Delhi High Court Reinforces Accessibility Obligations in Higher Education: University of Delhi Directed to Ensure Inclusive Infrastructure at Campus Law Centre

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5390/2022

Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v. University of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order : 25 February 2026

Background

In an important order concerning accessibility and inclusive higher education, the Delhi High Court issued directions to improve accessibility measures at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

The petition was filed by Jayant Singh Raghav, then a student of the Campus Law Centre, seeking implementation of accessibility standards and reasonable accommodation for students with disabilities, particularly in view of the Open Book Examinations scheduled from April 2022.

The case raised wider concerns regarding the continued barriers faced by students with disabilities in accessing educational spaces, infrastructure, digital platforms and examination systems within universities.

The petitioner sought directions relating to:

• Provision of assistive devices and accommodations based on individual needs;
• Compliance with accessibility standards for buildings and infrastructure;
• Adherence to the “Guidelines for Indian Government Websites and Apps” issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology;
• Compliance with the “Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons”;
• Digital accessibility measures;
• Accessible examination-related infrastructure; and
• Institutional monitoring mechanisms for ensuring long-term accessibility compliance.

The petition therefore went beyond an individual grievance and sought systemic enforcement of accessibility obligations across educational institutions.

Recognising the significance of the issues raised, the Court appointed Kamal Gupta as Amicus Curiae. During the proceedings, inspections were conducted and technical recommendations were provided, including by Centre for Accessibility in Built Environment (CABE) Foundation.

Accessibility Measures Undertaken

During the pendency of the proceedings, several accessibility improvements were carried out within the Campus Law Centre premises, including:

• Construction of cement concrete accessible parking space;
• Installation of a new entrance gate with tactile pathways for visually impaired students;
• Accessible toilets with tactile accessibility features, handrails and grab bars;
• Accessible drinking water facilities connected through tactile pathways;
• Renovation of corridors using tactile tiles and Kota stone flooring to improve safe navigation;
• Tactile pathways leading to the auditorium and Law Centre-I building;
• Wooden ramps inside the Moot Court Room;
• Non-slippery ramps and additional accessibility measures within Law Centre-I.

The Court also took note of the University’s submission that a new building for the Campus Law Centre was proposed to be constructed and that the existing infrastructure may eventually be redeveloped.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court recognised that accessibility in educational institutions is not merely an infrastructural issue but an essential component of equality, dignity and meaningful participation for persons with disabilities.

A particularly significant aspect of the order is the Court’s emphasis that accessibility must be integrated at the planning and design stage itself, rather than being treated as a post-construction adjustment.

The Court directed the University to consult the petitioner and the learned Amicus Curiae while planning and designing the new building so that the accessibility requirements of students with disabilities are fully incorporated into the proposed infrastructure.

The order also implicitly recognised the principles of universal design under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by requiring accessibility considerations to become part of institutional planning from inception.

Importantly, the Court further directed that until the proposed infrastructure becomes operational, all accessibility facilities already installed must remain fully functional and accessible to students with disabilities.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court issued the following directions while disposing of the petition:

• The University must consider the suggestions of the petitioner and the Amicus Curiae while planning and constructing the new Campus Law Centre building.
• The proposed infrastructure must comply with accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities.
• Existing accessibility measures must remain functional and accessible until the new infrastructure is developed.
• The status report submitted by the Amicus Curiae regarding inspections and accessibility compliance was taken on record.

The Court also formally appreciated the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae during the proceedings.

Commentary

The decision in Jayant Singh Raghav v. University of Delhi & Ors. is an important addition to India’s evolving disability rights jurisprudence on accessibility and inclusive education.

One of the most significant features of the case is its recognition that accessibility extends beyond ramps and physical mobility. The proceedings addressed multiple dimensions of inclusion, including digital accessibility, assistive technology, examination accommodations, tactile infrastructure, accessible pathways and institutional compliance mechanisms.

The order is also important because it moves the discourse beyond retrofitting and temporary fixes. By directing consultation with accessibility experts and stakeholders during the planning stage of the new building, the Court reinforced that accessibility must be built into institutional infrastructure from the very beginning.

Equally significant is the participatory nature of the proceedings. The case demonstrates that persons with disabilities are not passive beneficiaries of welfare measures, but active stakeholders whose lived experiences are essential in shaping accessibility standards and institutional policies.

At the same time, the litigation highlights the continuing implementation gap within educational institutions despite clear statutory obligations under the RPwD Act and existing accessibility guidelines. The fact that students are still compelled to approach constitutional courts for basic accessibility measures reflects the persistent disconnect between legal guarantees and institutional practice.

Nevertheless, the order strongly reinforces that accessibility is not a matter of administrative convenience or institutional discretion. It is a legally enforceable right linked to equality, dignity and equal participation in education.

Read the Order [PDF 28 KB]

Disability Benefits for Armed Forces Personnel Must Be Interpreted Liberally: Delhi High Court on Service Rights of Disabled Soldiers

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar & Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17070/2025
Case Title: Union of India v. Col. Surender Mohan
Date of Judgment: 11 November 2025
 
Background
 
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had granted disability pension to the respondent, a retired Army officer suffering from primary hypertension.
 
The respondent, Col. Surender Mohan, had earlier challenged the decision of the authorities denying him disability pension and related benefits on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
 
The respondent argued that the medical condition had manifested while he was in active service and that the denial of disability benefits was inconsistent with the principles governing disability pension for armed forces personnel. He contended that service conditions in the armed forces are often physically demanding and stressful, and therefore the assessment of disability claims must take into account the unique circumstances under which such personnel perform their duties.
 
The Union of India defended the decision, relying on medical board findings that concluded the disability was not attributable to service conditions. The dispute therefore centred on the interpretation of the rules governing disability pension and the degree of deference courts should accord to medical board determinations.
 
Key Observations
 
The Delhi High Court emphasised that the framework governing disability benefits for armed forces personnel must be interpreted in a manner that recognises the special nature of military service. Soldiers are often required to operate under physically demanding and stressful conditions, and therefore the assessment of disability claims cannot be approached in an unduly restrictive manner.
 
The Court observed that while medical board findings play an important role in determining disability claims, such findings cannot be treated as conclusive where they fail to adequately consider the circumstances of military service. Judicial review remains available to ensure that disability claims are assessed in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice.
 
The Bench further noted that disability pension provisions are intended to provide financial security and dignity to personnel who suffer health complications during service. A narrow or technical interpretation of these provisions would defeat their underlying purpose.
 
The Court therefore emphasised that disability benefit rules must be interpreted liberally in favour of service personnel, particularly where the medical condition has manifested during active service.
 
Directions Issued
 
• The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
• The judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to the respondent was affirmed.
• The authorities were directed to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s order within the stipulated period.
 
Commentary
 
The judgment highlights the complex relationship between disability rights jurisprudence and the specialised framework governing the armed forces. While the military operates under a distinct legal regime, the fundamental principles of fairness and dignity continue to guide judicial interpretation of service-related benefits.
 
Disability pension disputes frequently arise from disagreements between medical board assessments and the experiences of service personnel. Courts have therefore played an important role in ensuring that such assessments are not applied in a rigid or mechanical manner that undermines the purpose of disability benefit schemes.
 
By emphasising the need for a liberal interpretation of disability pension provisions, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle that service personnel who develop medical conditions during active duty should not be denied support through narrow technical reasoning.
 
The decision also reflects a broader judicial sensitivity toward the welfare of armed forces personnel who suffer disabilities during service. Ensuring that such individuals receive appropriate financial and institutional support is essential not only for their personal dignity but also for maintaining the integrity of the service system as a whole.

Read the Judgement [PDF 1.3 MB]