Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3817/2018
Case Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Union of India
Date of Judgement: 12 Nov 2018
Cases refered:
- Sambhavana v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 3919/2014 decided on March 4, 2015;
- Students Federation of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P(C) 3032/2017 decided on October 1, 2018
- and the Supreme Court in the cases of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2017)14 SCC 1; Union of India and Ors. v. National Federation of Blind and Ors. 2013 10 SCC 772,
Background
The Delhi High Court examined an important issue concerning implementation of the mandatory 5% reservation for persons with disabilities in higher educational institutions under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The petition was filed by the National Federation of the Blind challenging the admission policy adopted by Jawaharlal Nehru University for admission to M.Phil./Ph.D. and Ph.D. programmes for the academic session 2018–19.
The main grievance was that JNU had failed to provide the full 5% reservation mandated under the RPwD Act.
According to the petitioner, against a total intake of 723 seats, the University reserved only 32 seats for persons with disabilities instead of approximately 36 seats required under the law.
The petitioner argued that the shortfall arose because the University calculated reservation separately for each School and Centre rather than calculating reservation on the basis of the total seats across the University.
Under this system, departments with fewer than nine seats effectively provided no reservation for persons with disabilities at all. The petitioner contended that such compartmentalised calculation diluted the statutory guarantee under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.
The case also involved denial of admission to candidates with disabilities in courses where reservation was allegedly not implemented due to low departmental seat intake.
JNU defended its methodology by relying upon the reservation framework followed under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 and its School-wise and Centre-wise reservation calculations.
Key Observations of the Court
The Delhi High Court examined whether disability reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act could be calculated separately for each School or Centre even if such calculation reduced the overall reservation below the mandatory 5%.
The Court recognised that Section 32 creates a binding obligation requiring higher educational institutions receiving government aid to reserve “not less than 5%” seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Importantly, the Bench observed that this statutory mandate cannot be diluted through administrative formulas or internal institutional calculation methods.
The Court noted that the methodology adopted by JNU resulted in departments with small seat intake effectively excluding persons with disabilities from reservation benefits. As a consequence, the actual reservation available across the University fell below the statutory minimum.
The Bench made it clear that disability reservation cannot be treated as a fragmented or discretionary exercise dependent on departmental seat distribution.
The Court also observed that the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the mandate of the RPwD Act.
Another important aspect of the proceedings was the recognition that rigid departmental allocation systems can indirectly exclude students with disabilities from higher education despite formal reservation policies existing on paper.
During the hearing, JNU acknowledged the issue raised by the petitioner and agreed to grant admission to additional candidates with disabilities in compliance with the RPwD Act.
Directions Issued
The Delhi High Court effectively held that reservation for persons with disabilities must be implemented in a manner that fully ensures the mandatory 5% reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.
The Court:
- Recognised that School-wise or Centre-wise reservation calculations resulting in reservation below 5% are inconsistent with the RPwD Act;
- Took on record JNU’s decision to grant admission to additional PwD candidates;
- Addressed grievances relating to denial of admission arising from departmental seat allocation structures; and
- Reinforced that institutions cannot reduce statutory disability reservation through administrative calculation mechanisms.
Commentary
The judgment in National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India & Ors. is a significant ruling on disability reservation in higher education because it directly addresses one of the most common methods used to dilute reservation for persons with disabilities.
Educational institutions often adopt programme-wise or departmental seat calculations which appear compliant on paper but substantially reduce the actual number of seats available to students with disabilities. The Delhi High Court recognised that such practices undermine both the purpose and the guarantee of the RPwD Act.
A key strength of the judgment is its emphasis that the requirement of “not less than 5%” reservation must be implemented in substance and not merely in form.
The ruling also reinforces that disability reservation is not a matter of administrative convenience. Universities cannot rely on internal departmental structures or technical formulas to reduce opportunities available to persons with disabilities.
Importantly, the judgment situates disability reservation within the broader constitutional framework of equality, dignity and inclusion. Reservation under the RPwD Act is not simply a welfare measure but an enforceable right intended to address historical exclusion from educational spaces.
The case additionally highlights a continuing implementation gap in higher education institutions where statutory reservation exists formally but is weakened in practice through restrictive admission systems and fragmented seat allocation methods.
Overall, the decision remains an important precedent affirming that the full 5% disability reservation mandated under the RPwD Act must be meaningfully implemented and cannot be diluted through administrative practices.
Read the judgement below: