Supreme Court seeks Centre's resonse to a plea which sougth quanum of assistance to PwDs 25% higher than those given to others as per section 24(1)

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a plea which sought that quantum of assistance to persons with disabilities should be 25 per cent higher than those given to others under similar social welfare schemes.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the apex court in the matter.

The top court noted the petitioner has relied on the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Section 24 of the 2016 Act deals with social security and section 24 (1) says, "The appropriate government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community: provided that the quantum of assistance to the persons with disabilities under such schemes and programmes shall be at least 25 per cent higher than the similar schemes applicable to others." Jayant Singh Raghav, president of the organisation, told the bench that proviso to section 24 (1) of the Act provides that quantum to be provided to the persons with disabilities needs to be 25 per cent additional to the others under similar social welfare schemes.

"Which are the schemes in respect of which you are claiming a 25 per cent enhancement," the bench asked.

Raghav referred to the disability pension given by different states.

"Presently, instead of issuing notice to all the states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what the Union Government has to say," the bench said.

Source: Unedited stroy from syndicate feeds

Accessibility in residential societies remains a matter of concern; petitioner, a blind person litigates to seek justice.

Court: Delhi High Court 

Bench: Hon'ble Justice V. KAMESWAR RAO,  Hon'ble Justice ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Case No.: WP (Civil) No. 7642/2022

Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, & Ors.

Next Date of Hearing: 06/10/2023

Case Brief:

The petitioner Jayant Singh Raghav, is a person with a disability has raised this litigation alleging rights infringement of individuals with disabilities in accessing suitable facilities within residential communities against the Chandanwari Society (a residential housing society) with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as the resondents. 

The petitioner emphasizes what he perceives as a violation of the rights of persons with disabilities to access appropriate facilities within residential communities. He contends that the environment lacks provisions tailored to his specific needs, obstructs equal opportunities, and disrupts harmonious communal living.

In response, the Chandanwari Society, represented by the respondents, counters these claims by asserting their consistent efforts to ensure unimpeded accessibility for the petitioner. The Society argues that it has taken substantial measures to establish a barrier-free environment within the apartment complex.

Before approaching the high court, petitioner had lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of NCT of Delhi, citing the society's perceived inaction. The complaint pointed out a violation of Rule-15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule, 2017. A subsequent directive highlighted shortcomings and mandated rectifications. However, the complaint was closed without comprehensive justification by passing an order.

Unsatisfied with the complaint's closure, the petitioner turned to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds for the petition include alleged breaches of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about non-compliance with the "Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons" 2016.

Differing viewpoints emerged regarding the application of the Unified Bye-Laws where the petitioner contends that the society's layout and infrastructure do not conform to the Unified Bye-Laws, 2016. However, the respondents assert that the apartment complex was constructed under the Unified Bye-Laws, 1983, making substantial reconstruction impractical after 33 years. Despite this, the respondents assert their ongoing commitment to enhance accessibility within existing structural constraints.

Mr. Raghav is critical of the changes implemented by the society, suggesting that they are cosmetic and, in some cases, potentially hazardous to disabled individuals. He expresses concerns over the safety and effectiveness of the alterations, arguing that hurried modifications might inadvertently lead to harm.

Throughout the legal process, the petitioner filed various ancillary applications alongside the primary writ petition, including inter-locutary application, early hearing application, and urgent application.

The petitioner further claims that the modifications initiated by the respondents are confined to Tower-3 of the society, where he resides. However, he contends that the issue extends beyond his personal access to encompass the entire society. He emphasizes that the concern is not solely about Common area accessibility of the block where the petitioner resides but pertains to the community's overall inclusion.

In conclusion, the case underscores the intricate interplay between an individual with disabilities striving for equitable access and a residential society working within practical limitations to achieve accessibility standards. The legal journey encompasses a range of stages, from pre-court complaints to constitutional writ petitions, highlighting the petitioner's pursuit of enforcing rights. Consequently, the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before The Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking an expedited grant of the interim relief as prayed for.

Forced to climb staircase at the theatre, disabled man files complaint in consumer forum citing lack of accessibility, theatre directed to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation

Dear colleagues,

An inaccessible cinema theatre, which had neither elevators nor ramps despite the provisions of RPWD Act 2016 mandating accessibility in public spaces, and made a person with a disability climb the staircase to watch actor Udhayanidhi's 'Nenjukku Neethi' movie, has been asked to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the aggrieved person. 

The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed the order based on a complaint from S Sureshkumar of Kundrathur. He complained that he went to Gokulam Cinemas in Poonamallee to watch 'Nenjukku Neethi' in May 2022, but realised on entering the premises that the screen was on the second floor, and yet it had no lifts or ramps. 

The theatre employees told Suresh that he had to climb the staircase due to which he suffered severe leg pain the same day, said Suresh, who has locomotor disability of 60%. He alleged that Gokulam Cinemas had violated Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by not providing lifts or ramps in the newly built complex and the district collector too was at fault for having issued licence to the theatre hall without proper inspection as required under section 44 of the Act of 2016.

In response, Gokulam Cinemas said Suresh was not on their premises on the said date to watch the movie and he was trying to mislead the court with a ticket borrowed from another person. Counsel for the theatre argued that work to install lifts could not be completed due to Covid-19 pandemic. 

The forum rejected the management's argument, saying: "The contention could not be entertained as Covid-19 effects came to an end two years ago." It directed the theatre to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused, and another ₹10,000 towards Suresh's litigation expenses. The Thiruvallur district collector has been directed to take necessary action against the theatre within four weeks.

More such cases are on the anvil as the timelines for implementing mandatory accessibility is over. Those who have been sleeping over the accessibiltiy mandate are waking up to such music.  Its high time that the establishments must get their buildings and services access audited and take remedial action. Its better late than never!

Supreme Court Restores Full Pension Benefits to Army Veteran: Refusal to Undergo High-Risk Surgery Cannot Curtail Disability Pension

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Case Title: Ex L/Nk Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 420 of 2020
Decided on: 12 September 2023

Background

In an important judgment strengthening disability pension jurisprudence for armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court held that a soldier cannot be denied or deprived of disability pension merely because he declined to undergo a life-threatening surgical procedure.

The appellant, an Ex-Lance Naik of the Indian Army, rendered 15 years of exemplary service before being discharged in 1987 after developing a serious cardiac condition diagnosed as Complete Heart Block (4–6). The Medical Board assessed his disability at 100% and placed him in a permanent low medical category. Subsequently, a pacemaker was implanted, and he sought reassessment of his disability pension. While the Armed Forces Tribunal held that he was entitled to disability pension, it restricted the benefit to one year. Aggrieved by this limitation, he approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered:

• Whether disability pension could be restricted to one year despite the Medical Board recording a permanent disability.
• Whether refusal to undergo a risky surgical procedure could justify limiting disability pension.
• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal had correctly applied Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

Key Findings

1) Refusal of Surgery Is Not Misconduct

The Court noted that the Medical Board itself had recorded that the appellant's disability was not attributable to any misconduct or negligence on his part and that his military record was exemplary.

The only circumstance that appeared to have weighed against him was his unwillingness to undergo surgery, which, at the relevant time, carried life-threatening risks. The Supreme Court found no justification for treating this refusal as a ground to curtail his pensionary entitlement.

2) Permanent Disability Cannot Attract Temporary Pension Without Reasons

The Bench observed that the appellant had been discharged because of permanent disablement. In such circumstances, the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to confine disability pension to one year was found to be illogical and unsupported by reasons.

3) Rule 185 Must Be Followed

The Court relied on Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which provides that where a disability is certified as incapable of improvement, disability pension should ordinarily be sanctioned for ten years in the first instance, followed by reassessment. Only in specified permanent conditions is life-long disability pension granted immediately.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had either overlooked or failed to apply this statutory scheme while limiting the benefit to one year.

Directions

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's direction restricting disability pension to one year;
• directed that disability pension be granted in accordance with Rule 185 for ten years, subject to reassessment thereafter;
• directed payment of arrears restricted to three years prior to the filing of proceedings before the Tribunal, together with future disability pension in accordance with the Rules.

Why This Judgment Matters

a) Protects Bodily Autonomy

The decision reinforces the principle that a service member cannot be compelled—directly or indirectly—to undergo hazardous medical treatment in order to preserve pensionary rights. A refusal to undertake risky surgery cannot by itself become a basis for reducing disability benefits.

b) Ensures Faithful Application of Pension Regulations

The judgment reiterates that adjudicating authorities must apply the Pension Regulations as they stand. Departure from the statutory scheme requires cogent reasons, particularly where the disability has been assessed as permanent.

c) Strengthens Disability Pension Jurisprudence

The ruling adds to the growing body of Supreme Court decisions adopting a liberal and rights-based interpretation of disability pension provisions for armed forces personnel.

DRI Commentary

Although brief, the judgment underscores two important principles in disability rights and military pension law.

First, medical autonomy is an integral component of dignity. An individual cannot be penalised for declining a surgical intervention, particularly where the procedure carries significant risks. Pension entitlements cannot be made contingent upon acceptance of invasive medical treatment.

Secondly, the judgment reinforces the rule of law in disability pension adjudication. Once the Medical Board records permanent disability and there is no finding of misconduct or negligence, adjudicatory bodies cannot arbitrarily restrict pensionary benefits contrary to the governing Pension Regulations.

While the Supreme Court did not direct life-long disability pension, it ensured that the appellant received the benefit contemplated under Rule 185 and prevented an unjustified curtailment of his statutory entitlement.

The decision serves as another reminder that disability pension is a legal right flowing from service and sacrifice—not a discretionary concession dependent upon medical choices made by the disabled veteran.

Read the Judgement

Fair Selection in Para-Sports: Delhi High Court Reinforces Transparency and Equal Opportunity in National Badminton Selection

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case No.: W.P.(C) 9638/2023
Case Title: Alphia James v. Badminton Association of India and Ors.
Decided on: 7 September 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6115

Background

The petitioner, Alphia James, a para-badminton athlete, approached the Delhi High Court challenging the decision of the Badminton Association of India (BAI) concerning her exclusion from participation in an international para-badminton event. The petitioner contended that despite fulfilling the eligibility requirements and possessing the requisite sporting credentials, she was denied fair consideration during the selection process.

The grievance primarily revolved around the lack of transparency in the manner in which the selection criteria were applied and the failure of the authorities to provide adequate reasons for excluding her from the national contingent. The petitioner argued that the arbitrary selection process infringed her constitutional right to equality and fair treatment, particularly in the context of disability sports where equal opportunity forms the cornerstone of sporting governance.

The respondents submitted that the selection had been undertaken by the duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the applicable regulations and technical parameters governing international para-badminton competitions. They further argued that courts ordinarily ought not to interfere with decisions involving sporting expertise.

The Delhi High Court was therefore called upon to examine whether the selection process satisfied the standards of fairness, transparency, and procedural propriety expected from a national sports federation.

Issues Before the Court

The principal issues before the Court were:

1. Whether the selection process adopted by the Badminton Association of India was fair, transparent, and consistent with the applicable selection criteria.
2. Whether the petitioner's exclusion from the national contingent was arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the High Court could exercise judicial review over decisions taken by sports federations concerning athlete selection.
4. Whether interim judicial intervention was warranted to protect the petitioner's sporting rights.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court reiterated that while sports federations possess autonomy in matters involving technical assessment and athlete selection, such autonomy does not place them beyond constitutional scrutiny. Whenever a sports body performs a public function affecting the rights and careers of athletes, its decisions must satisfy the standards of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness.

The Court observed that athletes dedicate years of rigorous training with the legitimate expectation that selections will be conducted strictly in accordance with predetermined and objectively applied criteria. Any departure from such standards without adequate justification undermines public confidence in sports administration.

The Court further emphasized that para-athletes are entitled to equal treatment and equal opportunity in national and international sporting events. Administrative decisions affecting their participation must therefore be reasoned, objective, and free from discrimination.

Recognizing the limited scope of judicial review in matters of sporting expertise, the Court nevertheless held that it remains empowered to examine whether the decision-making process itself suffers from arbitrariness, procedural unfairness, or violation of constitutional principles.

Directions Issued by the Court

Considering the urgency arising from the impending international competition, the Delhi High Court directed the concerned authorities to appropriately examine the petitioner's grievance in accordance with the applicable rules and selection criteria.

The Court ensured that the petitioner's claim received fair and objective consideration and emphasized that any decision affecting her participation must be based upon transparent and legally sustainable reasons.

The Court also reiterated the obligation of national sports federations to maintain fairness and procedural integrity while selecting athletes to represent the country.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is significant for strengthening judicial oversight over administrative decision-making in disability sports without undermining the technical autonomy of sports federations.

It reinforces that sports bodies discharging public functions must act consistently with constitutional values of equality, transparency, and procedural fairness. The decision recognizes that athletes' careers and international opportunities cannot depend upon opaque or arbitrary administrative practices.

For para-athletes, the judgment affirms that equal participation in sports includes the right to a fair selection process governed by objective and consistently applied standards.

The ruling also contributes to the growing body of disability rights jurisprudence by recognizing sporting participation as an important component of equality, dignity, and inclusion.

Commentary

The decision in Alphia James v. Badminton Association of India highlights the judiciary's evolving role in ensuring accountability within sports governance, particularly in disability sports. While courts continue to respect the expertise of selection committees, they remain vigilant against arbitrary administrative action that compromises fairness or equal opportunity.

The judgment underscores that transparency is indispensable in national athlete selection. Clearly communicated eligibility norms, reasoned decisions, and consistent application of selection criteria not only protect athletes' rights but also strengthen institutional credibility.

As India continues to emerge as a leading force in para-sports, this judgment serves as a timely reminder that excellence in sporting performance must be matched by excellence in governance. National sports federations must ensure that every athlete, especially athletes with disabilities, receives a fair, transparent, and constitutionally compliant opportunity to represent the nation.

Read the Judgement

Alphia James v. Badminton Association of India and Ors.