Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Case: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (C) No. 243 of 2005 (along with connected matters)
Order Date: 29 July 2026
Statutory Provisions Involved
|
Provision |
Subject |
Relevance in this Order |
|
Section
74, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 |
Appointment
of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and Additional
Commissioners |
The
Supreme Court directed the Union Government to appoint the Chief Commissioner
and two Additional Commissioners within four weeks in accordance with
this provision. |
|
Section
79, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 |
Appointment
of State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities |
The
Court directed ten States/UTs to appoint State Commissioners within four
weeks and clarified that the appointments must be made with independent
charge, not as an additional charge. |
|
Section
89, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 |
Punishment
for contravention of the Act, Rules or Regulations |
The
Court noted the absence of an effective mechanism for recovery of penalties
under this provision and urged the Union Government to address this while finalising
the Rules. |
|
Rule
30, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 |
Qualifications
and eligibility for appointment of the Chief Commissioner |
The
Court specifically referred to Rule 30 and reminded the Union Government that
a serving Government officer must retire from service before appointment as
Chief Commissioner, thereby reinforcing the independence of the office. |
Background
More than three years after the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to appoint independent Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities by 31 August 2023, the issue has once again come before the Court owing to continued non-compliance by several Governments. In its order dated 17 July 2023 in Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had recognised that Commissioners perform crucial statutory functions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and directed all defaulting States and Union Territories to make appointments within a fixed timeline. Despite those directions, vacancies have continued in several jurisdictions, while the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has also remained without a regular incumbent since 2019.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court, while monitoring implementation of its landmark accessibility judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, has once again intervened to strengthen the institutional framework under the RPwD Act. By its order dated 29 July 2026, the Court directed ten States and Union Territories to appoint independent State Commissioners within four weeks, directed the Union Government to appoint the Chief Commissioner and two Additional Commissioners within the same period, and issued further directions concerning the finalisation of accessibility rules and enforcement of the Act.
The matter has remained under continuous monitoring to ensure effective implementation of the judgment. Earlier, by an order dated 11 February 2026, the Court had sought detailed status reports from the Union Government regarding progress made in framing the new accessibility framework.
When the matter was taken up on 29 July 2026, the Court considered the latest status report filed by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and issued several important directions concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act. The order addresses three significant issues: the appointment of statutory disability commissioners, progress in framing accessibility rules, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms under the Act.
Accessibility Rules Under the RPwD Act
The Union Government informed the Court that substantial progress had been made in framing the new accessibility rules pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment.
According to the status report placed before the Court:
- the draft notification relating to the built environment is ready for final notification;
- draft rules relating to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have already been published; and
- a draft report relating to assistive technologies, services and products has also been prepared.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that before the draft rules are finalised and notified, the suggestions already submitted by disability organisations and domain experts should be meaningfully considered so that no deficiencies remain in the final framework.
Accepting this submission, the Court observed that there should be no difficulty in ensuring that the Rules effectively fulfil the objectives of the RPwD Act. Noting that several stakeholders had already submitted detailed suggestions before the committees constituted by the Ministry, the Court urged the Union Government to carefully examine those recommendations before finalising the Rules.
The Bench observed that once the Rules are notified, shortcomings should not subsequently emerge that could have been addressed during the drafting stage itself.
The Court further requested the learned Additional Solicitors General to provide copies of the latest status report along with the draft Rules to all stakeholders so that they may examine the proposals and submit their responses at the earliest.
Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Independent State Commissioners
One of the most important aspects of the order concerns the continued absence of State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in several States and Union Territories.
During the hearing, Advocate Rahul Bajaj pointed out that despite the statutory requirement contained in Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, several States had still not appointed State Commissioners. It was submitted that these authorities perform a crucial role in ensuring effective implementation of the Act and in providing an institutional mechanism for grievance redressal and monitoring compliance.
The Court recorded that the following States and Union Territories had not appointed State Commissioners:
- Delhi
- Haryana
- Rajasthan
- Himachal Pradesh
- Karnataka
- Tamil Nadu
- Sikkim
- Nagaland
- Puducherry
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed all these Governments to appoint State Commissioners within four weeks in accordance with Section 79 of the RPwD Act. The Court made it clear that the direction must be strictly complied with, observing that any laxity would be viewed "very strictly".
Commissioner Must Hold Independent Charge
The Court also clarified an important aspect that has frequently arisen in disability governance.
Many States have, in the past, assigned the office of State Commissioner to serving officers as an additional charge, rather than appointing an independent statutory authority.
The Supreme Court expressly disapproved this practice and clarified:
"The State concerned shall appoint the Commissioner with an independent charge. The State should not appoint anyone as a Commissioner holding additional charge."
This clarification reinforces the independent character of the statutory office created under the RPwD Act.
Appointment of Chief Commissioner and Additional Commissioners
The Court also considered submissions regarding the prolonged vacancy in the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). It was pointed out that since 2019 there has been no full-time Chief Commissioner, with the Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, functioning only as an officer holding additional charge.
Reference was made to Section 74 of the RPwD Act and Rule 30 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which contemplate appointment of an independent Chief Commissioner and provide that a serving Government officer must retire from Government service before assuming the office.
Accepting these submissions, the Court directed the Union Government to complete the appointment of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities; and two Additional Commissioners, within four weeks, in accordance with Section 74 of the RPwD Act. The Court also specifically invited the attention of the Union Government to Rule 30 while making these appointments.
Effective Recovery of Penalties Under Section 89
Another issue raised before the Court related to Section 89 of the RPwD Act, which prescribes penalties for contravention of the Act and the Rules.
Counsel submitted that although the Act provides for monetary penalties, it does not prescribe any effective mechanism for recovery of those fines, thereby limiting practical enforcement.
The Supreme Court requested the Union Government to consider incorporating an appropriate recovery mechanism while finalising the new Rules so that penalties under Section 89 can be effectively enforced.
Existing Accessibility Standards Continue to Apply
The Court also reiterated an important clarification contained in paragraph 83 of its judgment dated 8 November 2024.
The Bench noted the submission that while new accessibility standards are being framed, compliance with existing accessibility obligations must continue.
The Court reiterated that:
"progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue unabated."
This clarification is significant because it prevents authorities from postponing compliance on the ground that revised accessibility standards are under preparation.
Non-Negotiable Accessibility Norms to be Finalised Within Six Months
The Court directed that the issuance of the non-negotiable accessibility norms envisaged in the main judgment must be completed within six months. The matter has been directed to be listed on 20 January 2027 for reporting compliance with all directions issued by the Court.
Significance
The order strengthens the institutional framework established under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. For nearly seven years, the office of the Chief Commissioner has remained without a full-time incumbent, while several States have either failed to appoint State Commissioners altogether or have entrusted the office to officials holding additional charge. By directing appointments within a fixed time frame and expressly requiring independent charge, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that these statutory authorities are intended to function as independent oversight institutions rather than as additional responsibilities assigned to serving bureaucrats.
The order also ensures that the ongoing process of framing accessibility rules remains consultative and participatory by directing meaningful consideration of stakeholder inputs before final notification. At the same time, the Court has reiterated that existing accessibility obligations under the RPwD Act and the Accessible India Campaign remain fully enforceable until the new framework comes into force.
The proceedings will now continue on 20 January 2027, when the Supreme Court will examine compliance with these directions.