Disabled Employee Shifted to New Cadre cannot Claim Past Seniority: Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 47

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Bench: Justice M. W. Chandwani
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6535 of 2024
Case Title: Rameshwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 26 March 2026

In a significant ruling on the scope of service protections available to employees acquiring disability during service, the Bombay High Court has held that a disabled employee shifted to another post or cadre cannot claim seniority in the new cadre based on past service in the previous post. The bench ruled that while the law mandates the protection of pay and service benefits for those who acquire a disability during service, it does not grant them a "carried-forward" seniority that disrupts the existing hierarchy of their new cadre.

The Court clarified that while Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 safeguards continuity of employment, pay, and service benefits, it does not extend to disturbing the existing seniority structure of the cadre into which such an employee is absorbed.

Background

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician in 2002. After acquiring low vision in 2010, he sought reassignment to a suitable post. Pursuant to earlier court directions, he was absorbed in 2016 as an Extension Officer (Panchayat) with the same pay scale and service benefits.

At the time of absorption, he was placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the new cadre. Several years later, when a seniority list for promotion was published excluding his name, the petitioner challenged this placement, arguing that his past service since 2002 should be counted for determining seniority and eligibility for promotion.

Key Legal Issue

Whether a government employee who acquires disability during service and is shifted to another cadre under Section 47 can claim seniority in the new cadre based on past service in the previous post.

Court’s Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 47 of the 1995 Act and emphasized that the provision operates in two distinct spheres:

1. Protection against discharge or reduction in rank:
   An employee acquiring disability cannot be removed or demoted and must be accommodated in a suitable post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

2. Protection against denial of promotion solely on the ground of disability:
   Promotion cannot be denied merely due to disability, but this does not override other eligibility conditions.

The Court made a crucial distinction between:

• Reduction in rank (which is prohibited), and
• Reduction in seniority (which pertains to inter se placement within a cadre and affects promotional prospects).

It held that maintaining pay and service benefits does not automatically entail carry-forward of seniority into a different cadre.

Seniority vs. Protection Under Disability Law

The Court observed that allowing a transferred employee to retain seniority from a previous cadre would:

• Disrupt the settled seniority of existing employees in the new cadre,
• Lead to inequity and potential discrimination against those already serving in that cadre, and
• Go beyond the legislative intent of Section 47.

It emphasized that the law aims to protect the disabled employee without prejudicing the rights of others.

“…in the process of shifting a disabled employee… seniority of the employees who are already in that cadre… cannot be disturbed.”

Findings on Facts

On the facts of the case, the Court noted:

• The petitioner himself sought transfer to the new post.
• He accepted the condition of being placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the time of appointment.
• He raised the issue of seniority only after several years, when promotion opportunities arose.
• He did not meet the minimum qualifying service requirement (7 years) in the new cadre at the relevant time.
• His non-promotion was not on account of disability, but due to lack of eligibility and seniority.

Distinguishing Precedents

The petitioner had cited following two cases to support his case to argue that Section 47 is mandatory.:

1. Kunal Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 

The Difference: In Kunal Singh, the employer actually discharged (fired) the employee after he acquired a disability.

The Court's View: The Bombay High Court noted that the issue in Kunal Singh was the termination of service without applying Section 47 protections. In Rameshwar’s case, the Zilla Parishad did not try to fire him or reduce his rank; they actually absorbed him into a new post as requested.

2. The Sahib Singh Case (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

The petitioner also relied on Sahib Singh Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd., where a court allowed an employee shifted to a new post to keep his original seniority.

The Bombay HC's Critique: Justice Chandwani observed that the Sahib Singh ruling relied on Kunal Singh, but in his view, it misconstrued that Supreme Court decision.

Binding Precedent: Most importantly, the Bombay High Court pointed to its own Division Bench decision in Shyamkumar Vs. Union of India (2023). This ruling states that denial of promotion doesn't violate the Act if the employee doesn't meet the recruitment rules of the new cadre. As a "Nagpur Bench" decision, Shyamkumar is legally binding on this court, whereas the Punjab and Haryana ruling is not.

Conclusion

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that:

• Past service in a previous post cannot be counted for determining seniority in a new cadre after transfer or absorption under Section 47.
• The statutory protection ensures continuity of employment and benefits, but does not confer a right to retrospective seniority in a different cadre.
• Promotion claims must be assessed based on applicable service rules and eligibility criteria, not merely on disability status.

Significance

This judgment provides important clarity on the limits of protection under disability law in public employment. While reinforcing that employees acquiring disability must be protected from loss of employment and pay, the Court has balanced this with the rights of other employees by preserving the integrity of cadre-based seniority systems.

For disability rights advocates, this judgment underscores the importance of the "same pay scale and service benefits" mandate while acknowledging the administrative realities of cadre-based seniority. It confirms that while the law provides a safety net to prevent a disabled worker from losing their livelihood or status, it does not allow for a "leapfrog" over colleagues who have spent years building seniority in a specific department. Thus it underscores that disability rights in employment are protective, not preferential, and must operate within the broader framework of service jurisprudence. 

However, the Punjab and Haryana High  court Judgement in Sahib Singh vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., still stands which highlighted a critical legal stance that employees cannot be penalized with loss of seniority or benefits merely due to a change in, or adaptation of, their job roles because of acquired disability.  We believe, this analysis can be used against employees acquiring disabilities 

Read the Judgement here (PDF 115 KB)

Bipolar Disorder Without Benchmark Disability Not Enough to Invoke Transfer Protection: says Delhi High Court

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3022/2026
Case Title: Ms. Shalu Pruthi v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 25.03.2026

In a decision that sits at the intersection of service law and disability rights, the Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the transfer of a Kendriya Vidyalaya teacher who invoked Bipolar Affective Disorder as a ground for retention at a preferred station.

The Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding no infirmity in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s (KVS) decision to transfer the petitioner from Delhi to Babugarh Cantt. in the Agra region.

Background and Facts

The petitioner, a Primary Teacher appointed in 2009, had been serving in Delhi for over a decade. Her transfer traces back to the 2022 rationalisation exercise within KVS, which later became the subject matter of litigation culminating in proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to directions issued therein, teachers were invited to indicate preferred stations. The petitioner opted for Faridabad, Ghaziabad, and Noida. However, owing to non-availability of vacancies, she was posted to Babugarh Cantt., approximately 90 km from her first preference.

Challenging this, she relied primarily on her long-standing diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, contending that:

• she required continuous psychiatric care,
• family support was essential for stability, and
• the authorities failed to extend reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Tribunal’s View

The Tribunal had rejected her plea, holding that her case did not fall within the “Medical Disability Ground” (MDG) category under the KVS Transfer Policy dated 30.06.2023.

This policy recognises limited categories, including specified illnesses and “any other disease with more than 50% mental disability.”

High Court’s Findings

The High Court’s reasoning proceeds along three distinct lines:

1. Transfer is an Incident of Service

Reiterating settled service jurisprudence, the Court emphasised that:

• an employee cannot claim posting at a particular place as a matter of right,
• judicial review in transfer matters is narrow, confined to mala fides or statutory violation.

The Court relied on established precedents such as S.L. Abbas, S.C. Saxena, and Shilpi Bose, which consistently hold that administrative discretion in transfers must be respected unless clearly arbitrary.

2. Absence of Benchmark Disability Was Decisive

The core issue turned on whether the petitioner could bring herself within the protective framework of either:

• the KVS transfer policy, or
• the disability law regime.

The Court noted that while medical documents showed ongoing treatment, there was no certification indicating benchmark disability (i.e., the statutory threshold of 40% or more under the RPwD Act, and 50% mental disability under the policy).

This evidentiary gap proved fatal. The Court accepted the employer’s view that without such certification, the case could not be treated under the MDG category.

3. Reasonable Accommodation Cannot Be Claimed in the Abstract

The petitioner relied on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India and Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, both of which strongly affirm the principle of reasonable accommodation. 

However, the Court distinguished these precedents on facts.

Case Analysis: The “Benchmark” Barrier—Why the Delhi HC’s Ruling on Bipolar Disorder Fails the Mental Health Test

In a decision that highlights the cold friction between administrative policy and the fluid reality of mental health, the Delhi High Court upheld the transfer of a teacher struggling with Bipolar Affective Disorder. While this judgment aligns with rigid service law, it leaves a glaring void in the progressive interpretation of disability rights.

For the disability rights community, this isn't just about a transfer—it’s about the "quantification of suffering" and the invisible walls built by bureaucratic benchmarks. 

The Outcome: A "Mechanical" Dismissal

The Petitioner, Shalu Pruthi, has served as a Primary Teacher with the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) since February 2009. Having served in Delhi for over 12 years, she was caught in a rationalization exercise and transferred from Delhi to Babugarh Cantt., roughly 90 km from her preferred stations.

She challenged the move, citing a decade-long battle with Bipolar Affective Disorder that requires consistent psychiatric care and essential family support for stability. She argued that the authorities failed to provide reasonable accommodation as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The High Court dismissed the petition, leaning on two primary pillars:

• Transfer as an Incident of Service: An employee cannot claim a specific posting as a right, especially in a cadre with All India transfer liability.

• The Certification Gap: The KVS Transfer Policy (2023) recognizes medical grounds only for "specified illnesses" or "any other disease with more than 50% mental disability".

Deep Dive: Diverging from the Supreme Court

The Petitioner relied on two landmark Supreme Court rulings to argue for a sensitive, humane approach:

• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023): This case established that the Doctrine of Reasonable Accommodation is a fundamental component of equality. It mandates that the State adopt a sensitive approach to ensure administrative actions do not unfairly penalize employees for conditions beyond their control.
• Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2022): This ruling emphasized that disability rights must be interpreted in a purposive and rights-based manner, moving away from rigid or formalistic approaches.

Despite these powerful precedents, the High Court held that their application presupposes a "demonstrated legal entitlement". Because Pruthi’s medical records did not explicitly quantify her condition as 50% or more, the Court found no "benchmark disability" and refused to interfere.

Critique: Ignoring the Invisible Reality

This judgment exposes a harsh reality for those with mental health conditions: the quantification of suffering. By sticking strictly to the policy's percentages, the Court has signaled that "reasonable accommodation" has a high entry barrier—one that is fundamentally at odds with the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

1. The Stigma of Certification

The Court noted an "evidentiary gap" because the petitioner lacked a formal certificate. However, this ignores the severe stigma attached to mental illness. Many users are reluctant to seek "Benchmark Disability" certificates due to the social "labeling" that follows. Furthermore, there is a chronic shortage of professionals to assess mental illness, and the process often requires repeated, exhausting hospital visits.

2. The 40% vs. 50% Inconsistency

The RPwD Act recognizes "benchmark disability" at 40%. Yet, the KVS policy demands a 50% threshold for mental disability. The Court did not question this discrepancy or consider how a more restrictive internal policy might dilute the spirit of national disability law.

3. A Missed Opportunity for Writ Jurisdiction

Under its writ jurisdiction (Article 226), the Court had the power to order an independent medical assessment to determine the degree of disability. Instead of bridging this evidentiary gap, the Court chose a mechanical approach, rejecting the petition on technical grounds alone.

The Bottom Line: Need-Based, Not Score-Based

Reasonable Accommodation is defined as the necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure persons with disabilities can exercise their rights equally with others. By its very nature, it is need-specific, not just percentage-specific.

Bipolar Disorder can be debilitating and requires environmental stability long before it hits a "50% disability" score on a bureaucratic chart. This ruling highlights the urgent need for more nuanced policy frameworks—so that the promise of reasonable accommodation does not remain narrowly confined to those with the "right" paperwork.

Read the judgement (PDF 578 KB)

Reliance on Outdated Disability Classification Cannot Defeat Right to Employment: Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidates with SLD and Mental Illness

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 43728/2025
Case Title: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 232

In a significant ruling reinforcing the evolving framework of disability rights in public employment, the Supreme Court of India has held that candidates with benchmark disabilities such as Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and mental illness cannot be denied appointment on the basis of outdated identification lists of posts.

The judgment arose from a challenge to the denial of appointment to candidates who had successfully cleared the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Background

The dispute traces back to the recruitment process initiated in 2018. Candidates, including the appellant Sudhanshu Kardam and another candidate, Shri Amit Yadav, had qualified through all stages of the examination and were recommended for appointment under the Persons with Disabilities category.

However, their candidature was rejected by the CAG on the ground that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons with mental illness or Specific Learning Disability, relying on the 2013 identification list.

Aggrieved, the candidates relied upon the Gazette Notification dated 4 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which updated and expanded the list of identified posts to include these categories of disabilities.

Key Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court took note of the 2021 notification, which superseded the earlier 2013 list and expressly identified Group ‘C’ posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities including mental illness and SLD.

Relying on the affidavit filed by the CAG, the Court recorded that there was no longer any legal or administrative barrier to accommodating the candidates in suitable posts.

Importantly, the Court rejected the continued reliance on outdated classification systems, implicitly affirming that administrative inertia cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act.

Directions Issued

The Court issued the following operative directions:

• The Staff Selection Commission was directed to forward the dossiers of the candidates to the CAG within two weeks.

• Upon receipt, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India must consider them for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts.

• If the originally advertised vacancies from 2018 had already been filled, the authorities were directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the candidates.

• The appointments would take effect from the date of joining.

Significance

This ruling is important for several reasons:

1. Dynamic Interpretation of Disability Rights:
   The judgment underscores that identification of posts must reflect current statutory frameworks, particularly the expanded categories introduced under the RPwD Act, 2016.

2. Primacy of Updated Notifications:
   Authorities cannot rely on obsolete identification lists when a subsequent statutory notification has redefined suitability criteria.

3. Substantive Equality in Employment:
   By directing the creation of supernumerary posts, the Court ensured that procedural delays or administrative decisions do not deprive persons with disabilities of their rightful employment opportunities.

4. Recognition of Invisible Disabilities:
   The decision affirms the inclusion of less visible disabilities such as mental illness and Specific Learning Disability within mainstream public employment.

Commentary

The judgment is a clear message that the promise of reservation and inclusion under the RPwD Act cannot be diluted by outdated bureaucratic practices. It aligns with a rights-based approach where identification of posts is not a static exercise but one that must evolve with law and policy.

For disability rights jurisprudence, this decision strengthens the principle that eligibility once recognized by law must translate into actual access to employment, and that the State carries a positive obligation to remove institutional barriers—even if that requires creation of additional posts.

Read the Judgement (PDF 204 KB)

Accessibility in Residential Complexes is a Fundamental Right: Allahabad High Court

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan and Justice Atul Sreedharan
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5663 of 2026
Case Title: M/s SCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2026

In a progressive ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to accessibility is not limited to public infrastructure, but extends equally to residential complexes involving community living. This judgment strengthens the jurisprudence around disability rights by clearly situating accessibility within the framework of Article 21 (right to life and dignity) and Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that residential buildings with shared amenities—such as lifts, parking, pavements, playgrounds, community centres, and gyms—must be designed and maintained in a manner that ensures unhindered access for persons with disabilities (PwDs).

Background of the Case

The case arose from a dispute involving a homebuyer with 90% locomotor disability, who had been allotted a designated parking space in a residential project in Ghaziabad. Years later, the builder unilaterally divided the allotted parking space into two, allocating part of it to another buyer.

This alteration significantly affected the complainant’s ability to access the lift conveniently from the parking area, thereby undermining her independence and mobility within the residential complex.

Following a complaint, the authorities conducted a site inspection and found that the modification indeed created barriers. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ruled in favour of the complainant. The builder challenged this decision before the High Court.

Key Findings of the Court

1. Accessibility as a Fundamental Right in Residential Spaces

The Court relied on established precedent, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, to reiterate that accessibility is a fundamental right under Article 21. Importantly, it clarified that:

Accessibility is not confined to public spaces—it extends to “community living” environments, including private residential complexes.

This marks a crucial expansion in the interpretation of accessibility obligations in India.

2. Community Living Must Be Barrier-Free

Recognising the nature of modern urban housing, the Court held that common facilities in residential buildings must be fully accessible, including:

• Parking spaces

• Lifts

• Pathways and pavements

• Playgrounds

• Community centres

• Gymnasiums

Any obstruction or redesign that hampers access to these facilities—especially from critical points like parking to lifts—would amount to a violation of fundamental rights.

3. Builder’s Action Violated Accessibility Rights

The Court found that splitting the originally allotted parking space:

• Was done without the consent of the allottee

• Resulted in practical barriers to accessing the lift

• Could not be justified, especially given the complainant’s high support needs

The Court upheld the findings of the Commissioner and refused to interfere, noting that the proceedings were fair and based on admitted facts and inspection reports.

4. Mandatory Compliance Under the RPwD Act, 2016

Referring to Section 44 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court reiterated that:

• No building plan can be approved unless it complies with accessibility standards

• No completion certificate can be issued without such compliance

The Court underscored that accessibility must be ensured both at the planning stage and at the completion stage of construction.

Directions Issued by the Court

The High Court issued broader systemic directions to improve accessibility in residential developments:

• Development Authorities in Uttar Pradesh must frame and incorporate guidelines ensuring accessibility in housing projects

• Building plans for community living must include:

  • Dedicated accessible parking spaces

  • Barrier-free access to lifts and other common facilities

• The State must ensure strict enforcement of accessibility norms at:

  • The stage of granting building permission

  • The stage of issuing completion certificates

Significance of the Judgment

This decision is particularly important for several reasons:

a. Expanding the Scope of Accessibility Law

The ruling firmly establishes that private residential developments are not outside the ambit of accessibility obligations, especially where shared infrastructure is involved.

b. Strengthening Everyday Rights

By focusing on something as routine as parking-to-lift access, the Court highlights how accessibility is central to independent living and dignity, not merely a technical compliance issue.

c. Reinforcing Accountability of Builders and Authorities

The judgment sends a clear message that post-allotment alterations affecting accessibility will not be tolerated, and that authorities must actively ensure compliance.

d. Aligning with International Obligations

The Court’s reasoning aligns with India’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), particularly the principle of accessibility as a precondition for inclusion.

Commentary

This judgment is a welcome and necessary development in Indian disability jurisprudence. It bridges a long-standing gap between legal standards and lived realities, particularly in urban housing.

While accessibility norms often exist on paper, their enforcement in residential contexts has been weak. By recognizing accessibility in community living as a fundamental right, the Court has elevated the issue beyond mere regulatory compliance to a matter of constitutional importance.

Going forward, this ruling can serve as a strong precedent to challenge inaccessible housing designs, retrofitted barriers, and exclusionary urban planning practices across India.

This case is a reminder that accessibility is not an optional add-on—it is integral to equality, dignity, and the right to live independently.

Read the judgement here (PDF 424 KB)

Disability Pension Claims Must Not Be Rejected on Technical Grounds: Delhi High Court on Rights of Disabled Air Force Personnel

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2718/2026
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. HFO Murali Dhar Yadav
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2026

 

 Background

 The dispute before the Delhi High Court arose from an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to a former member of the Indian Air Force. The respondent, HFO Murali Dhar Yadav, had developed a medical condition during the course of his service and sought disability pension under the applicable service rules.

 

The claim, however, was rejected by the authorities on the basis of a medical board opinion that concluded the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. The respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, which examined the circumstances of the case and held that the denial of disability pension was not justified.

 

Aggrieved by this decision, the Union of India filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had incorrectly interfered with the medical board’s findings. The case therefore required the Court to examine the scope of judicial review over medical board determinations in disability pension matters.

 

Key Observations

 

The Delhi High Court emphasised that while medical board opinions are an important component of the disability pension framework, such findings cannot be treated as immune from judicial scrutiny. Courts retain the authority to examine whether disability claims have been evaluated fairly and in accordance with the governing legal principles.

 

The Court observed that disability pension schemes are intended to provide financial protection and dignity to service personnel who develop medical conditions during their service. As such, these provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances their welfare-oriented objectives rather than undermining them through technical interpretations.

 

The Bench also noted that armed forces personnel often operate under strenuous and hazardous conditions that may contribute to the development or aggravation of medical conditions. In such circumstances, a narrow approach to attributability may unjustly deprive individuals of the benefits intended for their protection.

 

The Court therefore reaffirmed that disability pension provisions must be applied with due regard to the realities of military service and the broader principles of fairness that guide service jurisprudence.

 

Directions Issued

 

• The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India.

• The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to the respondent was upheld.

• Authorities were directed to release the disability pension and all consequential benefits to the respondent in accordance with the Tribunal’s order.

 

Commentary

 

The decision reflects the judiciary’s continued engagement with disputes concerning disability pension for members of the armed forces. Such cases frequently involve complex interactions between medical assessments, service rules and the broader objectives of welfare legislation.

 

While medical boards play a central role in determining disability claims, courts have repeatedly emphasised that their findings cannot be treated as final when they fail to adequately consider the circumstances of service personnel. Judicial oversight therefore serves as an important safeguard against decisions that may inadvertently deny legitimate entitlements.

 

By upholding the Tribunal’s decision in favour of the respondent, the Delhi High Court reinforced the principle that disability pension schemes must be interpreted in a manner that protects the welfare of service personnel. Technical objections or narrow interpretations should not be permitted to defeat the purpose of provisions designed to support individuals who suffer health complications during service.

 

More broadly, the judgment contributes to the evolving body of jurisprudence that recognises the need for a balanced approach in disability pension disputes—one that respects medical expertise while ensuring that the rights and dignity of service personnel remain at the centre of the decision-making process.

Read the Judgement [PDF 554 KB]

Universities Must Ensure Equal Access: Delhi High Court on Disability Rights in Higher Education

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5390 of 2022
Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v. University of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2026
 
Background
 
The petition before the Delhi High Court concerned the accessibility of higher education institutions and the obligations of universities to ensure that students with disabilities are able to participate fully in academic programmes. The petitioner, a student with disability studying at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, approached the Court alleging that certain administrative and institutional practices of the University of Delhi created barriers that hindered the effective participation of students with disabilities.
 
The petitioner contended that despite the statutory obligations imposed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, several academic processes—including access to facilities, academic support mechanisms and institutional procedures—had not been adequately designed to accommodate students with disabilities. As a result, students were often required to navigate inaccessible infrastructure and inflexible administrative procedures.
 
The petition therefore raised broader concerns regarding the responsibility of universities to implement accessibility measures and to create inclusive educational environments consistent with the objectives of the RPwD Act.
 
Key Observations
 
The Delhi High Court emphasised that educational institutions bear a crucial responsibility in ensuring that students with disabilities are able to access and benefit from academic opportunities on an equal basis. Universities must therefore adopt institutional practices that actively promote inclusion rather than inadvertently creating barriers.
 
The Court observed that the RPwD Act requires educational institutions to provide reasonable accommodation, accessible infrastructure and appropriate academic support mechanisms. These obligations extend beyond physical accessibility and include ensuring that academic procedures, examination systems and administrative processes are designed in a manner that enables participation by students with disabilities.
 
The Court further noted that universities, as public institutions performing an important social function, must act in a manner consistent with constitutional values of equality and dignity. Failure to implement accessibility measures within educational institutions undermines the purpose of disability rights legislation and restricts the ability of students with disabilities to realise their full academic potential.
 
Importantly, the Court highlighted that inclusive education is not merely a policy aspiration but a statutory requirement under the RPwD Act.
 
Directions Issued
 
• The Court directed the University of Delhi to review the accessibility measures implemented at the Campus Law Centre and ensure compliance with obligations under the RPwD Act.
• Authorities were instructed to adopt appropriate measures to provide reasonable accommodation and necessary support mechanisms for students with disabilities.
• The University was directed to ensure that infrastructural and administrative arrangements remain accessible and responsive to the needs of students with disabilities.
 
Commentary
 
The judgment underscores the central role that educational institutions play in advancing disability rights. Access to higher education is often a critical pathway for social mobility, professional development and economic independence. When universities fail to create inclusive environments, the consequences extend far beyond individual students and affect broader efforts to achieve equality in society.
 
Historically, higher education institutions have been slow to adapt their structures to the needs of students with disabilities. Inaccessible buildings, inflexible examination systems and limited academic support services have often created barriers that prevent students from fully participating in university life.
 
By emphasising the statutory obligations imposed by the RPwD Act, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that universities must move beyond symbolic commitments to inclusion. Accessibility must be integrated into the design of institutional policies, infrastructure and academic practices.
 
The decision therefore contributes to the broader development of disability rights jurisprudence in India by highlighting that inclusive education is essential to achieving meaningful equality. Universities must act not merely as providers of education but as institutions committed to ensuring that all students—regardless of disability—are able to participate and succeed within the academic community.

Read the judgement [PDF 28 KB]