Delhi High Court Backs CCPD Concerns on SBI Promotion Policy, Orders Fresh Consideration of Barriers Faced by Blind Officers and examine alternative promotion pathways stressing that disability cannot be a ground to deny career advancement.

Published by: Disability Rights India (DRI)

Category: Employment Rights | Banking Sector | Reasonable Accommodation

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6027/2025
Case Title: Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association v. State Bank of India & Others
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026 

Background

More than three years after the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) found SBI's promotion policy discriminatory towards blind employees, the Delhi High Court has directed the State Bank of India to formally revisit the issue and examine solutions to prevent career stagnation of officers with visual disabilities.

The litigation was initiated by the Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association (VIBEWA), challenging SBI's promotion policy that requires officers aspiring for promotion to Senior Management Grades (Scale IV and V) to first serve as Branch Managers or in Credit, Trade Finance or Forex assignments.

The Association argued that these assignments involve functions that are presently inaccessible to visually impaired officers because of the absence of assistive technology, inaccessible documentation systems, physical inspection requirements and unresolved questions of legal liability.

A Battle That Started Before the CCPD

This litigation did not emerge overnight.

The controversy traces its origins to proceedings initiated before the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) in 2022 by the Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association (VIBEWA). The complaint challenged SBI's promotion policy on the ground that mandatory Branch Manager and Credit-related assignments effectively excluded blind officers from promotional opportunities because the duties associated with those roles were not accessible under existing systems and technologies.

After examining the issue, the CCPD accepted the core concerns raised by VIBEWA and held that the promotion criteria had the effect of disadvantaging visually impaired employees. The CCPD recommended that SBI modify its promotion policy, provide reasonable accommodation, recognise alternative assignments performed by blind officers and review exclusionary provisions that impeded career progression.

SBI, however, declined to implement the recommendations, resulting in the dispute eventually reaching the Delhi High Court.

Significantly, while the High Court stopped short of striking down the promotion policy, it accepted the legitimacy of the concerns underlying the CCPD proceedings. The Court noted that seemingly neutral promotion criteria can operate in a discriminatory manner against persons with disabilities and directed SBI's Board of Directors to reconsider the issue after examining detailed proposals to be submitted by VIBEWA.

Thus, nearly three-and-a-half years after the CCPD's intervention, the concerns first raised before the disability rights watchdog have now received judicial recognition from the Delhi High Court.

The Real Issue: Equal Criteria or Equal Opportunity?

The case raises a recurring question in disability rights jurisprudence: Does treating everyone identically always amount to equality?

SBI argued that the same promotion criteria apply to all officers and that several visually impaired officers are already performing the mandatory assignments.

VIBEWA, however, contended that equality cannot mean forcing blind officers to satisfy requirements that are designed around visual functions.

The Association pointed out that Branch Managers and Credit Officers are required to:

• Verify original title deeds and signatures;
• Conduct physical inspections of business premises and collateral properties;
• Monitor CCTV footage and strong rooms;
• Verify stocks and securities;
• Certify regulatory compliance carrying personal liability.

In the absence of accessible systems and clear accountability mechanisms, blind officers face barriers that their sighted counterparts do not. The result is not merely inconvenience—it is exclusion from promotion itself.

High Court Recognises the Principle of Indirect Discrimination

While the Court did not strike down SBI's policy, it accepted an important legal principle.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Leesamma Joseph and In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the Court recognised that a seemingly neutral rule can still operate in a discriminatory manner if it disproportionately disadvantages persons with disabilities.

The Court observed:

"Any provision that creates an impediment to the promotion of visually impaired officers would run contrary to the provisions of the RPwD Act."

This observation is significant because it shifts the focus from formal equality to substantive equality—the cornerstone of modern disability rights law.

Why the Court Did Not Strike Down the Policy

The Court ultimately refrained from invalidating the promotion criteria because it found that the Association had not placed before it sufficient details regarding specific officers adversely affected by the policy or concrete proposals capable of addressing SBI's operational concerns.

However, instead of rejecting the claim, the Court adopted a solution-oriented approach.

It directed VIBEWA to submit a comprehensive representation identifying affected officers, detailing the barriers they face, and proposing alternative pathways, accommodations and best practices adopted by other public sector banks. SBI's Board of Directors has been directed to examine these proposals and consider implementing feasible measures consistent with the RPwD Act.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is important for reasons extending far beyond SBI.

First, it represents judicial recognition that career stagnation can itself amount to disability discrimination.

Second, it reinforces the Supreme Court's evolving jurisprudence that indirect discrimination is as harmful as explicit exclusion.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it breathes fresh life into the CCPD's 2022 findings, which SBI had effectively ignored for over three years.

The Court has not given SBI a clean chit. Instead, it has required the country's largest public sector bank to engage with the concerns raised by blind employees, revisit the CCPD's recommendations, and seriously examine whether alternative pathways and reasonable accommodations can be devised.

For thousands of employees with disabilities working in the banking sector, the judgment sends a clear message: promotion policies cannot be insulated from scrutiny merely because they are framed in neutral language. If a rule creates barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from progressing in their careers, institutions must justify those barriers and actively seek solutions.

The next chapter of this battle will now unfold before SBI's Board of Directors.

Editor's Disclosure: The author of this blog post, Advocate Subhash Chandra Vashishth, represented the Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association (VIBEWA) in the proceedings before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities that culminated in the CCPD's recommendations discussed in this article. The CCPD recommendations were covered in our blog post titled "Court of CCPD holds the SBI's Promotion Policy to grades of SMGS IV and SMGS V (2022-23) as discriminatory to employees with visual disabilities, recommends review" dated 01 Dec 2022.

Read the High Court Judgement  in VIBEWA Vs. SBI & Others

Brain vs. Eye: Delhi HC Rules Ocular Sight Not Required for Legal Roles under RPwD Act in Mudit Gupta v. Airport Authority of India case

 

Blindness Reservation & Sight Function Case

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

Case No.: W.P.(C) 938/2025 & CM APPL. 4579/2025 (Connected with W.P.(C) 61/2025 & W.P.(C) 68/2025)

Case Title: Mudit Gupta v. Airport Authority of India and Anr. (Along with Amit Kumar & Ors v. Airport Authority of India and Deepak Arora & Anr v. Airport Authority of India)

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2025

Citation: 2025:DHC:9207-DB

Cases Referred: Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 626; Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) 10 SCC 772; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370; National Federation of the Blind v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan MANU/DE/7042/2023; In re. Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150; Ravi Kumar v. Department of Space 316 (2025) DLT 531; Anmol v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine SC 387; Rathod Anil v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8114; Satyendra Kumar v. UOI 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9529; Pragati Kesharwani v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7924; Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission MANU/SC/0633/2025; Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services MANU/SC/1172/2024; Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 17;  Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576.

Summary & Brief Background

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) issued Advertisement 03/2023 inviting applications for multiple executive-level vacancies, which legally allocated reserved slots under "Category A" for candidates who are blind or experience low vision. The petitioner, Mudit Gupta, who is completely blind, applied for the post of Junior Executive (Law), passed the competitive Computer Based Test (CBT), and was provisionally selected. However, during the document verification stage, AAI withheld his selection to determine whether he satisfied the functional requirements of "Reading & Writing" and "Seeing" stipulated in the advertisement table.

AAI subjected him to a medical examination layout at VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, which certified that he could not clinically perform functions by "seeing". Invoking Note 8 of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD) Notification dated January 4, 2021, AAI cancelled his candidature on the grounds of functional unsuitability. Identical cancellations occurred for Amit Kumar (aspiring to Junior Executive - Common Cadre) and Deepak Arora (aspiring to Junior Executive - Finance). The aggrieved petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions seeking to quash the cancellations and challenge the constitutional validity of Note 8.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

a) The Clinical Ocular Defense: AAI maintained that every administrative post carries essential functional demands. They argued that since "seeing" was explicitly recorded as a foundational requirement, and a specialized medical board certified that the blind candidates could not physically see, the organization was fully justified in disqualifying them. AAI further contended that because the petitioners participated in the selection process with full knowledge of these functional filters, they were legally estopped from challenging the conditions after failing to receive a final appointment.

b) The Structural Reservation Contradiction: The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta (who is himself blind), exposed a major systemic contradiction. They pointed out that the statutory Expert Committee, acting under Section 33 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), had already reviewed these positions and explicitly identified them as suitable for blind individuals. Therefore, the statutory body had already determined that the functional duties of the office could be successfully handled by a blind officer. To deploy a cold medical exam to exclude a candidate based on the exact impairment for which the slot was reserved creates an absurd, self-defeating layout that nullifies legislative reservations. Strikingly, the Union of India itself supported the petitioners, noting that AAI had entirely misconstrued Note 8 to convert it into a tool of medical exclusion.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an appointing establishment can legally utilize a clinical or medical examination to override statutory identification and disqualify a candidate based on a disability for which the post was explicitly reserved.
2. How the functional requirement of "seeing" must be interpreted within the protective, rights-based regime of the RPwD Act, 2016.
3. Whether the principle of estoppel strips a disabled candidate of their locus to contest discriminatory misconstructions of recruitment guidelines if they participated in the selection process.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court partly allowed the writ petitions, providing a landmark ruling on inclusive equality and the biological nature of human perception:

• The Cognitive Nature of Sight (Brain vs. Eye): In an extraordinary neuro-legal analysis, the Court dismantled the narrow definition of sight, differentiating between biological ocular functions and real conceptual perception:

"The eye is a sense organ. It processes no power of cognition or discernment. It merely fulfils the function of recording of an image which is before it... The recorded image is then transmitted, through electrical signals, to the brain, via the optic nerve. The function of interpreting and understanding the image that was recorded on the retina is performed by the brain. The power of cognition, discernment and understanding, therefore, vests in the brain, not in the eye. Expressed otherwise, the function of sight, which we otherwise attribute to the eye, is in fact largely performed by the brain." The Court held that if a blind professional is capable of understanding, processing, and navigating legal or financial records through digital assistive frameworks, they legally fulfil the functional attribute of "seeing".

• Repudiation of the Medicalized Model: Drawing heavily from the Apex Court's ruling in In re. Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the Court observed that assessing a candidate’s functional capacity through clinical metrics completely violates the social model of disability:

"...the principle of reasonable accommodation is a concept that not only relates to affording equal opportunity to the persons with disabilities but also it goes further as to ensuring the dignity of the individual by driving home the message that the assessment of a person's suitability, capacity and capability is not to be tested and measured by medical or clinical assessment of the same but must be assessed after providing reasonable accommodation and an enabling atmosphere."

• The Mandate for Reasonable Accommodation: The Court emphasized that both the DEPWD working remarks and Note 1 explicitly demand that suitability must be evaluated alongside assistive technologies, digital reading software, and customized adaptations. Dismissing a candidate without providing these accommodations is an act of indirect discrimination that forces substantive inequality.
• No Estoppel Against Sacrosanct Rights: Invoking Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai, the Court firmly threw out AAI’s estoppel defense, ruling that participating in a process means accepting standard procedure, not condoning structural illegality:

"In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it... There can be no estoppel against enforcement of such rights. They are sacrosanct, and part of our constitutional ethos."

• Note 8 Upheld under Rights-Based Parameters: The Court refused to strike down Note 8 of the DEPWD Notification, clarifying that when properly read, it simply tasks establishments with verifying certificates and assessing candidate requirements in an enabling framework, rather than acting as a gateway for medical exclusion.

Directions Issued

To enforce structural compliance and secure integration, the High Court issued the following mandatory directions:

• The administrative rejections quashing the candidatures of Mudit Gupta, Amit Kumar, and Deepak Arora were set aside.
• The respondents are directed to conduct a comprehensive non-medical, rights-based re-assessment of the petitioners' functional capabilities within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
• This assessment layout must strictly utilize assistive devices, specialized software, and an enabling atmosphere as mandated by current disability jurisprudence.
• Petitioners who are evaluated as suitable must be extended formal letters of appointment within four weeks of the re-assessment.
• Upon selection, the petitioners will receive notional appointments matching their original batchmates, carrying full continuity of service and all associated seniority benefits, except back wages.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement in Mudit Gupta Vs. AAI dt 16 Oct 2025

Variance of High Magnitude in Disability Percentage : Delhi HC Orders Composite Medical Board for PwBD Candidate in Shubham Agarwal v. UOI

Civil Services - Disability Quota- Formation of Independent Expert Medical Board in case of conflicting opinions 

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain

Case No.: W.P.(C) 13162/2025 & CM APPL. 53924/2025

Case Title: Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors

Date of Decision: October 6, 2025

Citation: 2025:DHC:8847-DB

Cases Referred: Department of Personnel and Training v. Kore Nihal Pramod (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17995/2025).

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner participated in the Civil Services Examination 2024 under the Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) category, claiming a permanent hearing impairment exceeding the 40% benchmark. He successfully cleared the examination, securing an All India Rank of 1001. On May 27, 2025, he underwent an initial mandatory medical examination at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where a medical report dated May 30, 2025, declared him unfit for appointment after measuring his disability at a mere 1%.

Aggrieved by this assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the statutory Appellate Disability Medical Board constituted at the Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi. The Appellate Board subjected him to an exhaustive clinical examination between July 3, 2025, and July 11, 2025, ultimately determining that he suffered from a 67.84% hearing disability.

Instead of acting upon the Appellate Board's findings, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued an email directive on August 5, 2025, ordering the petitioner to report to Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (SSKH), Lady Hardinge Medical College, for a third medical evaluation. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, under O.A. No. 3093/2025 to challenge the validity of this additional check. On August 21, 2025, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to comply with the third medical review, while provisionally permitting him to join the training program in the interim. Seeking relief from the directive forcing a third medical test, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Finality of Appellate Checks: The petitioner contended that under the established Civil Services Examination Rules, the assessment rendered by the statutory Appellate Disability Medical Board is final and binding. He argued that the state cannot systematically override the definitive findings of specialized appellate boards to demand endless cycles of examination based on administrative whims. Furthermore, the petitioner distinguished his case from the Supreme Court precedent in Kore Nihal Pramod, explaining that the Apex Court had ordered a neutral panel only because of a direct contradiction where an appellate board had declared a candidate unfit but a subsequent High Court-ordered evaluation declared them fit.

• The Variance of High Magnitude: The respondents defended the third test order by exposing a massive contradiction between the two state-run medical evaluations. They highlighted that the initial AIIMS board recorded a negligible 1% impairment layout, while the Army Hospital (R&R) panel calculated a severe 67.84% hearing disability. The state argued that this massive mathematical variance rendered a clarifying, independent third assessment essential to make a final recruitment decision.

Key Issues Addressed

• Whether an appointing authority can legally subject a PwBD candidate to a third medical examination when there is a massive conflict between the initial medical board and the statutory appellate board.
• What legal weight and finality must be ascribed to an Appellate Disability Medical Board's report when its findings conflict extensively with initial assessments.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, moulding the relief to balance the structural rules of recruitment with fair medical verification:

• The Reality of a Significant Disparity: The Court recognized that while an Appellate Medical Board's findings are structurally designed to act as final and non-challengeable under standard conditions, the specific numerical indices in this case revealed a stark institutional anomaly.

• Validation of the Magnitude: The Bench observed that the conflict did not represent a routine, minor variation in medical interpretation, but rather a structural contradiction of exceptional proportions:

  "It is not a matter of just difference in medical opinion, but a difference of opinion of a high magnitude."

• Contextualizing Prior Assessments: The Court noted that earlier medical certificates submitted by the petitioner had independently pegged his permanent hearing disability at 40% and 44%. This made the initial AIIMS finding of 1% and the subsequent appellate finding of 67.84% highly inconsistent, justifying an independent tie-breaker review layout.

• The Balanced Apex Court Model Adopted: Rather than permitting the DoPT to unilaterally select a single local hospital for the third evaluation, the High Court invoked the equitable process mapped out by the Supreme Court in Kore Nihal Pramod. The Bench held that the evaluation must be performed by a jointly constituted, high-level composite independent board to ensure strict transparency.

Directions Issued

To resolve the impasse and eliminate institutional biases, the High Court issued the following time-bound operational directions:

• The petitioner’s third medical evaluation layout was modified. The Court ordered the constitution of a fresh, specialized three-member Expert Medical Board specifically tracking hearing disabilities.

• The Board will consist of three independent experts: one doctor nominated by the Director of AIIMS, one nominated by the Director General of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), and one nominated by the Chief of the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi.

• To preserve absolute neutrality, the Court directed that the respective medical chiefs must not nominate any individual doctors who have previously examined the petitioner in the earlier rounds.

• The respective institutions are requested to formally constitute the specialized board within two weeks, and the Board must deliver its final binding opinion regarding eligibility within one week of conducting the examination.

• Clarification on Training Guidelines: The Bench noted the petitioner's complaint that the state had failed to comply with CAT’s interim order allowing him to join the training program. The High Court clarified that its own ad-interim order passed on August 28, 2025, had strictly stayed only the third medical test directive, meaning the remaining parts of the Tribunal's training guidelines remained fully operational and subject to active enforcement before the CAT.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement in Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors

Delhi High Court Examines Diversion of Unfilled Disability Reservation Seats in Higher Education.

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1975/2023
Case Title: Ms. Jahanvi Nagpal v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025

Background

The Delhi High Court examined an important issue concerning implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities in higher educational institutions under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The petitioner Jahanvi Nagpal filed this petition challenging the manner in which seats reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) were being dealt with during the NEET-UG 2022 admission process.

Initially, the petitioner sought allocation of a medical seat under the PwBD category and also questioned the restriction of reservation benefits only to persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

However, during the proceedings, the focus shifted to a larger systemic issue — what happens to reserved PwBD seats when sufficient eligible benchmark disability candidates are not available. While in employment reservation, seats are carried forward to subsequent years and rotated to other disabilities, but in higher education such seats were routinely diverted to general or other categories instead of being offered to persons with disabilities who may not meet the benchmark disability threshold.

According to the petitioner, this practice defeats the purpose of disability reservation and weakens the statutory guarantee of inclusion in higher education.

The issue assumed wider significance because it directly concerned the implementation of disability reservation in highly competitive professional courses such as medical education.

Earlier, the High Court had observed that the case raised an important question regarding diversion of unfilled disability reservation seats and required detailed consideration by the Union of India and the National Medical Commission.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 32 of the RPwD Act, which mandates a minimum 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher educational institutions receiving government aid.

The Court noted that while the law provides for reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, it does not clearly specify the mechanism to be followed when enough eligible benchmark disability candidates are unavailable.

A major issue before the Court was whether unfilled disability reservation seats should continue within the broader disability category or be diverted to non-disabled candidates.

The proceedings highlighted a recurring concern in disability reservation policies — although reservation quotas formally exist, administrative practices often dilute their practical effect through diversion mechanisms.

The Court recognised that the issue involved important questions relating to:

• Meaningful implementation of disability reservation;
• Substantive inclusion in higher education;
• Interpretation of Section 32 of the RPwD Act; and
• Equality and participation rights of persons with disabilities.

The case also brought attention to the distinction between “persons with disabilities” and “persons with benchmark disabilities” under the RPwD Act. The petitioner questioned whether disability reservation seats could be transferred to non-disabled candidates merely because candidates did not satisfy the benchmark disability threshold.

Importantly, the proceedings also reflected the Court’s attention towards accessibility within the judicial process itself. In an earlier order, the Court directed that pleadings and documents be supplied to the petitioner in accessible Word format, recognising the importance of accessible digital documents for effective participation in legal proceedings.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India, the National Medical Commission and other respondents to file detailed responses regarding the policy and legal basis for diversion of unfilled PwBD seats.

The Court observed that:

• The petition raised an important issue concerning implementation of disability reservation in higher education;
• The respondents must explain the legal and policy framework governing diversion of unfilled disability reservation seats; and
• The issue required judicial examination because diversion of reserved disability seats may undermine the purpose of Section 32 of the RPwD Act.
• Court refered this issue to the Law Commission of India for conducting a study and accordingly to make recommendations for appropriate amendment(s) in the RPwD Act.

The Court also directed that documents and pleadings be provided to the petitioner in accessible Word format.

Commentary

The proceedings in Ms. Jahanvi Nagpal v. Union of India & Ors. raise an important issue concerning the effectiveness of disability reservation in higher education.

One of the key concerns highlighted in the case is that disability reservation may become merely symbolic if reserved seats are routinely diverted to non-disabled candidates whenever eligible benchmark disability candidates are unavailable unlike in job reservations.

The case is significant because it questions whether administrative practices can dilute the broader objective of educational inclusion under the RPwD Act.

It also highlights a deeper issue within the statutory framework — the distinction between “persons with disabilities” and “persons with benchmark disabilities.” While reservation under Section 32 is limited to benchmark disabilities, the broader constitutional goal of inclusion extends to persons with disabilities generally.

The proceedings therefore raise important questions about whether disability reservation should be interpreted narrowly through medical thresholds or more broadly in favour of substantive inclusion and representation.

The case additionally underscores the need for clearer rules regarding carry-forward of seats, interchangeability mechanisms and treatment of unfilled disability reservation seats in higher education institutions.

Another important aspect of the proceedings is the Court’s recognition of procedural accessibility. By directing supply of documents in accessible Word format, the Court reinforced that accessibility obligations also apply to courts and legal processes.

Overall, the proceedings contribute to the growing disability rights jurisprudence recognising that reservation for persons with disabilities is not a welfare concession but an enforceable right linked to equality, dignity and meaningful participation in education.

Read the judgement