Case: Shashank Pandey v. Union of India
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 715 of 2026
Date of Notice: 01 June 2026
Next Date of Hearing: 21 July 2026
On 1 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice in a significant public interest litigation filed by disability rights advocate Shashank Pandey, raising concerns about the ineffective implementation of the grievance redressal mechanism under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The matter is now listed for hearing on 21 July 2026.
The petition highlights a systemic problem familiar to many persons with disabilities across India: even after securing favourable recommendations from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) or State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities (SCPDs), implementation often remains elusive because authorities simply ignore the recommendations without consequences.
The Enforcement Gap
The RPwD Act establishes the offices of the CCPD and SCPDs as specialised statutory bodies entrusted with protecting and enforcing disability rights. Sections 76 and 81 of the Act require authorities to act on recommendations made by these commissions within three months. If an authority chooses not to comply, it must communicate reasons for such non-acceptance both to the concerned commission and to the aggrieved person.
According to data relied upon in the petition, however, this statutory framework is routinely disregarded.
The petition cites information furnished by the Union Government before the Supreme Court in an earlier case concerning compliance with CCPD recommendations. The data allegedly reveals that in a majority of cases authorities neither comply with recommendations nor furnish reasons for refusing to do so. For instance, in 2022, action taken reports were received in only 81 out of 250 cases, while reasons for non-acceptance were furnished in only 22 of the remaining cases. Similar trends were reported for 2023 and 2024.
The petitioner argues that only about 10–15% of cases involving non-compliance are accompanied by the statutorily mandated explanation, rendering the legislative safeguard largely ineffective.
Penalty Powers Rarely Used
One of the central concerns raised in the PIL is the near-total absence of enforcement through the penalty provisions contained in the RPwD Act.
Section 93 empowers disability commissions to impose fines on authorities that fail to furnish information, reports, or documents that they are legally required to provide. The petition contends that despite widespread failures to submit action taken reports or reasons for non-acceptance, there is no known instance where the CCPD has actually imposed penalties under this provision.
Similarly, Section 89 provides for penalties for contravention of provisions of the Act, yet the petition alleges that these powers remain largely unutilised.
According to the petitioner, this has resulted in a situation where successful complainants must approach High Courts or the Supreme Court merely to secure implementation of recommendations already issued by specialised disability commissions. The petition cites several examples where litigants had to seek constitutional remedies despite obtaining favourable findings from disability commissions.
Institutional Weakening of Disability Commissions
Beyond enforcement concerns, the PIL paints a troubling picture regarding the functioning and resourcing of disability commissions.
The petition notes that since 2019, the post of Chief Commissioner has not been occupied by a full-time appointee, with the position reportedly being handled as an additional charge by the Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. The petitioner argues that this arrangement is inconsistent with the scheme of the RPwD Act and Rules, which contemplate an independent statutory office.
The petition further points out that only one of the two Additional Commissioner posts contemplated under Section 74(2) is presently filled, effectively reducing what should be a three-member leadership structure to a significantly weakened arrangement.
These vacancies, it is argued, contribute to delays in complaint adjudication despite the RPwD Rules envisaging disposal of complaints within three months.
Budgetary and Staffing Concerns
The PIL also raises concerns regarding financial and human resource allocation.
According to the petition, the CCPD's office received only ₹5.5 crore in budgetary allocation for 2025–26, substantially lower than allocations made to several other statutory commissions. For 2026–27, the allocation reportedly stands at ₹6.5 crore.
The petitioner argues that such limited resources affect the ability of disability commissions to discharge their statutory responsibilities effectively.
The petition further alleges that many State Commissions suffer from acute staffing shortages. Some reportedly lack even basic support personnel such as legal consultants, clerical staff, stenographers, and accountants necessary for efficient grievance redressal.
Digital Accessibility and Online Grievance Redressal
The PIL also highlights deficiencies in the digital infrastructure of disability commissions.
According to the petition, a large number of State Disability Commissions do not maintain functional websites. The petitioner further alleges that only four states presently provide a functioning online mechanism for registration of complaints, while most states and Union Territories either lack such systems altogether or operate dysfunctional portals.
For a rights enforcement framework intended to serve persons with disabilities across the country, the absence of accessible digital complaint mechanisms raises serious access-to-justice concerns.
Missing Advisory Committees
Another issue flagged in the PIL concerns the advisory committees mandated under Sections 74(8) and 79(7) of the RPwD Act.
The Act requires both the CCPD and SCPDs to be assisted by advisory committees comprising experts from the disability sector. However, the petitioner asserts that such committees are presently either non-existent or non-functional at both the central and state levels.
Reliefs Sought
The petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to:
- Frame guidelines ensuring effective and time-bound compliance with recommendations issued by disability commissions and ensure meaningful utilisation of penalty provisions under Sections 89 and 93 of the RPwD Act.
- Direct the Union Government to fill vacancies in the Office of the Chief Commissioner, including the vacant post of Additional Commissioner.
- Ensure constitution of advisory committees at both central and state levels.
- Order an independent audit of the offices of the CCPD and SCPDs to identify infrastructural, staffing and resource gaps and ensure their timely rectification.
Why This PIL Matters
The case raises a question that goes to the heart of disability rights enforcement in India: What value do statutory rights have if the institutions created to enforce them lack the authority, resources, or willingness to ensure compliance?
The RPwD Act established a specialised grievance redressal mechanism precisely to provide persons with disabilities a faster and more accessible alternative to conventional court litigation. If recommendations issued after inquiry can be routinely ignored without consequence, the effectiveness of that mechanism becomes seriously undermined.
The outcome of this PIL may therefore have implications extending far beyond the offices of the CCPD and SCPDs. It could determine whether disability commissions function merely as recommendatory bodies or evolve into robust institutions capable of securing meaningful compliance with disability rights obligations across the country.
With notice now issued and the matter scheduled for hearing on 21 July 2026, the Supreme Court's consideration of these issues will be closely watched by the disability rights community.