Supreme Court confirms that people with disabilities are socially backward hence entittled to get relaxations available to SC/ST

Dear Colleagues & Readers,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a significant decision, has confirmed that persons with disabilities are also socially backward, hence, are  entitled to the same benefits of relaxation as Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates in public employment and education.

The three-judge Bench led by Justice Rohinton Nariman was hearing an appeal filed by Aryan Raj, a person with disability, against the Government College of Arts, Chandigarh. The college had refused relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in the Painting and Applied Art course insisting that persons with disabilities too need to meet the general qualifying standard of 40% in the aptitude test, whereas SC/ST candidates were given a relaxation to 35%.

Setting aside the college decision, the Supreme Court declared that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates require 35% to pass in the aptitude test, the same shall apply so far as the disabled are concerned in future.” The bench also allowed the petitioner Aryan Raj to apply afresh for the current year.

The SC Bench upheld a 2012 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Anamol Bhandari  v. Delhi Technological University case (Refer to my earlier post "Disabled Students must get same admission benefits as SC/ST, rules Delhi HC" discussing about the Judgement dated 12 Sep 2012 in the Writ Petition (C) No.4853 of 2012 Anamol Bhandari (minor) through his father/Natural Guardian Versus Delhi Technological University.)

The bench referring the 2012 judgeement said in its order, "…we follow the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his father/Natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University 2012 (131) DRJ 583 in which the High Court has correctly held that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward, and are therefore, at the very least, entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates."

The bench also highlighted the Delhi HC 2012 judgement ibid on the need to craft new academic courses to specifically cater to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. The judgement quotes,  “We cannot lose sight of the fact that intellectually/mentally challenged persons have certain limitations, which are not there in physically challenged persons. The subject experts would thus be well advised to examine the feasibility of creating a course which caters to the specific needs of such persons. They may also examine increasing the number of seats in the discipline of Painting and Applied Art with a view to accommodating such students.”

Wide Ranging Implications for Persons with Disabilties: 

While age relaxations are currently given to persons with disabilities in admissions to educational courses and in employment, however, the relaxations will also now be extended in qualifying marks. This will also impact the coveted examls like Civil Services where the number of attempts to persons with disabilities are currently equated with those available to OBCs. This will open up relaxations to them as available to SC and ST. Thus this would be a more enabling provision for this segment who have often been faced with challenges of inaccessibility and attitudinal biases.  This also set to change all public sector employments and admissions to high education courses.

Download the judgement: 

Aryan Raj Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2718 of 2020 dated 08 July 2020

or read below: 

Delhi HC Says Reservation Without Academic Support Defeats Disability Rights, Directs IIT Delhi to Re-admit and Coach Student with Disability Expelled for Failing [Judgement Included]

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Rekha Palli
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1158/2018
Case Title: Manif Alam v. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 16 February 2018

In a landmark judgment on inclusive education and the rights of students with disabilities in higher educational institutions, the Delhi High Court held that premier institutions such as Indian Institute of Technology Delhi cannot limit disability inclusion merely to reservation at the stage of admission and thereafter expel students with disabilities without providing adequate academic support, coaching, guidance, and reasonable opportunity to improve performance.

The Court set aside the expulsion of a student with locomotor disability from IIT Delhi after his first semester and directed the Institute to re-admit him and provide additional academic support if required.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mr. Manif Alam, a student with 50% locomotor disability, had secured admission to the M.Sc. Mathematics programme at Indian Institute of Technology Delhi under the Persons with Disabilities category for the academic year 2017–18 through the Joint Admission Test for M.Sc. Mathematics.

After completing the first semester examinations, the petitioner secured an SGPA of 2.75 against the minimum required SGPA of 4.00. Consequently, IIT Delhi declared him failed and struck his name off the rolls of the Institute with immediate effect.

The petitioner challenged the decision before the High Court, seeking reinstatement and permission to continue his studies.

Petitioner’s Grievance: Lack of Institutional Support

The petitioner contended that he had faced considerable difficulty in coping with the academic environment because his prior education had been primarily in Hindi-medium institutions and the lectures at IIT Delhi were delivered exclusively in English. He also highlighted his economically disadvantaged background and the absence of institutional support mechanisms for students with disabilities.

Importantly, he argued that despite the mandate of disability rights laws, IIT Delhi had failed to establish mechanisms such as an Equal Opportunity Cell or any specialised support structure for students with disabilities.

The petitioner further argued that once admission had been granted under the disability reservation quota using relaxed eligibility criteria, the institution had a corresponding obligation to provide reasonable academic support and accommodation rather than mechanically applying the same performance standards applicable to general category students.

IIT Delhi’s Defence

IIT Delhi defended its action by relying upon its academic regulations and the Course of Study brochure, which prescribed a minimum SGPA requirement of 4.0 for continuation in the programme. The Institute argued that the petitioner was aware of these rules at the time of admission and that courts should not interfere in academic matters governed by institutional autonomy.

The Institute also contended that students were free to seek help from faculty members, counsellors, or peers and that the requirement of establishing an Equal Opportunity Cell applied only to institutions under the purview of the University Grants Commission and not to IITs, which function as autonomous statutory institutions.

Significantly, however, the Union Government authorities, including the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, supported the petitioner’s case.

Core Issue Before the Court

Justice Rekha Palli reframed the controversy in broader constitutional and disability rights terms. The Court observed that the case was not merely about enforcement of academic rules but about whether a student admitted through disability reservation could be expelled after the very first semester without meaningful support mechanisms.

The Court framed the central issue in the following words:

“whether a student like the petitioner who is able to join a premier Institute like IIT Delhi only because of the 5% reservation provided for ‘Persons with Disability’ can be expelled from the Institute after the very first semester on account of his inability to meet the criteria fixed for general students…”

Reliance on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The Court extensively relied upon Section 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which imposes duties upon educational institutions to ensure inclusive education, provide reasonable accommodation, necessary support, and monitor the participation and progress of students with disabilities.

The Court highlighted in particular that institutions are statutorily obligated to:

• provide necessary support to maximise academic and social development; and
• monitor progress and completion of education for every student with disability.

Justice Rekha Palli made a powerful observation:

“A mere reservation at the time of entry into the Institute, would become meaningless if the Institutes like IIT Delhi don’t do their bit and extend a helping hand to such students.”

The Court strongly criticised IIT Delhi’s stand that it was not obliged to create disability support structures merely because UGC regulations did not formally apply to it. The Court observed:

“an autonomous premier Institute like the respondent no.1 ought to have been more sensitive towards the needs of the persons with disabilities…”

Supreme Court Precedent on Additional Academic Support

The Court also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Avinash Singh Baghri v. Registrar, IIT Delhi, where the Supreme Court had emphasised that educational institutions must provide additional coaching and support to disadvantaged students so that they are brought at par with general category students.

Applying the same principle to students with disabilities, the High Court held that institutions cannot defeat the objectives of disability rights legislation by mechanically enforcing academic regulations without providing support and accommodation.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Apart from disability rights violations, the Court also found fault with the automatic expulsion of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice or granting him an opportunity to explain his circumstances.

The Court held:

“The automatic and compulsory expulsion of a student from the Institute, upon his failure to achieve the prescribed grade, without even giving him any opportunity to even give an explanation… would definitely be a violation of principles of natural justice.”

The Court further observed that while academic institutions enjoy autonomy, such autonomy cannot extend to denying disadvantaged students a fair opportunity to improve performance.

Directions Issued by the Court

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the order dated 09 January 2018 and directed IIT Delhi to immediately re-admit the petitioner and provide extra coaching and guidance if required.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is one of the earliest and most significant judicial pronouncements interpreting the obligations of higher educational institutions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the context of inclusive education.

The ruling makes it abundantly clear that reservation alone does not satisfy the mandate of inclusion. Educational institutions — especially premier publicly funded institutions — must actively create enabling environments through academic support, reasonable accommodation, mentoring, counselling, and monitoring mechanisms.

The judgment also recognises that students admitted under disability reservation may require transitional academic support owing to structural disadvantages, language barriers, inaccessible pedagogy, or unequal educational backgrounds. Denial of such support, coupled with rigid application of academic regulations, would defeat the very object of disability rights legislation.

Equally important is the Court’s reaffirmation that institutional autonomy cannot override statutory obligations under disability rights laws or principles of natural justice.

Read the final judgement dated 16.02.2018

5% Marks Concession to Reserved Categories in TET is Creating Equal Level-Playing Field - Supreme Court [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the preferential treatment or concessions granted to SC/ST, backward classes, persons with disabilities and de-notified communities is within the concept of equality and is in furtherance of the  constitutional obligation of the State to the under-privileged and to create an equal level-playing field.

In the instant case the 5% marks concessions granted by the Tamil Nadu State to the reserved categories in State Teachers Eligibility Tests conducted under the NCTE guidelines was under challenge. The division bench comprising Justice Siva Kirti Singh and Justice R Banumati was considering a batch of appeals on conflicting judgments from Principal and Madurai Bench of Madras High Court concerning appointment of secondary grade teachers and B.T. assistants in Tamil Nadu as per the guidelines prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

Hon'ble SC Bench observed that “The idea behind laying down NCTE guidelines for conducting TET was to bring about uniformity and certainty in the standards and quality of education being imparted to the students across the nation. However, at the same time the framers of the guidelines took note of the huge socioeconomic disparity existing in the nation and accordingly, by virtue of Clause No. 9 enabled the respective state governments/authorities to provide relaxation to the candidates belonging to socially backward classes.” 

Hon'ble Bench expressed that the Constitution   of   India   has   made   adequate   enabling   provisions empowering   the   State   to   promote   reservation/concessions.   Special provisions are made for advancement of the socially and economically backward classes.  These provisions will bring out the contents of equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 (1), 16 (1) of the Constitution of India by creating equal level-playing field.  

Hon'ble Court made a reference to M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others  (2006) 8 SCC 212, wherein the Constitution Bench held as follows:-

“47. Equality of opportunity has two different and distinct concepts.  There is a conceptual distinction between a non-discrimination principle and affirmative   action   under   which   the   State   is   obliged   to   provide   a level-playing field to the oppressed classes.   Affirmative action in the above sense seeks to move beyond the concept of non-discrimination towards equalizing results with respect to various groups.   Both the conceptions constitute “equality of opportunity”.”

The Bench also made a reference to State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others (1981) 4 SCC 296 wherein it was eloquently stated that the grant of relaxation is for the upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward communities.  

The bench also indicated that in a similar case wherein Rajasthan High Court upheld the challenge to relaxation to reserved categories,  the Hon'ble SC had reversed the Rajasthan High Court judgement  in the matter titled  Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Etc. (2016) 10 SCALE 163.

The bench held that such a provision is in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and state government cannot be faulted for discharging its constitutional obligation of upliftment of socially and economically backward communities by providing 5% relaxation to candidates belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, backward classes, most backward classes, de-notified communities and persons with disability (PWD). 

The bench also rejected the contention that the government has changed the rules of selection. “It is not the case where a basic eligibility criterion has been altered in the midst of the selection process.” “By granting relaxation of 5% marks in TET for reserved categories only, the eligibility criterion is neither altered nor is any prejudice caused to the appellants.”

The Hon'ble bench finally held that Madras High Court principal bench rightly rejected the challenge to G.O.(Ms.) No.25 dated 06.02.2014 and G.O.(Ms.) No. 71 dated 30.05.2014, holding that as per the NCTE guidelines, the state government has the power to grant relaxation on marks obtained in TET to candidates belonging to reserved category and the same is affirmed.

Read / Download the judgement 

Civil Appeal No. 10700/2016 titled V. Lavanya & Ors Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [PDF 213KB]: