Hostel Accommodation is Part of Inclusive Education: Delhi High Court Upholds Rights of Visually Impaired JNU Student

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 75/2024
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2024

Background

In an important judgment concerning accessibility and inclusive education, the Delhi High Court held that hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be treated merely as a discretionary facility and forms an integral part of ensuring equal access to higher education under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”).

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, a student with 100% visual disability, approached the Court seeking hostel accommodation from Jawaharlal Nehru University during his M.A. Sociology programme.

The petitioner had earlier pursued multiple academic programmes within the University. Initially admitted in 2017 to a five-year B.A.-M.A. programme in German, he had been provided hostel accommodation during the course. Thereafter, he enrolled in another Master’s programme in Political Science with specialisation in International Studies and continued to reside in university accommodation, including a room in Sabarmati Hostel designated for students with disabilities.

However, after securing admission to a third programme — M.A. Sociology — the petitioner was denied hostel accommodation despite repeated requests.

Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities alleging violation of Section 16 of the RPwD Act, which mandates inclusive education and non-discrimination against students with disabilities.

The University resisted the claim by relying upon provisions of the JNU Hostel Manual. According to the University, students pursuing a second Master’s degree were not entitled to hostel accommodation under the prevailing rules and priority criteria.

JNU also attempted to rely upon allegations concerning the petitioner’s conduct and previous disputes with hostel authorities. However, these allegations bore no connection with the legal issue regarding accessibility and entitlement under disability rights law.

The legal question

The case therefore raised a broader and significant question — whether residential accommodation for students with disabilities is merely an administrative privilege or an essential component of accessible and inclusive higher education.

Key Observations of the Court

The bench delivered a significant ruling affirming that accessibility within higher education extends beyond classroom participation and includes residential and institutional support systems necessary for meaningful educational access.

At the outset, the Court rejected the University’s attempt to rely upon allegations regarding the petitioner’s conduct. The Bench observed that such allegations were wholly irrelevant to the issue of entitlement under disability rights law. The Court clarified that if disciplinary proceedings were warranted, the University remained free to proceed in accordance with law, but such allegations could not justify denial of statutory rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.

A particularly important aspect of the judgment lies in the Court’s recognition that hostel accommodation for a visually impaired student directly impacts accessibility, mobility, participation, and safety within the educational environment.

The Court examined Section 16 of the RPwD Act and emphasised that educational institutions are under a statutory obligation to ensure inclusive education for students with disabilities. Importantly, the Court adopted a purposive and rights-based interpretation of the provision rather than a narrow administrative approach.

The judgment recognised that denial of hostel accommodation to a student with 100% visual disability could substantially impair the student’s ability to effectively pursue higher education. Residential accommodation within the university campus facilitates access to academic resources, mobility support, peer interaction, and participation in campus life.

The Court also examined the relationship between institutional regulations and statutory disability rights obligations. It held that internal hostel policies cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that defeats the objectives of the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the Bench recognised that substantive equality may require differential accommodation and affirmative institutional support. Applying hostel rules mechanically without considering the impact upon disabled students would amount to formal equality devoid of fairness and inclusion.

The Court thereby reaffirmed that disability rights law imposes positive obligations upon educational institutions requiring active institutional adaptation rather than passive non-discrimination.

The judgment also acknowledged the importance of dignity and equal participation, recognising that exclusion from hostel accommodation may lead to isolation, logistical hardship, and reduced participation in university life for students with disabilities.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court granted relief in favour of the petitioner and directed Jawaharlal Nehru University to provide hostel accommodation to him.

The Court effectively held that:

• Hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be denied through rigid or mechanical application of hostel eligibility criteria.
• Institutional rules must yield where necessary to fulfil obligations under the RPwD Act.
• Inclusive education under Section 16 of the RPwD Act includes ancillary and supportive facilities necessary for meaningful participation in higher education.
• Students with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation and equal participation within university environments.

The judgment thereby reinforced that educational inclusion extends beyond admission to classrooms and encompasses the broader ecosystem necessary for participation, accessibility, and dignity.

Commentary

The decision in Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors. is an important contribution to disability rights jurisprudence because it expands the understanding of inclusive education from a purely academic concept to a holistic institutional obligation encompassing residential accessibility and campus integration.

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is its recognition that barriers within higher education are not confined to classrooms alone. For students with disabilities — particularly students with visual impairments — access to residential accommodation within campus premises may fundamentally determine their ability to participate in educational life on equal terms.

The judgment meaningfully advances the constitutional principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would simply apply hostel rules identically to all students irrespective of disability. The Court instead recognised that identical treatment in unequal circumstances can itself produce discrimination.

Another important aspect of the ruling is its affirmation that internal institutional regulations cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act. Universities frequently rely upon administrative rules, hostel manuals, or infrastructural limitations to deny accommodations to disabled students. The present judgment correctly places disability rights obligations above rigid administrative formalism.

The Court’s reasoning also aligns with evolving international disability jurisprudence under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which conceptualises accessibility and inclusion as encompassing the entire educational environment rather than mere admission into educational institutions.

Importantly, the judgment rejects attempts to indirectly stigmatise disabled students through unrelated allegations or administrative objections. By refusing to allow the petitioner’s alleged conduct to influence adjudication of accessibility rights, the Court reaffirmed that disability rights cannot be made contingent upon institutional convenience.

The ruling also highlights broader structural shortcomings within Indian universities, where hostel accessibility, mobility support, assistive technologies, and inclusive campus infrastructure continue to remain inadequately addressed despite statutory obligations.

At a broader constitutional level, the judgment reinforces that education under the RPwD Act must be understood as a participatory and dignitarian right. Inclusion requires not merely permitting disabled students to enrol in universities, but ensuring that they can genuinely live, study, interact, and participate within institutional spaces on equal terms with others.

The decision therefore stands as an important precedent affirming that accessibility in higher education necessarily includes residential inclusion, institutional accommodation, and removal of barriers that impede full and effective participation of students with disabilities within university life.

Read the judgement

Supreme Court Calls for Systemic Reform in Recruitment of Special Teachers for Children with Disabilities

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar
Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 876 of 2017

Date of Judgment: 28 October 2021

Brief Background

This public interest petition was filed in a representative capacity, raising a crucial concern: the continued engagement of B.Ed. (Special Education) and D.Ed. (Special Education) trained teachers on a contractual basis by state authorities, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, despite their statutory recognition as qualified rehabilitation professionals.

The petitioners contended that this practice undermined both the rights of the teachers and the educational needs of Children with Special Needs (CwSN). They called for regular appointments of special educators in line with the recommended pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of 1:5, arguing that thousands of positions remain unfilled across the country despite the legal mandates.

Key Developments and Observations

The Supreme Court, during the course of hearing, considered several legal provisions, schemes, and factual reports:

1. Previous Court Directors and Amicus Report 

• The Court had previously directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to survey the population of CwSN and submit progress on recruitment of special educators.
• An Amicus Curiae was appointed to assess the situation on the ground. His report highlighted serious deficiencies in teacher availability, infrastructure, and educational quality across schools for the visually impaired, hearing impaired, and intellectually and physically disabled children.

2. Legal and Policy Framework Considered 

The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the legislative and policy landscape for inclusive education:

• Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (RCI Act): Mandates that only RCI-registered professionals with recognized qualifications can function as special educators. Any violation is a punishable offence.
• Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): Provides for inclusive education (Sections 16 & 17), free education for children with benchmark disabilities (Section 31), and duties of institutions to cater to diverse needs.
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): While it recognizes children with disabilities (Section 2(ee)), its Schedule of norms and standards does not specify PTR for CwSN, which creates a policy gap.
• Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and IEDSS Schemes: These schemes push for inclusion and recognize special educator-to-student ratios, particularly 1:5 under the Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS).

Supreme Court’s Key Findings and Directions

The Apex Court emphasized that the existing laws and schemes, taken together, create a binding obligation on governments to recruit qualified special educators. The lack of clarity in RTE norms was found to be a regulatory shortcoming needing urgent correction.

Major Directions Issued:

1. Central Government to amend the Schedule of the RTE Act, 2009, under Section 20, to include specific pupil-teacher ratios for CwSN, ensuring uniform standards across the country.

2. In the interim, until the amendment is notified, existing ratios in other enactments and schemes, particularly the 1:5 ratio under IEDSS, must be followed.

3. Only qualified, recognized, and RCI-registered rehabilitation professionals should be appointed as special educators. Ad-hoc arrangements and dilution of standards cannot be allowed.

4. The Court took note of communications from the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and CBSE, both highlighting the need for proper qualifications and adherence to inclusive education norms.

5. The Court strongly reminded authorities of their duty to ensure compliance with inclusive education mandates under the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD, to which India is a signatory.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is a milestone in advancing the cause of inclusive education in India. It clarifies the legal status of special educators as rehabilitation professionals, mandates strict adherence to disability-specific PTRs, and calls for coherence between education laws and disability rights frameworks.

Importantly, the Supreme Court relied upon and cited the 2019 order of the Mr. TD Dhariyal, the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, NCT of Delhi in the case of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director Education & Others , which had recommended two Special Educators per school in Delhi and had detailed disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios. This reflects the growing judicial recognition of the persuasive value of administrative orders under the RPwD Act.

Conclusion

Through this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that inclusive education is not a charity, but a legal right of children with disabilities, and that trained special educators are not expendable stopgaps, but integral professionals essential to realizing this right.

The verdict sets a strong precedent for systemic reform, and should serve as a wake-up call for education departments across the country to align their policies with the rights-based framework enshrined in Indian law.

Read the judgement 

Allahabad High Court issues notice to waive fees of students with disabilities as online classes not accessible

Parents of a child with autism have filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court against the school asking for fees in spite of the student not attending online classes during lockdown. The court issued a notice asking all CBSE affiliated schools to waive-off fee for children for benchmark disabilities in terms of  RPWD Act, 2016.

For many students with disabilities, the lockdown resulting from the COVID19 pandemic has definitely been difficult. Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are clueless on how to pursue their education through online classes which are not easy for many of them. 

In the instant case, the child with autism is studying in class third at Amit International School in Lucknow. He has been unable to attend online classes due to his developmental disability. He is also undergoing therapies for the same. He has not attended most of his ongoing online classes as he finds them difficult to follow. But since last March, his school authorities have been regularly sending messages to his parents asking them to deposit the school fee at the earliest.

As per the petition filed before the court, there are thousands of children with different disabilities across Lucknow. Many are unable to attend online classes due to their disabling conditions. Demanding fees from such children is an act that must be punishable. Moreover, this system does not provide inclusive education either for students with disabilities.

The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal & Justice Saurabh Lavania through video-conferencing. The bench was pleased to issue Notices to the school authorities through e-mail, WhatsApp and messages.

This notice from the high court comes as a big relief to the parents. The schools have not been providing inclusive education nor have sufficient trained teachers. Many parents have formed or joined many support groups for helping each other and sharing of information etc.

Sad reality
This is a sad reality for all stakeholders that despite the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and Right to Education Act (RTE) making provisions for free and compulsory education to students with disabilities from 6 to 18 years of age, most of these parents end up bearing so many expenses and receive no quality education for their children. They have to pay for the child’s therapies & related medical conditions. Apart from the exorbitant school fee being forced upon them, there are expenses of transporting children by school buses. On top of it, many schools insist the parents to hire shadow teachers at their own cost as a pre-condition to allow admission to a child with disability. This is double whammy for parents of intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) children. 

Way ahead
The education sector, particularly private schools need to wake up to make appropriate adaptations in the syllabus and teaching methodologies to be more sensitive and inclusive towards the needs of students with disabilities. The notice of the court is the first step is right direction. However, we hope that parents get relief even after the impact of COVID19 lockdown the something positive comes out of this litigation in larger interest of similarly placed parents & students with IDD.

Watch this space for more updates or follow the blog.

Towards Inclusive Education in Delhi: A Landmark Order on Special Educators in Schools by SCPD Delhi in Reshma Parveen Vs. Director of Education NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Court: State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. T. D. Dhariyal
Case No. : Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84
Case Title: Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others
Date of Judgement/Order: 31.12.2019

Brief Introduction

In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.

Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.

Her demands included:

• Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.
• Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.
• Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.
• Quality education access for children with disabilities.

Key Submissions from Respondents

Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:

• North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.
• Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.
• NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.
• EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.
• Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.
• RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.
• NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.

Expert Opinions and Key Observations

Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the Commissioner convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:

• No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.
• Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:
• 1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy
• 1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD
• 1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities
• While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.
• The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.

Directions & Recommendations by the Court

The Commissioner, invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:

1. Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.
2. Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.
3. Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.
4. Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).
5. Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.
6. Curriculum reform:

• NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.
• NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.

7. Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.
8. Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.

On RCI’s concern, the Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.

Reference in Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.

Conclusion and Impact

This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.

The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.

Read the Order 

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

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

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

Petitioner’s Grievance: Lack of Institutional Support

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

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

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

IIT Delhi’s Defence

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

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

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

Core Issue Before the Court

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

The Court framed the central issue in the following words:

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

Reliance on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

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

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

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

Justice Rekha Palli made a powerful observation:

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

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

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

Supreme Court Precedent on Additional Academic Support

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

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

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

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

The Court held:

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

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

Directions Issued by the Court

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

Significance of the Judgment

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

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

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

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

Read the final judgement dated 16.02.2018

US Supreme Court to hear ground breaking case involving what is "appropriate education" for students with Autism in public schools

Dear Colleagues,

The origins of this potentially lank mark case stretch back to 2010 when the parents of a child with autism in Douglas County of USA had to withdraw their child from "Summit View Elementary" -  a public school  after the child (now 17) began to exhibit severe behavioral issues, including banging his head, dropping to the floor, disrobing and running away from school. The parents having been convinced the school wasn’t doing enough to help their son with autism progress academically, pulled the child out of Summit View and enrolled him in Firefly Autism, a Denver school that specializes in working with autistic children.

The parents have argued in the petition they submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court late last year that the intent of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) was to provide a meaningful education to disabled students, not simply a “just-above-trivial” benefit. They noted that federal judges from several circuits across the country have issued conflicting rulings over the years on what is the "appropriate standard" to be used to assess the proper level of educational benefit a disabled student should get. The petition of the parents argues that this case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to resolve the circuit split and provide lower courts with guidance in applying the IDEA.

It is pertinent to note that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on the issue since the 1982 Board of Education Versus Rowley ruling, when it affirmed that IDEA guaranteed disabled students access to the public school classroom but didn’t address the quality of that education.

Even in India, we have been facing this issue of what is 'appropriate education' for children with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. While the government schools in India are woefully ill-equipped in absence of trained educators, lack of teaching learning material in the schools given the large number of students. The situation is equally grim in the private schools as well who charge a considerable amount in the name of tuition fee and other counts, however, have made the education of disabled children an affair to be managed by Shadow Teachers (paid by parents). In the name of inclusion, children do remain in the school but there is hardly an effort to include them in the classroom or the learning outcomes. Children with disabilities are also not included in play or extra-curricular activities. This is surely not inclusion. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and in particular Section 30 of the Act.

Entire world will be watching this case with great curiosity as to what Supreme Court of USA decides. But one thing is sure, Supreme Court had made up its mind to speak its mind on the issue and likely to grant Certiorari to the parents. This case is truly about equal opportunity for the special needs children that the law requires. And this is likely to help realize inclusive education as enshrined in the IDEA.

Brief about IDEA 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a four-part (A-D) piece of American legislation that ensures students with a disability are provided with Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their individual needs. IDEA was previously known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) from 1975 to 1990. In 1990, the United States Congress reauthorized EHA and changed the title to IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142). Overall, the goal of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

IDEA is composed of four parts, the main two being part A and part B.[1] Part A covers the general provisions of the law, Part B covers assistance for education of all children with disabilities, Part C covers infants and toddlers with disabilities which includes children from birth to age three, and Part D is the national support programs administered at the federal level. Each part of the law has remained largely the same since the original enactment in 1975.

In practice, IDEA is composed of six main elements that illuminate its main points. These six elements are: Individualized Education Program (IEP), Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Appropriate Evaluation, Parent and Teacher Participation, and Procedural Safeguards. To go along with those six main elements there are also a few other important components that tie into IDEA: Confidentiality of Information, Transition Services, and Discipline. Throughout the years of IDEA being reauthorized these components have become key concepts when learning about IDEA.

Here is the coverage in Denver on the issue

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Douglas County student with disabilities case

Origins of potentially landmark case stretch back to 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear a potentially groundbreaking case brought by a Douglas County couple who claim that their autistic son was not provided an adequate education in the public school system as required by federal law.

The high court’s ruling on the case, which likely wouldn’t come down until next year, could have substantial implications for students with disabilities across the country in terms of the standard school districts will be required to meet when providing instruction and services. At issue is whether schools must provide an education equal to other students.

The family, whose last name is not used in court documents, told The Denver Post on Thursday that they were “shell-shocked and giddy” about the decision by the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to their case, which has dragged on for half a dozen years.

“It’s about equal opportunity for special-needs kids that the law requires,” said Joe F., father of Endrew F., whose name anchors the Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District case file. “If we can change any families’ lives, that’s our goal.”

The district released a statement on the high court’s decision late Thursday.

“It would be inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the case while it is still being litigated, but the Court’s decision today is not a decision on the merits, and we look forward to addressing the issues before the Court,” district spokeswoman Paula Hans said.

The roots of the case go back to 2010, when the Highlands Ranch couple pulled Endrew, now 17, out of Summit View Elementary after he began to exhibit severe behavioral issues, including banging his head, dropping to the floor, disrobing and running away from school. Convinced the school wasn’t doing enough to help their son progress academically, the couple pulled him out of Summit View and enrolled him in Firefly Autism, a Denver school that specializes in working with autistic children.

“If he was able to show up to school and say ‘good morning,’ that was good enough for them,” Joe F. said of the Douglas County School District. “They weren’t moving his education forward.”

The family has asked that their last name not be used.

The parents, who said their son has made progress in his learning since attending Firefly, asked the district to reimburse them for the tuition they paid for Endrew’s private schooling. They claimed that the Douglas County School District did not do enough to provide their son with a “free appropriate public education” as required by the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

But an administrative law judge, a federal judge and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed the district, claiming in separate rulings that the federal statute only requires that schools provide students with “some educational benefit,” a standard they determined Douglas County had met with Endrew.

The family argued in the petition they submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court late last year that the intent of the IDEA was to provide a meaningful education to disabled students, not simply a “just-above-trivial” benefit. They noted that federal judges from several circuits across the country have issued conflicting rulings over the years on what is the appropriate standard to be used to assess the proper level of educational benefit a disabled student should get.

“This case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court to resolve the circuit split and provide lower courts with guidance in applying the IDEA,” their petition argued.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t spoken on the issue since the 1982 Board of Education v. Rowley ruling, when it affirmed that IDEA guaranteed disabled students access to the public school classroom but didn’t address the quality of that education.

The family received a boost last month when the Office of the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. It said that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had set the bar — a standard of “merely … more than de minimis” educational benefit — too low.

“No parent or educator in America would say that a child has received an ‘appropriate’ or a ‘specially suitable’ or ‘proper’ education ‘in the circumstances’ when all the child has received are benefits that are barely more than trivial,” the solicitor general’s office wrote.

But Kathleen Sullivan, chief counsel for the Colorado Association of School Boards, said it would be better for Congress to clarify its statutes than for the court to impose an order. A uniform standard handed down by the Supreme Court would prove “disruptive” to what is today an individually tailored analysis and decision between educators, parents and students, she said.

“The disruption is in shoving aside more than 30 years of case law that we have in helping us understand what the IDEA means for students,” Sullivan said. “I think we would see a wave of litigation to define and apply that new standard.”

The district, in a brief it filed earlier this month urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case, argued that in passing the IDEA, Congress guaranteed access to public education for students with disabilities but did not specify what the level of that education should be.

“Thus, for over 30 years, this Court has held that if a State provides a program ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,’ then it ‘has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more,’ ” the brief argued.

But Jack Robinson, an attorney for Endrew F.’s family, said one of the IDEA’s stated goals is readying a student with disabilities for the workforce or independent living, something that can’t be achieved with a minimal education offering.

“There has to be a more heightened and robust standard than a little more than nothing,” Robinson said. “This case has the potential of recognizing that children with disabilities have a right to a substantive education.”

Source : Denverpost 

Note: This post is also reproduced on " Subhash Vashishth's Blog"

Special Educators & Barrier Free Private schools remains a distant dream despite Court Orders

Dear colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier blog entry titled  Delhi High Court directs the private schools to make their schools barrier free and inclusive dated 07th May 2013 detailing the implications of Delhi High Court Judgement in WP(C) 4618/2011.   The Department of Education, Govt. of Delhi has been sleeping over this judgement dated 05th Sep 2012 in the matter titled Social Jurist Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi  [WP (C) 4618/2011](click on the case number to access the Judgement) indicates how serious the government has been on the issues related to the education of the children with disabilities in Delhi.

The government made no efforts to ensure whether the judgement was implemented in its true letter and spirit by the strong lobby of private unaided schools. It only woke up after the matter has been again taken up through another PIL titled Pramod Arora Versus Lt. Governor of Delhi  & others [WP (C) 1225 of 2014] in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed another judgement  03rd April 2014.   (click on the case number to access the Judgement).

Now the Directorate of Education, Govt. of Delhi vide its Notification No. DE-15/Act-I/WPC-1225/2014/25415-25416 dated 04.08.2014 regarding appointment of special educators & making the buildings/ schools premises barrier free to provide access to children with disabilities has directed the Private unaided schools to update the data whether they have made appointments of special educators in their schools or not and whether they ensure barrier free environment in their schools as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the above two judgements. A copy of the above notification is pasted below in the image format.

We hope the Govt. will be serious this time to bring the defaulting private unaided schools to book and ensure that the inclusive education becomes a reality.

Media Coverage: Daily Pioneer

SPECIAL EDUCATORS FOR UNAIDED PVT SCHOOLS

Tuesday, 05 August 2014 | SR | New Delhi

After facing the ire of the Delhi High Court, the Directorate of Education (DoE) on Monday issued a notice to all unaided private schools of Delhi to recruit special educators and make their schools premises barrier-free so as to provide movement and access to the children with disabilities. The notice has been issued by the directorate following a mandate by the High Court asking for a compliance report at the earliest.

According to a notice issued by Additional Director of Education Madhu Teotia, the unaided private schools of Delhi must comply with the 2012 order of the High Court which directed the schools to appoint special educators for disabled students.  The court granted time till September 9 this year to appoint these special educators and time till March 2013 to make the school premises barrier-free. The matter of appointment of special educators for the disabled children and other connected issues, have again been agitated before the High Court during the proceedings of another case, wherein, the court directed the department to submit a compliance report with regard to the same along with other related directions,” Teotia said.

The notice also highlights that despite several reminders to private schools, this matter was not taken seriously. Teotia had asked the schools to upload special educators and disabled children related information on a module which has been made available on the Directorate of Education website.

“However, it has been found that most of the schools are still to upload the requisite information on the website. Therefore, in strict compliance, private schools must upload the requisite information regarding disabled children on the department's website on the aforesaid module immediately if not done so already. They should additionally appoint special educators in their schools, if not appointed so far, at the earliest but not later than the time granted by the court. They must also make their building, school premises barrier-free for the disabled children immediately, if not done yet,” Teotia informed.

To ensure complete compliance of the mandate, Teotia has asked all Deputy Directors of Education to monitor this case on top priority as “being a High Court matter even contempt of the court is involved.”

The Deputy Directors of Education are expected to bring the status report in this case on August 6 to a meeting with Director of Education Padmini Singla. They are supposed to also bring along with them the names of the defaulting private schools and initiation of action against such schools. “Non-compliance of the order shall be viewed seriously,” informed Teotia.  

--

After Contempt petition, Deptt of Education, Delhi notifies nursery seats for children with disabilities

Please refer to my earlier posts titled  Disability angle in Nursery admission norms - HC issues notice to centre dated 26 Feb 2014 and Child with special needs distinct from disadvantage group under RTE dated 04 April 2014 on the subject. 

The Directorate of Education has finally notified the  high court order on the admission of disabled children into nursery. The circular directs 51 private unaided schools "to reserve at least two seats for the 'children with special needs' (CWSN) in their schools in nursery class for the academic year 2014-15".

To access the DoE Notification dated 19.5.2014, click here.  (The notification, the list of schools & the high order though is not accessible to the persons with visual impairment and is a very dim copy.... thanks to lack of sensitization in the DoE). This notification has come after the petitioner-representing a group of parents with disabled children-filed a contempt suit and over a month after the court first ordered DoE to keep seats vacant for this group on February 27.

The circular is not only for the 15 schools mentioned by the high court on May 15, but also says, "other schools as mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition are also directed to reserve the same number of seats" for the group.

The petitioner had furnished the court a list of 44 schools that had, till the previous academic year, allocated points in the 100-points system to disabled children. On April 11, DoE ordered inspection of these schools to take stock of existing facilities and on May 7 told the court that 18 had facilities, 18 didn't, and another eight couldn't be inspected. The same day, the petitioner submitted another list of seven schools that had offered similar points in the previous session.

The court had asked DoE to direct 15 (the eight uninspected and the seven newly-submitted) schools to reserve seats for the group. On being summoned, the representatives of the 18 schools without facilities also appeared in court on May 20 and will have to return with their replies on May 28.

DoE on Tuesday listed 51 schools -with and without facilities, the eight uninspected and the seven introduced later. On May 7, the court, "considering the fact that finalization of the admission process is imminent in the view of the orders of the Supreme court," directed DoE to issue a circular "within 24 hours from today (May 7)." When DoE didn't, the petitioner filed a contempt suit. The principal secretary (education) had appeared in court on May 16. DoE, however, remains under contempt till next hearing.

Cardiologist Amita Garg, who initiated litigation in the matter, is disappointed that DoE has taken so long. "This is just the start for us," she says. "We'll have to now approach schools afresh."

When the points system was fixed for all this year, no separate category was created for the disabled candidates. Under Right to Education Act, the disabled kids, coming under the 'disadvantaged categories', are eligible to apply for the 25% free-ship quota.

However, there's just one draw per school for it and the number of EWS (economically weaker section) applications is so overwhelmingly large, the disabled group has found itself out of the race altogether.

Source: Times of India  

Disability angle in Nursery admission norms - HC issues notice to centre

Nursery norms: Centre to clarify on disability quota
TNN | Feb 26, 2014, 02.19 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The High Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to clarify if Delhi's schools still have the discretion to provide admissions in nursery classes to disabled kids, despite the Lieutenant Governor's guidelines clubbing them with children of economically weaker groups (EWS).

A bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and R V Easwar gave a day's time to the Centre to explain after the latter told the court it is up to the Delhi government to make guidelines for providing any benefit to disabled kids since the city government has enough "elbow room" despite the LG's order.

But HC was not satisfied and questioned the Centre's stand saying "no elbow room is visible" under the guidelines or the Persons with Disabilities Act. It added that if no proper guidelines are framed for providing relief to disabled students, the "discretionary approach" of schools will get an "escape route".

"If you (Centre and Delhi governments) don't come out with guidelines, it could lead to an escape route to the discretionary approach of schools," the bench said and kept the matter for Wednesday after the counsel, appearing for the Centre, said its officials would be present in the court to explain the government's stand.

The bench was hearing a PIL, by Pramod Arora, father of a child with special needs, challenging the LG's nursery admission guidelines to the extent it clubs disabled children with kids from EWS group. His petition also seeks 3% reservation for disabled kids in the nursery class.

During the day's proceedings, the Centre said it is for Delhi government to evolve guidelines on the issue but the court pointed out only when the Centre asks the state government to do so will it acts.

It also asked the Centre to "see what is possible under the Act", whether 3% reservation is possible and if yes, how to implement the same.

Meanwhile a group of parents on Tuesday also challenged the points for interstate transfer in the new nursery admission guidelines. A bench of acting Chief Justice and Justice Siddharth Mridul sought a reply from the state government and posted the case for Thursday.

Source: Times of India

Delhi High Court directs the private schools to make their schools barrier free & inclusive

Dear Colleagues,

After its order directing all private and government schools in Delhi to appoint Special educators for children with disabilities and provide necessary teaching and learning material earlier, the Delhi High Court, on a petition by Social Jurist has ordered to make all private schools barrier free for the disabled. It was brought to the notice of the court that private schools do not have adequate physical and academic infrastructure for children with disabilities and thus children forced in to these institution continued to face discrimination.

It was pointed out in the petition that there are 2039 unaided recognized private schools (1260 recognized by Directorate of Education (DoE), GNCTD and 779 recognized by MCD) and 258 aided recognized private schools (214 aided by DoE, GNCTD and 44 aided by MCD) in Delhi and most of them do not have the provisions of basic physical as well as academic infrastructure, including Special Educators as required for the education of the children with disabilities; These schools also did not provide barrier free infrastructure to the children with disabilities. This violated Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 of such children as guaranteed under Articles 14,15,21, 21-A & 38 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, U.N. Convention on Rights of Child (1989) and U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

The bench of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw while hearing the petition W.P.(C) No.4618/2011 titled  Social Jurist, A civil rights group versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed all recognised, aided and unaided private schools in Delhi to appoint special educators and to make their buildings/school premises barrier-free for children with disabilities. The Director of Education has been directed to ensure that the Court Orders were followed and to de-recognise any school that has not made its premises disabled-friendly.

The court has now granted time up until March 31, 2013, to the schools to make their premises barrier-free and to appoint special educators with the next two years.

“Schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for special educators...no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing special educators or not providing barrier-free access on the school premises,” the court order says.

The court has also clarified that the capital expenditure on making the school building and premises barrier free so as to allow free movement to children with disability has to be incurred by the schools from their own coffers and is not reimbursable by the Government as Section 19 of the RTE Act requires all schools, as a condition for their recognition, to provide a barrier free access in their buildings.

The Court ordered that the schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for Special Educators and further ordain that no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing Special Educators or not providing barrier free access in the school premises. 

It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in matter Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 163 (2009) DLT 489 had directed the GNCTD as well schools run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and Cantonment Board to ensure that each school shall have at least two special educators and that necessary teaching aids and reading materials are provided to children with disability. However, this did not cover the Private schools.

Those who want to go through the detailed order, Click here. W.P.(C) No.4618/2011

Media Coverage

Indian Express-  Make pvt schools barrier free for disabled: HC

regards

Subhash Chandra Vashishth

Advocate

Delhi High Court directs the private schools to make their schools barrier free & inclusive

Dear Colleagues,

After its earlier order directing all private and government schools in Delhi to appoint Special educators for children with disabilities and provide necessary teaching and learning material, the Delhi High Court, on a petition by Social Jurist has now ordered to make all private schools barrier free for the disabled. 

It was brought to the notice of the court that private schools do not have adequate physical and academic infrastructure for children with disabilities and thus children forced in to these institution continued to face discrimination.

It was pointed out in the petition that there are 2039 unaided recognized private schools (1260 recognized by Directorate of Education (DoE), GNCTD and 779 recognized by MCD) and 258 aided recognized private schools (214 aided by DoE, GNCTD and 44 aided by MCD) in Delhi and most of them do not have the provisions of basic physical as well as academic infrastructure, including Special Educators as required for the education of the children with disabilities; These schools also did not provide barrier free infrastructure to the children with disabilities. This violated Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 of such children as guaranteed under Articles 14,15,21, 21-A & 38 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, U.N. Convention on Rights of Child (1989) and U.N. Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

The bench of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw while hearing the petition W.P.(C) No.4618/2011 titled  Social Jurist, A civil rights group versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed all recognised, aided and unaided private schools in Delhi to appoint special educators and to make their buildings/school premises barrier-free for children with disabilities. The Director of Education has been directed to ensure that the Court Orders were followed and to de-recognise any school that has not made its premises disabled-friendly.

The court has now granted time up until March 31, 2013, to the schools to make their premises barrier-free and to appoint special educators with the next two years.

“Schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for special educators...no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing special educators or not providing barrier-free access on the school premises,” the court order says.

The court has also clarified that the capital expenditure on making the school building and premises barrier free so as to allow free movement to children with disability has to be incurred by the schools from their own coffers and is not reimbursable by the Government as Section 19 of the RTE Act requires all schools, as a condition for their recognition, to provide a barrier free access in their buildings.

The Court ordered that the schools where children with special needs are already admitted or will be admitted hereafter shall immediately make provision for Special Educators and further ordain that no school shall refuse admission to children with disability for the reason of not employing Special Educators or not providing barrier free access in the school premises. 

It may be pertinent to mention here that earlier a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in matter Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 163 (2009) DLT 489 had directed the GNCTD as well schools run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and Cantonment Board to ensure that each school shall have at least two special educators and that necessary teaching aids and reading materials are provided to children with disability. However, this did not cover the Private schools.

Those who want to go through the detailed order, Click here. W.P.(C) No.4618/2011

Media Coverage

Indian Express-  Make pvt schools barrier free for disabled: HC 

regards

Adv Subhash Vashishth