Japan's Supreme Court ruled that the disqualification clause in the Security Services Act, which barred individuals under the adult guardianship system from working in security, is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Japan has declared that the disqualification clause in the Security Services Act, which previously prevented individuals under the adult guardianship system from securing employment in the security sector, is unconstitutional. This ruling underscores the principle of occupational freedom as protected under Article 22 of the Japanese Constitution, which guarantees the right to choose one’s profession and engage in occupational activities freely. It further emphasizes the importance of equal treatment under the law, as stipulated in Article 14. The court found that the clause unjustly differentiated between those under guardianship and others, imposing an unnecessary limitation on job opportunities based on outdated perceptions of individuals' capabilities.
Originally implemented in 1982, the provision was justified at the time due to the belief that individuals classified as "quasi-incompetents" (those with reduced cognitive abilities due to mental health issues) could not adequately perform security duties. However, with the establishment of the adult guardianship system in 1999, which introduced a more nuanced understanding of an individual's capabilities, it became clear that the blanket disqualification was no longer equitable. Social attitudes towards disabilities have evolved significantly, fostered by legal reforms and international commitments that reject discrimination against individuals with disabilities. This transformation of public perception aligns with Japan’s commitments to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
By at least March 2017, the potential for unjust exclusion of qualified individuals from the security workforce due to the disqualification clause was evident, leading the court to conclude that the clause exceeded the legislature's reasonable discretion and violated constitutional guarantees. Although the court acknowledged the emergence of a growing consensus against discrimination based on disability, the lack of previous legal doctrines or court cases specifically challenging the constitutionality of the clause underscored a significant gap in legal protections that must now be addressed. The ruling thus not only prompts a re-evaluation of this specific law but also calls for broader discussions on discrimination and rights for individuals with disabilities in various sectors.
