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]

Inclusive Medical Education Requires Accommodation: Delhi High Court on Rights of Disabled Students

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1712/2025
Case Title: Sahil Arsh v. National Medical Commission & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 4 February 2026

 

Background

 

The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by a medical student with a disability who challenged certain regulatory restrictions imposed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) that limited the ability of persons with disabilities to pursue medical education. The petitioner contended that the eligibility criteria and institutional practices adopted by medical authorities did not adequately account for the needs of students with disabilities.

 

According to the petitioner, despite the statutory protections provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, several medical institutions continued to apply rigid eligibility requirements that effectively excluded candidates with disabilities from pursuing medical education or completing their training on equal terms. The petitioner argued that such practices were inconsistent with the principle of reasonable accommodation mandated by the RPwD Act.

 

The matter therefore raised an important question regarding the obligations of regulatory bodies governing professional education. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether professional standards could be interpreted in a manner that excluded persons with disabilities or whether institutions must adapt their systems to ensure inclusive participation.

 

Key Observations

 

The Delhi High Court emphasised that professional education, including medical education, must be governed by the principles of equality, accessibility and reasonable accommodation recognised under the RPwD Act. The Court observed that regulatory bodies cannot frame or enforce rules that have the effect of systematically excluding persons with disabilities from professional courses.

 

Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted that the purpose of disability legislation is to ensure that educational institutions adopt inclusive practices that enable students with disabilities to participate effectively. This includes not only physical accessibility but also modifications in academic procedures, evaluation systems and institutional support mechanisms.

 

The Court further observed that professional competence should not be assessed through rigid assumptions about disability. Instead, institutions must examine whether reasonable accommodations and assistive technologies can enable students with disabilities to perform the essential functions required in the profession.

 

Importantly, the Court emphasised that regulatory frameworks governing medical education must be interpreted in a manner that advances the objective of inclusion rather than reinforcing outdated perceptions about the capabilities of persons with disabilities.

 

Directions Issued

 

• The Court directed the National Medical Commission to reconsider the petitioner’s case in light of the principles of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act.

• Authorities were instructed to ensure that regulatory guidelines governing medical education are consistent with the statutory rights of persons with disabilities.

• The Court emphasised that institutions must adopt inclusive policies that enable students with disabilities to participate effectively in professional education.

 

Commentary

 

The judgment represents an important development in the evolving discourse on disability rights in professional education. Historically, certain professions—including medicine—have been governed by rigid eligibility criteria that often excluded persons with disabilities based on assumptions about their abilities.

 

However, contemporary disability rights law recognises that such exclusion frequently reflects institutional barriers rather than inherent limitations. Advances in assistive technologies, adaptive learning systems and inclusive teaching methods have significantly expanded the possibilities for persons with disabilities to participate in professional fields.

 

By emphasising the obligation of regulatory bodies to incorporate reasonable accommodation into professional education frameworks, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the transformative vision underlying the RPwD Act. The statute seeks not merely to remove formal barriers but to reshape institutional practices so that diversity becomes a normal and expected feature of educational environments.

 

The decision also signals a broader shift in judicial thinking. Rather than treating disability as a ground for exclusion from demanding professions, courts increasingly recognise that institutions must adapt their structures to accommodate diverse forms of participation. In doing so, the judgment contributes to the development of a more inclusive model of professional education in India.

Read the judgement [PDF 560KB]

Spouse Appointed Guardian of Comatose Husband: Delhi High Court Invokes Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Amid Legal Vacuum

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16793/2025
Case Title: Professor Alka Acharya v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 31.12.2025

In a significant ruling addressing the continuing legal vacuum surrounding guardianship of persons in a comatose or vegetative state, the Delhi High Court appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband, who was rendered incapacitated following a severe intracranial haemorrhage.

Background

The petitioner, Professor Alka Acharya, approached the Court seeking appointment as the legal guardian of her husband, Mr. Salam Khan, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since February 2025. Following emergency neurosurgery and prolonged hospitalization, Mr. Khan remained unconscious, requiring continuous medical support including tracheostomy and assisted feeding.

With no statutory mechanism available for appointing a guardian in such situations, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under the doctrine of parens patriae to manage her husband’s medical care and financial affairs.

Medical and Administrative Findings

Pursuant to the Court’s directions:

• A Medical Board from Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER) examined Mr. Khan and confirmed:

  • Persistent vegetative state
  • 100% disability
  • Inability to take any decisions or perform daily activities

• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) conducted a detailed inquiry and verified:

  • The marital relationship and legal heirship
  • Absence of any dispute or conflict of interest
  • Financial stability and proper caregiving by the petitioner
  • Authenticity of disclosed movable and immovable assets

Importantly, the couple’s children also gave their no-objection to the appointment.

Key Legal Issue

The case once again highlighted a critical gap in Indian law: there is no clear statutory framework governing appointment of guardians for individuals in a comatose or vegetative state.

The Court relied on its earlier precedent in N.A. v. GNCTD and other High Court rulings, which recognize that:

• Neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 adequately address such situations
• Constitutional Courts retain inherent powers under Article 226 to step in and protect such individuals
• The doctrine of parens patriae empowers courts to act in the best interests and welfare of incapacitated persons

Court’s Observations

The Court reiterated that:

• Persons in vegetative states fall outside conventional statutory categories such as “persons with disabilities” or “persons with mental illness” for the purpose of guardianship frameworks
• This creates a “clear statutory vacuum”, necessitating judicial intervention
• Courts must adopt a case-by-case approach, guided by medical evidence, family structure, and absence of conflict

Directions Issued

Allowing the petition, the Court:

1. Appointed Professor Alka Acharya as the legal guardian of her husband
2. Permitted her to manage and deal with both movable and immovable assets of Mr. Khan to meet his medical and living expenses
3. Granted her authority over: Medical decisions and caregiving; Financial management and daily expenditures; Operation of bank accounts, investments, and insurance

Significance

This judgment reinforces an evolving but crucial line of jurisprudence where High Courts step in to fill legislative gaps affecting some of the most vulnerable individuals. Key takeaways include:

• Recognition of legal vacuum: Existing disability and mental health laws do not cover guardianship for comatose persons
• Expanded role of constitutional courts: Courts continue to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure protection and dignity
• Preference for close relatives: Spouses and immediate family members are ordinarily preferred as guardians
• Need for legislative reform: The case underscores the urgent need for a structured statutory framework governing such situations

Comment

While the judgment provides immediate relief and practical clarity in individual cases, it also highlights a systemic issue. Despite progressive legislation like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, certain categories of persons—especially those in prolonged unconscious states—remain outside formal legal protection mechanisms.

Until Parliament addresses this gap, courts will continue to play a vital, albeit ad hoc, role in safeguarding the rights, dignity, and welfare of such individuals.

Read the Judgement (PDF 599 KB)

HIV-Positive Persons Fall Within the Definition of Persons with Disabilities: A Landmark Ruling by Delhi HC

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench / Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3616/2021
Case Title: [Name withheld] v. Union of India & Ors. (BSF)
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Relevant Statutes:

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
• HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017

Brief

In a significant and precedent-setting judgment, the Delhi High Court has categorically held that an HIV-positive person can fall within the definition of a “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). This ruling marks what is arguably the first direct judicial equation of HIV-positive status with disability under the RPwD framework.

The case arose from the discharge of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable, who was removed from service in April 2019 after being diagnosed as HIV-positive. The constable had contracted HIV in 2017 and was undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART). Despite treatment and recovery from associated ailments, including abdominal tuberculosis, he was issued a show-cause notice in November 2018 and subsequently discharged on the ground of being “physically unfit”. His departmental appeal was rejected in October 2020, compelling him to approach the Delhi High Court.

Key Findings of the Court

The Division Bench held that the petitioner’s discharge was unlawful under both the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

1. HIV as a Disability under the RPwD Act
   The Court held that an HIV-positive employee suffering from a long-term physical impairment that hinders full and effective participation in society would fall within the ambit of “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act. Consequently, the statutory protections under Section 20 of the RPwD Act—particularly the prohibition on dispensing with the services of an employee who acquires a disability during service—were squarely attracted.

2. Non-Discrimination in Employment
   Drawing a clear parallel between the RPwD Act and the HIV Act, the Court reiterated that both statutes prohibit discrimination in matters of employment. Section 20(2) of the RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation, while Section 20(4) specifically bars termination of service on the ground of disability acquired during employment.

3. Violation of the HIV Act, 2017
   The Court relied heavily on Section 3 of the HIV Act, which imposes an absolute bar on terminating employment solely on the ground of HIV-positive status. The only exception—contained in Section 3(a)—requires a written assessment by an independent and qualified healthcare provider certifying that the employee is unfit to perform duties and poses a significant risk of transmission.

   The BSF, the Court noted, made no attempt whatsoever to comply with this mandatory requirement. In the absence of such an assessment, the presumption must be that the employee posed no significant risk and was fit for duty.

4. Reinstatement with Continuity of Service
   Setting aside both the discharge order (2019) and the appellate order (2020), the Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including pay fixation. However, back wages were expressly denied.

5. Reasonable Accommodation and Alternate Employment
   Importantly, the Court clarified that if the petitioner could not perform duties attached to the post of constable due to medical reasons, the BSF was duty-bound to provide reasonable accommodation. This includes offering alternate employment in an equivalent post, or if such a post is unavailable, placement in a supernumerary or equivalent position.

Broader Significance

This judgment is a watershed moment in Indian disability rights jurisprudence. For the first time, a constitutional court has explicitly recognised that HIV-positive persons may qualify as persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act, thereby extending to them the full spectrum of statutory protections relating to non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and security of tenure.

The ruling also reinforces the legislative intent of the HIV Act, 2017, which seeks to dismantle stigma-driven employment practices rooted in fear rather than medical evidence. Together, the two statutes are interpreted as complementary rights-based frameworks, not siloed protections.

For uniformed services and other government establishments, the decision sends a clear message: HIV status, by itself, cannot be a ground for termination. Any departure from this principle must strictly comply with statutory safeguards, medical evidence, and the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.

From a disability rights perspective, the judgment deepens the understanding of “disability” as a lived, functional, and rights-oriented concept—rather than a narrow medical label—bringing Indian jurisprudence closer to the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Read the Judgement

Delhi High Court Directs GD Goenka Public School to Readmit Child with Autism; Emphasizes Enforceable Right to Inclusive Education

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13490/2024
Case Title: Aadriti Pathak (Minor) Through Her Mother Sadhana Sharma v. GD Goenka Public School & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2025

Brief:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to inclusive education, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed GD Goenka Public School, Rohini to readmit Aadriti Pathak, a child with mild autism, to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class, within two weeks. The Court noted that her removal from school was not a voluntary act by the parents but stemmed from the school’s reluctance to provide necessary accommodations as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The Court’s order comes in a writ petition filed by the child through her mother, challenging her discontinuation from the school and seeking relief under the provisions protecting children with special needs.

Background:

• Aadriti Pathak was admitted to GD Goenka Public School in the 2021-22 session.
• In December 2021, she was diagnosed with mild autism. The school was duly informed, and her mother requested support such as a shadow teacher.
• Despite assurances, the school failed to offer the required accommodations, leading to Aadriti’s education being discontinued from January 1, 2023.
• The school claimed that the parents voluntarily withdrew her due to "severe behavioural issues" and non-payment of fees, though fees were paid up till March 2023.
• Attempts to seek admission under the Children With Special Needs (CWSN) quota in the subsequent session were also thwarted. Though initially allotted a seat again in GD Goenka, it was withdrawn at the school’s request, citing lack of vacancy.

Court-Appointed Committee Findings:

Upon direction of the Court, a special board constituted by the Inclusive Education Branch of the DoE assessed the child’s needs. The committee unequivocally held that:

• Aadriti should be reintegrated into the same school, in an age-appropriate class.
• The school must permit her to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
• The institution is duty-bound to make all required accommodations as per the RPwD Act.

School’s Defence & Court’s Analysis:

The school presented multiple defences:

1. That the disability was not disclosed at the time of admission.
2. There were no vacancies in the relevant class.
3. Admission of CWSN students happens via a centralized draw, not direct admission.

However, the Court found these arguments untenable:

• On the issue of non-disclosure, the Court noted that the school had previously acknowledged the diagnosis and agreed to accommodate Aadriti.
• The claim of “no vacancy” was rejected. The Court held that classroom strength is not a rigid barrier and inclusive education is a legally enforceable right, not an administrative discretion.
• Most importantly, the Court rejected the claim of “voluntary withdrawal” and recognized that the child had been pushed out due to an unsupportive environment.

Court’s Directions:

Invoking the spirit and letter of the RPwD Act, 2016, the Court passed the following key directions:

1. Readmission of Aadriti to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class within two weeks, as a fee-paying student.
2. Permission for the child to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
3. The Department of Education (DoE) to monitor the reintegration process and ensure that an inclusive, supportive environment is maintained.
4. The school to file a compliance affidavit within four weeks.

Significance:

This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of the right of children with disabilities to equal participation in mainstream education. It puts schools on notice that inclusive education is not optional, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination under the law. The Court has rightly emphasized that administrative technicalities like classroom capacity or centralised processes cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights.

By holding the school and the education department accountable, the Court has sent a clear message—inclusive education is a right, not a favour.

Read the Court Judgement embedded below:

---

Posted by: Team @ Disability Rights India
For more such case updates and commentary, visit www.disabilityrightsindia.com

Delhi HC Clarifies CCPD’s Powers Under RPwD Act, 2016: Interim Recommendations Are Binding Unless Validly Rejected

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 980 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2025
Relevant Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Sections 75 and 76)
Cases Referred:

• Anamika vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1084
• Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, SC
• Ramanand vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3292

Introduction

In a significant judgment delivered on 2 April 2025, the Delhi High Court examined the powers and authority of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), especially regarding the issuance of interim recommendations in service-related matters.

One of the important mandate of the CCPD is to provide a platform for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) to raise their grievances against the government and even private bodies. The CCPD and its state counterparts (SCPDs) have continuously discharged an important function: lending a sensitive ear to the plights of persons with disabilities that are often overlooked in our ableist world. 

However, for past several years (before the RPWD Act 2016), there was no clarity about the exact nature of CCPD's powers due to conflicting judgements from different courts. Many of then simply stayed the CCPD's judgements citing  it had no power to issue injunctions. More recently, it got further complicated and also important. The boiling questions for example were: 

• Can the CCPD interfere in service matters? This becomes critical as more than 70% of the grievances received by the CCPD office pertains to service conditions/ matters. 
• If the CCPD passes an order directing an authority to do something, is that authority bound to follow it? This is even more relevant since the CCPD offers something that other tribunals/bodies do not really have with them : the expertise in the domain of disability rights, and a decision informed by empathy and understanding. And therefore, if a CCPD order is given no binding power whatsoever, the society effectively loses on this deep expertise and empathy-informed decision making. 

Through this judgment, the Delhi High Court has clarified the law on both these questions. Most importantly, it has held that the CCPD's recommendations are binding on respondent-authorities, with the only narrow exception where valid reasons exist for not accepting such recommendations. The judgment doesn't go in to detail explaining what circumstances would constitute a 'valid reason' for the same. 

On the tricky question of service matters, the Court held that generally speaking, service matters are something between an employer and an employee. However, of course, if the employer violates any rights available to a PwDs under the 2016 Act, the CCPD can look into it. Similarly, the CCPD can issue (binding) recommendations on more general matters (as compared to individual cases) such as when an organisation has not reserved PwD seats where it was required to do so. 

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, a government employee with locomotor disability, was posted at the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), Faridabad. He was transferred to NPTI's regional centre at Durgapur, which he challenged as being unreasonable, discriminatory, and in violation of his rights under the RPwD Act.

Alleging mala fide intent and harassment due to frequent transfers, he filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The CCPD, after preliminary review, directed the Institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance. NPTI challenged this direction before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who set aside the CCPD’s order, prompting the present intra-court appeal.

Issues Considered

1. Whether the CCPD can interfere in service matters such as transfers under the RPwD Act?
2. Whether orders or recommendations of the CCPD are binding on authorities?
3. Whether the CCPD can issue interim directions during the pendency of proceedings?

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Court undertook a comparative reading of the 1995 and 2016 disability laws. Under the 1995 Act, the Chief Commissioner’s powers were primarily recommendatory and lacked enforceability. However, the 2016 Act brought a “remarkable change”, especially under Section 76, which prescribes that authorities must provide valid reasons if they choose not to implement the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner.

The Court observed:

“The law now mandates not merely that the recommendations be considered, but that they are presumed to be binding unless compelling reasons are given for their non-acceptance.”

It further clarified that even interim recommendations—like directing an employer to defer a transfer—are within the scope of CCPD’s authority, provided they are aimed at preventing potential violations of rights under the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the judgment reaffirms that service-related matters, while generally the employer’s domain, become subject to the scrutiny of the CCPD if they infringe upon statutory rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Final Order

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the earlier Single Judge order. It held that:

• The CCPD’s direction to keep the transfer in abeyance should be treated as an “interim recommendation” under Sections 75 and 76 of the RPwD Act.
• The respondent, National Power Training Institute, is bound to consider this interim recommendation and, if rejecting it, must furnish valid reasons to both the CCPD and the complainant, Mukesh Kumar.

Significance of the Judgment

This is a landmark clarification on the enforceability of the CCPD’s role under the RPwD Act, 2016:

• Affirms the CCPD’s powers to intervene and issue interim relief.
• Elevates the status of its recommendations from mere advice to conditionally binding directives.
• Empowers persons with disabilities with a more robust and responsive mechanism for redress.

The ruling strengthens the quasi-judicial character of the office of the Chief Commissioner and reinforces the statutory teeth of the RPwD Act, particularly in employment and service-related disputes involving persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgment below:

Stray Animal Menace : Delhi High Court’s Directives on Safety and Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Manmohan, with Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Case Title: NYAYA BHOOMI  Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 3346/2015

Date of Order: 25 Oct 2024

Connected Cases: W.P.(C) 6914/2015 The Society for Public Cause Vs. UOI & Ors &  W.P.(C) 14560/2024 Dhananjay Sanjogta Foundation Vs. Deptt of Animal Husbandry & Dairying & Anr.

Summary

In a public interest litigation (PIL) petition hearing concerning stray animal attacks on persons with disabilities (PwDs) and the overall public in Delhi, the Delhi High Court called for an urgent yet balanced approach to address the issue. The PIL, scrutinized the threats posed by stray dogs, monkeys, and other animals, particularly in sensitive areas like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and city hospitals.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stressed the need for policies that address animal control while protecting human rights, particularly for PwDs. They directed the Chief Secretary of Delhi to convene a meeting with key stakeholders to prioritize clearing hospitals and public spaces of stray animals to ensure public safety.

Key Arguments and Observations: Protection for PwDs Amid Rising Stray Populations

The hearing underscored that stray animals, such as monkeys and dogs, increasingly pose risks for PwDs, making it challenging for them to navigate the streets of Delhi. Advocate Rahul Bajaj, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the current Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 overlook the risks to PwDs, making them non-compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD). Bajaj pointed out that while PwDs support animal welfare, a practical solution allowing safe access to public spaces is essential.

Chief Justice Manmohan commented, “Society comprises various groups, including people with disabilities, who have a genuine problem. It’s impossible to walk in Delhi without being threatened by stray animals. We must balance respect for stray animals with respect for human beings.” Justice Gedela added that hospitals and public spaces should not be compromised, noting that institutions like AIIMS must maintain a clean environment free of stray animals to protect patients undergoing critical care.

Monkeys in Tis Hazari: A Need for Relocation

The bench also highlighted the issue of monkeys flocking to Tis Hazari court premises, pointing out the impact on daily operations. Chief Justice Manmohan noted, “Monkeys are wild animals, not companion animals. This misplaced sympathy is affecting people’s safety and functionality in public institutions.” The court directed authorities to address the issue by relocating monkeys to the Asola Wildlife Sanctuary, citing the need for a “sensible balance” that considers both animal welfare and public safety.

 PwDs’ Right to Walk Safely in Delhi: Stray Animals and Public Access

The court emphasized the fundamental rights of PwDs to access public spaces safely, questioning the effectiveness of sterilization programs aimed at controlling stray populations. “Main streets of Delhi must be accessible,” remarked the Chief Justice. “PwDs have a fundamental right to walk without the threat of being attacked by stray animals. Imagine a visually impaired person trying to walk in South Delhi, where even we struggle with strays.”

The petitioners argued that visually impaired individuals often face attacks from stray animals as the animals misinterpret their walking sticks as a threat. The Chief Justice, aligning with Bajaj's arguments, stated that such attacks prevent PwDs from safely navigating city streets and parks, effectively violating their right to move freely.

Broad Action Plan and Stakeholder Meeting Scheduled

To address this, the court mandated a meeting on November 4 at 4:30 pm at the Chief Secretary’s office. The meeting is to include stakeholders such as the heads of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Forest Department, Animal Welfare Board (AWB) of Delhi, and other key officials. Advocate Rahul Bajaj and other legal representatives, including Amar Jain and Gauri Maulekhi—who has expertise in animal welfare—are also expected to attend.

Action Steps and Observations on Feeding Strays and Litter Control

The court pointed out indiscriminate feeding as a contributing factor to stray animal proliferation in public areas, leading to litter and health hazards. The bench remarked, “We see cars loaded with food, and people litter the area in the name of feeding strays. This practice must be regulated to ensure clean public spaces.”

Operational Changes in Stray Animal Control Mechanisms

The court criticized the Animal Welfare Board for relying on ineffective sterilization guidelines, urging it to consider alternative, viable methods. Advocate Gauri Maulekhi noted that while surgical sterilization fails in many cases, immuno-contraception is a recognized global solution for wild animals. She pointed out that institutions like the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the National Institute of Immunology have explored this technique, although its implementation is still pending.

However, the court emphasized urgency, saying, “We cannot ask persons with disabilities to wait a decade while science catches up. It’s imperative to develop a solution now, ensuring a safe environment for all Delhi residents.”

Interim Relief for Hospitals and Priority Public Spaces

The court directed that hospitals like AIIMS and other public parks should immediately be prioritized for animal control. To achieve this, a “strict regime” was advised to regulate stray animals in hospitals and children’s parks.

In concluding remarks, the Chief Justice called for mutual understanding, stating, “We must balance everyone’s interests. No one’s rights are above the other. Civil society must work with local authorities to find an immediate solution, recognizing the equal rights of persons with disabilities and addressing public safety concerns.” 

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 18 November, 2024. The court’s directive reflects a pivotal moment in Delhi’s approach to animal control, emphasizing both a humane response and the urgent need to safeguard the city’s residents, especially those with disabilities.

The Chief Secretary of GNCTD as well as Respondents have been directed to file a fresh status report before the next hearing. The matter is next listed on 18 Nov 2024.

Read the order here:

Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Landmark Judgment: Upholding Rights of Persons with Disabilities Against Unjust Transfer [Judgement included]

Court: Delhi High Court 

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Case Title: Bhavneet Singh Vs  Ircon Internatioal Ltd. through Chairman & MD & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 12404/2022, CM APPL. Nos. 37256/2022 & 10458/2023

Decided on: 15th December 2023

Cases Refered:  Net Ram Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an individual with orthopedic disabilities with a 72% locomotor impairment, field this petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenging a transfer order issued by IRCON International Ltd.  relocating the petitioner from the corporate office to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project.

Alleging non-compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner contended that such a transfer would lead to undue harassment, pose health risks, and deprive him of essential medical care. The petitioner argued that the transfer contravened Articles 14 and 16, as well as the provisions of the Disability Act.

In response, IRCON defended the transfer, citing administrative necessities, professional interests, and the amenities available at the new location. They asserted that the move was not intended to be malicious and even offered additional benefits to the petitioner at the new place of transfer.

Upon careful examination of the reasons presented and consideration of the applicable legal standards, the court ruled that the transfer order violated Article 14 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The court underscored the importance of ensuring equal opportunities and suitable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Consequently, the court set aside the transfer orders, granting relief in favor of the petitioner.

Read the Court Judgement dated 15 Dec 23 below:

Delhi HC seeks Response of Delhi University on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Caste No(s): W.P.(C)  5390/2022

Title: Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order: 08 November 2023

Next Date of Hearing:  07 December 2023

Brief:

On a plea moved by one Jayant Singh Raghav, a student with visual disability of the Delhi University, raising the issue of provisions facilities and reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities during examinations.

The court asked the varsity to satisfy in the affidavit as to how the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the suggestions given by amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta have been implemented. “As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to file comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the University,” the court said.

On March 10, the amicus curiae had handed over his report to the court wherein certain suggestions qua physical infrastructure and accessibility in the CLC as well as regarding Raghav were made. The report suggested that the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) must be implemented immediately in CLC, Delhi University in time bound manner. 

It was also suggested that an access audit of CLC must be directed to be conducted immediately and a report be submitted to the court. The amicus curiae also suggested that at least 10 more ramps with tactile at various locations must be ordered to be erected immediately in the varsity and that a washroom for the disabled individuals be made functional on each floor as there was only one such toilet at present in the entire campus of CLC.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Univeristy submitted that the repair work in toilets, corridors, open areas and provision of tactile and other facilities for persons with disabilities at CLC has been completed by the agency upto the satisfaction of varsity’s competent authority.

However, the court said, “Needless to state that the same was not only the expectation or the requirement under the provisions of the Act of 2016 or in the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae. It is to be seen that there are various other requirements to be adhered to by the respondent no.1-University,”.

Here is a copy of the order dated 08 November 2023:-

Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.

Caste No(s): W.P.(C) 17460/2022 

Title: Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others

Connected matter: W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 01 November 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7914-DB

Cases referred:  National Federation of the Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB

Brief:

The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).

The bench while holding the recruitement exercise by the KVS on the basis of 2013 job identification list instead of the current 2021 job identification list as violation of the statutory provisions as contained under the RPwD Act, directed the KVS to conduct a speccial recruitment drive and recruit the persons with hard of hearing and those who are deaf on the posts s per the law.

"The KVS – in respect of the identified posts as per the notification dated 04.01.2021, shall issue an advertisement and shall clear the backlog of vacancies within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment." directed the Bench.

The court observed that the KVS has assumed a power which never vested in it (of deleting the identified posts on their own by instituting some internal committee). The task of identification as well as of exemption of posts falls in the domain of the appropriate government and not the KVS.

"It is unfortunate that disabled persons are being compelled to file writ petitions and are being compelled to run from pillar to post by an organization like KVS. They are not claiming any charity, and they are claiming their rights as guaranteed to them under the RPwD Act. The legislature has laid down a noble vision of providing “reasonable accommodation” to persons with disabilities so as to ensure that all possible special measures are adopted to enable the PwDs to perform to the best of their ability. Despite so, instead of creating such reasonable accommodation, the respondent has looked down upon the PwDs from the lens of inconvenience." expressed the bench.

Direction on Addressing the Policy Disconnect

The court said in its order, "Before parting, we feel constrained to observe that there appears to be a mismatch in the understanding of different departments regarding the mandate under RPwD Act. Whereas the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Nodal Ministry under the RPwD Act) has upgraded the list of posts suitable for the PwDs, the thought has not percolated to the departments which conduct recruitment. A similar “policy disconnect” was noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370, wherein the stand taken by the Nodal Ministry was found to be in contrast with the stand taken by the recruiting agency – UPSC. This policy disconnect had led to a situation wherein different departments are made to learn the same lesson after individual cases travel to the constitutional Courts. The direct impact of this practice is to compel the PwDs to assert their basic rights before judicial fora, something that cannot be termed as desirable. In this regard, we direct the concerned Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to issue suitable guidelines for the implementation of reservation policy by all departments in a uniform manner. One step may go far in the fulfilment of our promise to the PwDs. 

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 17460/2022 dated 01 Nov 2023

Delhi HC holds KVS recruitment advertisement as unsustainable for denying reservation to blind persons

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Hon'ble Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula

Caste No: W.P.(C) 9520/2018 

Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others

Date of Judgement: 16 October 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7551-DB

Brief:

The Delhi high court termed a recruitment advertisement issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as unsustainable as it excluded reservation for blind persons from the post of principal in a judgement dated 16 Oct 2023.

The court said that every act of exclusion that has the effect of compelling a person with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment without their fault is an assault on their dignity . 

A bench opined that the advertisement issued by the KVS in August 2018 for the posts of principal, vice-principal, PGTs, TGTs, librarian distinguished PwDs and had the effect of excluding them from the race of recruitment as the distinction was purely on the basis of disability.

“The impugned advertisement distinguishes the persons with disabilities from others and puts a restriction on their potential to participate in the recruitment process to their full ability. The distinction is purely on the basis of disability. The advertisement has the effect of excluding the persons with disabilities from the race of recruitment, in complete violation of the mandatory reservation provision. It may be noted that an act of discrimination is not only a denial of the promise of equal protection before the law. Rather, every act of exclusion is an assault on the dignity of a person. More so, when the exclusion has the effect of compelling the persons with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment, without any fault of theirs. Instead of providing an equal space to grow, we have been compelling the persons with disabilities to prove, time and again, that they are capable of a lot more than we think,” said the bench in its verdict.

The court also said, “We may usefully note that the power of identification of posts is bound by a procedure, which, amongst other things, involves consultation with experts including persons with disabilities. The persons with disabilities are the direct stakeholders in this exercise and the legislature has aptly carved out a provision for a consultative exercise with such persons. It is a manifestation of the principles of natural justice and there can be no deviation from the statutory procedure. Exclusion of a post, without engaging in a consultative exercise, shall also be violative of the principles of natural justice.”

The bench also opined that the Sangathan at the stage of recruitment and advertisement of vacancies was duty bound to reserve 4 % of the total number of vacancies, inclusive of vacancies against identified as well as unidentified posts.

The court cautioned that it was impermissible to exclude subjects which cannot be taught by PwDs at the time of reservation of vacancies.

“Once recruited, appointments can be made against the posts identified as suitable for respective categories of persons with disabilities. There is no power with the respondent or its committee to revisit and cut short the list notified by the government. The process of identification or its review is to be carried out by the appropriate government only. Further, the said exercise is to be carried out after constitution of an expert committee with due representation of persons with benchmark disabilities,” said the court directing the KVS to reserve the post of principal for blind persons, conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies in the establishment and prepare a vacancy based roster for recruitment of PwDs within three months.

“The rights belonging to the persons with disabilities are meant to secure inclusivity and human dignity. Such rights, although statutorily enacted, find their roots in the fundamental rights of life, equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Constitution. The guarantee of equal opportunity to all equally extends to the persons with disabilities and while interpreting the benevolent provisions of the statutes in this regard, the court must be mindful of the same,” the court also said.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 9520/2018 below:

Delhi HC passes important directions to make Court system accessible and to realise Access to Justice for persons with disabilities under Section 12 of RPwD Act 2016 and emphasizes "Active Judicial Conduct" to ensure PwD's actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2500 / 2022

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Kalra Deaf Divyang Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Decided on: August 24, 2023

Cited as:  Revised Neutral citation-  2023:DHC:6132  ; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5261

Brief:

The petitioner, by way of above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, sought issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent/State to constitute a Special Court as per Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to make the criminal trial he is facing friendly to his disability so that he can participate in it fully.

"It was crucial that this Court examine the question in view of the issue raised by the petitioner herein as to whether the judicial system itself has complied with the requirement of equality apropos a person with disability who is an accused or petitioner before the court of law, while it administers justice." expressed the court.

The Court issued pivotal directions to address the critical issue of ensuring that persons with disabilities can actively participate in legal proceedings. The court emphasized that no citizen should feel denied of justice due to physical or mental disabilities, either because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure or insensitivity within the judicial system.

The case at hand involved a petitioner who had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, who had been deaf since childhood and also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder-induced eye cataract and post-traumatic fractured maligned joint stiffness, faced significant challenges in participating in trial proceedings related to allegations against them. The court recognized that these challenges infringed upon the principles of natural justice, contravened the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, and violated constitutional rights.

To address these issues, the court referred to the importance of fair trials as a fundamental right in the Indian criminal justice system, citing the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374. The court highlighted the need to implement Section 12 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, which aimed to make legal proceedings more accessible to individuals with disabilities. It also referred to the Supreme Court's E-Committee's Standard Operating Procedure on Preparation of Accessible Court Documents.

The judgment also pointed out the inadequacy of Special Courts under the RPWD Act, as they were limited to certain offenses. The court stressed the importance of alternative methods, such as the use of braille, sign language, and assistive technology, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in legal proceedings effectively.

Additionally, the court provided a list of infrastructural improvements necessary to ensure accessibility, including facilities like wheelchairs, elevators, and sign language interpreters in courts. It called for judicial education and training to raise awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities, drawing inspiration from the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Bandu (2018) 11 SCC 163 and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 78.

The judgment underscored the need for a specific provision within the RPWD Act to address the requirements of witnesses, accused persons, advocates, and others involved in judicial trials and proceedings.

To ensure effective compliance with Section 12(4)(c) of the RPWD Act, the court issued various directives, including the provision of essential electronic gadgets, the creation of schemes to address the needs of accused persons with disabilities, and increased public awareness about available resources. The Delhi Judicial Academy was also tasked with holding sensitization programs for judges, lawyers, court staff, and police.

The Court was of the opinion that active judicial conduct to ensure access of persons with disabilities in  the judicial process will ensure achieving constitutional vision of justice of ensuring fundamental and human rights of persons with disabilities and their actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to justice for persons with disabilities, particularly in the context of the specific case. The court provides a comprehensive set of directions to address the challenges faced by the petitioner and others in similar situations. These directives aim to create a more inclusive and accessible judicial system, thus upholding the constitutional vision of justice. The authorities are required to implement these directives within a three-month period.

Read the judgemnet here: