Kerala High Court: Employee with a Disability Can’t Be Penalised for Inaccessible Workplace

Court: Kerala High Court
Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John
Case No.: OP (KAT) 51/ 2025  [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:36153] 
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v T. Rajeev
Date of Judgement: 26 May 2025

Brief Summary

In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace, the Kerala High Court has observed that a government employee with disabilities cannot be penalized for the State’s failure to provide accessible infrastructure. The judgment in State of Kerala & Ors v. T. Rajeev [OP (KAT) 51/2025] underscores the legal obligation of the State under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) to make public buildings accessible and to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities.

Case Background

T. Rajeev, who has a 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis, was working as a Senior Grade Typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. His office, however, was located on the upper floor of a building without lift access, making it inaccessible to him. Faced with this physical barrier, Rajeev sought an inter-departmental transfer to the Irrigation Department’s Thalappilly Subdivision office, which was on the ground floor of the same building. He also requested that his pay be protected, despite being transferred to a lower designation (LD Typist).

After several rounds of litigation, the State Government finally agreed to the transfer — but demoted his pay to that of an LD Typist. Aggrieved, Rajeev once again approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which ruled in his favor, stating that he should be paid as a Senior Grade Typist and that the denial of pay protection violated the RPwD Act. The State then challenged this order before the High Court.

Key Observations by the High Court

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John dismissed the State’s appeal, issuing a strong rebuke to the Government for failing in its legal obligations. The Court emphasized that:

“It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the infrastructural facilities in public places are accessible to the differently abled persons. … If any public place remains inaccessible to differently abled persons, the failure cannot be construed to their detriment.”

The Court relied on the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly:

• Section 3 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,
• Section 20 – Prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates reasonable accommodation,
• Section 45 – Mandates that public buildings be made accessible within a stipulated timeline.

A Crucial Principle: No Punishment for Seeking Access

The Court was unequivocal in stating that a person with a disability cannot be punished for the Government’s infrastructural failures. In fact, it acknowledged that Rajeev had himself proposed a workable solution — a transfer to an accessible location — which the State should have supported with pay protection, not penalized.

The Bench also held that:

• If the Government refuses to protect the pay, it must repatriate Rajeev back to the Motor Vehicle Department and assign him duties compatible with his physical abilities.
• Under no circumstance should he be required to climb stairs to access his workplace.
• The State was directed to pay him the salary of a Senior Grade Typist until his repatriation and to issue appropriate orders within a month.

A Broader Message to Public Authorities

This ruling is a wake-up call to public authorities across India. It affirms that the onus of creating accessible environments lies firmly with the Government, and employees with disabilities cannot be made scapegoats for systemic failures.

It also demonstrates how courts are increasingly willing to interpret disability rights laws in favor of substantive equality, aligning with the spirit of the RPwD Act, the UNCRPD, and the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equal opportunity.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces a fundamental truth: accessibility is not a favour—it is a right. And when the State fails in ensuring this right, it must bear the consequences, not the person with a disability. Through this decision, the Kerala High Court has not only upheld the dignity of one employee, but also set a precedent that could empower thousands of others navigating inaccessible workspaces.

Read the judgement

 

For more such case analyses and updates on disability jurisprudence, follow our blog: Disability Rights through Courts.

Supreme Court of India Upholds the Right to Accessible Footpaths as a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Number: IA No. 50798 OF 2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.  295/2012
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: 14 May 2025

Cases Referred: 

• Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors  (1985) 3 SCC 545
• Bombay HC in High Court on its own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21221
• Karnataka HC in the case of D.S. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore & Ors  2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12223

Brief:

In a historic development for pedestrian safety and disability rights in India, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty. This judgment, rooted in constitutional guarantees and grounded in empathy for the lived realities of persons with disabilities (PwDs), marks a significant leap forward in the recognition of accessible urban infrastructure as a legal and human right.

The Background

The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest matter that raised critical concerns about the lack of proper footpaths, rampant encroachments, and the resulting safety hazards to pedestrians — especially those with disabilities. The Court acknowledged the urgent and widespread nature of the problem, noting that without accessible and continuous footpaths, pedestrians are effectively forced onto the streets, putting their lives at constant risk.

Key Observations and Findings

The Bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, made a series of pointed observations that reflect both the legal urgency and the human costs of inaccessibility:

• "Right to have unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court unequivocally stated.
• The safety of pedestrians is not a luxury, but a constitutional obligation of the state.
• The absence of accessible footpaths disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, older persons, and others who rely on mobility aids.

Supreme Court's Directions

The Court issued a set of sweeping directions to ensure nationwide compliance and structural reforms:

1. Mandatory Accessibility: Footpaths must be designed and maintained to be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

2. Encroachment Removal: All encroachments from footpaths must be removed without exception.

3. Universal Footway Standards: Every public road must have proper, inclusive footpaths or walkways.

4. Policy Mandate: All States and Union Territories must evolve and implement policies for the construction, maintenance, and protection of accessible footpaths.

5. Compliance Timeline:

• States and UTs must frame guidelines in line with those issued by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and DS Ramchandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police.
• The Union of India is directed to place on record existing or new national guidelines within two months.
• The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 1st August 2025, to review compliance.

Relevance of the Bombay High Court Model

The Supreme Court emphasized that States should refer to the Bombay High Court’s earlier directions, which already set a progressive precedent on footpath design, accessibility, and encroachment-free pedestrian zones. This reinforces the principle that access to infrastructure must be inclusive by design, not adjusted retroactively.

A Constitutional and Human Rights Milestone

This judgment is not merely about footpaths. It is a profound reiteration that urban design and infrastructure planning are constitutional issues. For persons with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure is not an amenity; it is a prerequisite for dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.

The Supreme Court’s order stands as a powerful reminder that accessibility is not optional — it is a mandated right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment sets the stage for a nationwide shift in how cities and towns approach pedestrian infrastructure to ensure accessible and dignified mobility for all people with disabilities.

Next Steps for Advocates and Stakeholders

• Monitor Compliance: Civil society organizations, disability rights groups, and urban planners must actively engage with State governments to ensure meaningful implementation.
• Participate in Policy Making: Stakeholders must demand participation in the framing of guidelines to reflect diverse accessibility needs.
• Use as Precedent: This order provides strong judicial backing to challenge inaccessible infrastructure in any city or district.

Taking note of standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress and other authorities, the Court directed: All State Governments and Union Territories shall frame guidelines in line with the High Court directions and file compliance reports within two months. The Union of India shall also place on record the policy/guidelines issued for protecting the rights of pedestrians within two months. 

As we approach the next hearing on 01 August 2025, this judgment offers a foundation to push for inclusive, safe, and equitable urban mobility — not just as a policy goal, but as a constitutional promise.

Read the Order dated  14 May 2025 above.

Supreme Court issues directions to make the process of Digital KYC accessible for persons With disabilities, declares it an integral part of fundamental right under Article 21.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 & W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

Case Title: Pragya Prasun v. Union of India & Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 30 April 2025

Published on: May 1, 2025
By: Disability Rights India Team

Brief

In a historic and far-reaching judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to digital access is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent-setting decision is a major milestone in the struggle for disability rights in India, specifically addressing the systemic digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements.

The judgment was delivered in two writ petitions:
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025  —filed by advocates and disability rights activists seeking digital accessibility in the e-KYC process for individuals with blindness and acid attack survivors.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued 20 binding directions that mark a significant overhaul of the digital architecture for service delivery, with inclusivity and accessibility at the center.

Here are some of the landmark directives:

Digital KYC Must Be Inclusive

• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) must issue new guidelines that incorporate alternative methods to verify "liveness" or live photographs, moving beyond the default “blinking of eyes” method.
• Entities must now accept thumb impressions as valid authentication for visually impaired users during the e-KYC process.

Right to Reasonable Accommodation

• All reporting entities (REs), whether public or private, are directed to adhere to accessibility standards, appoint digital accessibility nodal officers, and undergo periodic audits by certified professionals.
• All apps, websites, and platforms must involve persons with visual impairments in user acceptance testing for any new digital service.

Mandatory Accessibility for Government and Private Services

• All government websites and digital services must comply with Section 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates both electronic and print media be accessible.
• WCAG 2.1 and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) are now mandatory for all government platforms.

Communication and Service Delivery

• Public services must provide information in alternative formats—including Braille, easy-to-read formats, and audio-described content.
• Helplines, grievance redressal mechanisms, and human review of rejected KYC applications must be set up for PwDs.

Sensitization and Training

• Disability awareness and inclusion modules must be part of training for employees of all regulated entities.
• RBI is directed to monitor implementation and regularly conduct public awareness campaigns about inclusive KYC processes.

A Game-Changer for Digital Equality

This judgment unequivocally affirms that access to digital services is no longer a privilege—but a constitutional right, especially for persons with disabilities who have been persistently sidelined in India’s digital revolution. The Court has not only addressed the how (mechanisms and guidelines) but also the why—the deep need to treat persons with disabilities as equal citizens entitled to dignity, convenience, and autonomy.

This move will have far-reaching consequences across all sectors—from banking and governance to education and healthcare. It is a wake-up call to both government and private entities that accessibility is not an afterthought—it is a non-negotiable obligation under the law.

Next Steps and Accountability

As disability rights advocates, it is now essential to monitor the implementation of these directions and hold entities accountable. Civil society must collaborate with regulators, tech developers, and service providers to translate these orders into practice on the ground.

The judgment reinforces the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and aligns with the Accessible India Campaign. It is now up to us—activists, organizations, and allies—to ensure that these rights are not just declared but delivered.

Download/Read the judgement 

All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case Title: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Case No.: Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1091-1092/2023

Date of Judgement: 03 April 2025

Brief

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle of equality for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court has ruled that prescribing different retirement ages based on the type of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that all benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) constitute a single homogenous class for the purposes of service-related benefits—and must be treated equally.

Case Background:

The case arose when Kashmiri Lal Sharma, an electrician with 60% locomotor disability, was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. However, under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013, employees with visual impairments were permitted to serve up to 60 years of age. Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the appellant challenged the policy as arbitrary and discriminatory, invoking both the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

After unsuccessful representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled in the appellant’s favour. The Court struck down the impugned policy, declaring that prescribing different retirement ages solely based on the nature of disability lacks any rational basis and violates Article 14.

“There is no intelligible differentia to justify extending the retirement age benefit to only one category of benchmark disability while denying it to others. Such discrimination is arbitrary,” the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that all benchmark disabilities listed under the 1995 and 2016 disability laws must receive uniform service benefits, including retirement age.

Reference to Precedent:

The Bench relied on its earlier approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which also upheld the principle of parity in service benefits across all recognized disability categories.

Relief Granted:

While the State had later withdrawn the 2013 OM on November 4, 2019, the Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to continue in service until that withdrawal. As a result, the Court ruled:

“The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. He is also entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, along with all consequential benefits impacting his pension.”

The Court thus partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision dated 28.07.2021, which had earlier upheld the retirement.

Significance:

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory mandate of non-discrimination in employment policies affecting persons with disabilities. It sends a strong message that disability-based classifications in service benefits must meet the test of reasonableness and equality.

The decision underscores the spirit of the RPwD Act, which aims to ensure equal opportunity, protection of rights, and full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life—including public employment.

Read the Judgement

Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Supreme Court Upholds Equal Access to Judicial Services for Persons with Disabilities [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Title:  Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vs. The Registrar General , The High Court of Madhya Pradesh  (Suo-Motu)

Case No.: SMW(C) No. 2/2024  (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) by holding that no candidate can be denied consideration for judicial service recruitment solely due to their disability. The ruling strikes down discriminatory provisions and upholds the principles of equality and affirmative action enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

The judgment is a significant milestone in the journey toward an inclusive and equitable judicial system. The Supreme Court explicitly held that persons with disabilities must not face discrimination while seeking employment in the judiciary and that the state is responsible for ensuring an inclusive framework. The Court emphasized that any indirect discrimination—such as unreasonable cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be removed to uphold substantive equality.

By striking down a provision in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service, the Court has sent a strong message against systemic exclusion. The ruling makes it clear that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in the selection process for judicial positions.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which disqualified visually impaired candidates.

• Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as a three-year practice period or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks, was also struck down to the extent that it discriminated against PWD candidates.

• The Court held that reasonable accommodations must be provided to PWD candidates during the recruitment process, in line with the RPwD Act, 2016.

• The judgment extends relief to PWD candidates in Rajasthan who were denied a separate cutoff in the Rajasthan Judicial Service preliminary exams, ensuring they will be considered in future recruitments.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the exclusion of her son from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court subsequently issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue gained prominence after the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the RPwD Act. Interim measures were taken by the Court to ensure participation of visually impaired aspirants, but their selection was made subject to the final outcome of the case.

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

The judgment underscores a rights-based approach to disability inclusion in the judiciary. It affirms that disability is not a limitation but a social barrier that must be addressed through reasonable accommodations and affirmative action. The Court recognized that once recruited, judicial officers with disabilities must be provided the necessary training and support to discharge their duties effectively.

The ruling aligns with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation for PWDs in government jobs, including judicial positions. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, already provide for a 6% reservation in state services, further reinforcing the need for compliance with disability rights legislation.

Implications for the Future 

The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a crucial precedent for other states and institutions in India. It reaffirms that arbitrary barriers preventing PWDs from equal participation in public service must be dismantled. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities.

For aspiring judges with disabilities, this ruling is a ray of hope. It not only paves the way for their rightful inclusion in the legal profession but also strengthens the foundation of a truly representative and diverse judiciary.

This judgment is a reminder that the fight for disability rights is far from over, but each legal victory brings us closer to a more inclusive society.

Judgement

Read the Judgement below:

Indian Supreme Court expands Access to Scribes in Examinations for All Persons with disabilities who need it, Benchmark threshold not a pre-requisite [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Date of Judgement: 03 February  2025

Background

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) by allowing all disabled candidates to use scribes for writing exams, regardless of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by a candidate diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a chronic neurological condition, who was denied the facility of a scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner had a 25% permanent disability, certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore. Despite this, recruitment bodies refused him the accommodations typically granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). He challenged the restrictive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which failed to ensure reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities below the 40% benchmark.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court emphasized that restricting scribe facilities to only those with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The ruling referenced several landmark judgments, including:

• Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) – Held that denying a scribe to candidates below the benchmark disability threshold was discriminatory.

• Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021) – Reinforced the importance of reasonable accommodation in examinations.

• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) – Strengthened the principle of equality in educational assessments.

The Court also considered international precedents, such as Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, which advocate for inclusive policies ensuring equal access to education and employment opportunities for disabled individuals.

Key Directives from the Supreme Court

To address inconsistencies in examination accommodations, the Court issued the following directives to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:

1. Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.

2. Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.

3. Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.

4. Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.

5. Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.

6. Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.

7. Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.

8. Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.

9. Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.

10. Penalize non-compliance – Take strict action against examination bodies that fail to implement the prescribed guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant victory for disability rights in India. By extending scribe accommodations to all disabled candidates, the ruling ensures greater inclusivity and fairer opportunities in competitive examinations. This judgment reinforces the core principles of the RPwD Act, 2016, and underscores the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation as a legal and ethical obligation.

Read the Judgement

Madras High Court Upholds Rights of Policeman Acquiring Disability, Orders Reinstatement

Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench

Bench: Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Case No. W.P.(MD)No. 26560 of 2024

Case title: Ganesan   Vs. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Force

Date of Judgement: 07 January 2025

Brief Summary

In a landmark judgment reinforcing disability rights in India, the Madras High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a visually impaired policeman who acquired his disability during service. Justice R. Vijayakumar, presiding over the Single-Judge Bench, ruled that the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force Nayak, discharged from service on medical grounds, must be reinstated with alternative employment and pay protection, as mandated by Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Case Background

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Police Constable in 2010, sustained severe injuries to his head and eyes during election duty. Following the accident, his vision deteriorated, prompting his reassignment to light duty, which he performed for a decade. Despite his promotion to Nayak, a Medical Board later declared him completely unfit for service, leading to his discharge and eviction from government quarters.

Court’s Observations

The Bench noted that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act prohibits the termination of employees who acquire disabilities during service and mandates their reassignment to suitable roles. The Police Department failed to provide evidence of exemption from this provision. The Court emphasized that the law applies to uniformed services, and the petitioner must be offered alternative employment with pay protection.

Judgment

The Court quashed the discharge order and directed the Police Department to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, pay protection, and an alternative light-duty role.

This judgment underscores the commitment of Indian courts to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities, ensuring dignity, equal opportunity, and protection under the law.

Read or Download judgement: Ganesan v. The Commandant (W.P.(MD) No. 26560 of 2024)