relief solely due to expiry of the selection panel.
- Whether the denial of employment to the appellant violated the RPwD Act and constitutional guarantees.
- Whether reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right.
- Whether courts can grant relief beyond procedural limitations to ensure substantive equality.
- Whether the Court could invoke Article 142 to do complete justice.
Judgment and Reasoning
Rejection of Technical Objections
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in law by focusing narrowly on the expiry of the panel. The appellant was denied employment wrongfully in 2019, through no fault of her own. Procedural technicalities could not defeat substantive justice, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights.
Reasonable Accommodation as a Fundamental Right
The Court extensively discussed the doctrine of reasonable accommodation, holding that:
- It is not a matter of charity or discretion.
- It is rooted in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- It flows from the RPwD Act and international human rights obligations.
The Court reiterated that reasonable accommodation is a “gateway right”, without which persons with disabilities are excluded from enjoying all other rights.
Importantly, the Court rejected a “one-size-fits-all” approach and emphasised individualised assessment.
Functional Disability Over Formal Categories
The Court criticised the rigid application of disability categories in recruitment notifications. It held that:
- Disability must be assessed in terms of functional impact on the job, not merely medical labels.
- Employers must adapt job roles and environments rather than exclude candidates.
Intersectionality of Gender and Disability
A significant contribution of the judgment lies in its recognition of intersectional discrimination.
The Court noted:
- The appellant was a single woman with disabilities, facing compounded disadvantage.
- Disability discrimination does not operate in isolation.
- Women with disabilities experience greater vulnerability, exclusion, and stigma.
The Court relied on prior precedent to affirm that equality analysis must account for overlapping identities.
Directive Principles and the Right to Work
The judgment harmonised Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, especially:
- Article 39(a) – Right to livelihood
- Article 41 – Right to work in cases of disablement
The Court reaffirmed that the right to work is intrinsic to the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Disability Rights
In a novel development, the Court linked disability inclusion with:
- Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
- Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) norms
It held that public sector enterprises must treat disability inclusion as a human rights obligation, not merely compliance.
Key Highlight
Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan observed
“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."
Conclusion
Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Others represents far more than the success of a single litigant. It stands as a significant milestone in constitutional jurisprudence, redefining disability not as an individual shortcoming but as a trigger for institutional accountability. The decision makes it clear that constitutional assurances are not symbolic declarations. They are enforceable commitments that must prevail even in the face of administrative rigidity and procedural resistance.
By placing dignity, reasonable accommodation, and inclusivity at the heart of its reasoning, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the transformative purpose of the Constitution. The judgment demonstrates that justice must not be obstructed by technical formalism or delayed by bureaucratic processes. Instead, it must be achieved through fairness, compassion, and a principled commitment to equality.
Important Link
