Supreme Court Sets Four-Week Deadline for Appointment of Independent Disability Commissioners in the States and Centre in Rajive Raturi Vs Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Case: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (C) No. 243 of 2005 (along with connected matters)
Order Date: 29 July 2026

Next Date of Hearing: 20 January 2027

Statutory Provisions Involved

Provision	Subject	Relevance in this Order
Section 74, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016	Appointment of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and Additional Commissioners	The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to appoint the Chief Commissioner and two Additional Commissioners within four weeks in accordance with this provision.
Section 79, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016	Appointment of State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities	The Court directed ten States/UTs to appoint State Commissioners within four weeks and clarified that the appointments must be made with independent charge, not as an additional charge.
Section 89, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016	Punishment for contravention of the Act, Rules or Regulations	The Court noted the absence of an effective mechanism for recovery of penalties under this provision and urged the Union Government to address this while finalising the Rules.
Rule 30, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017	Qualifications and eligibility for appointment of the Chief Commissioner	The Court specifically referred to Rule 30 and reminded the Union Government that a serving Government officer must retire from service before appointment as Chief Commissioner, thereby reinforcing the independence of the office.

Background

More than three years after the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to appoint independent Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities by 31 August 2023, the issue has once again come before the Court owing to continued non-compliance by several Governments. In its order dated 17 July 2023 in Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had recognised that Commissioners perform crucial statutory functions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and directed all defaulting States and Union Territories to make appointments within a fixed timeline. Despite those directions, vacancies have continued in several jurisdictions, while the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has also remained without a regular incumbent since 2019.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court, while monitoring implementation of its landmark accessibility judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, has once again intervened to strengthen the institutional framework under the RPwD Act. By its order dated 29 July 2026, the Court directed ten States and Union Territories to appoint independent State Commissioners within four weeks, directed the Union Government to appoint the Chief Commissioner and two Additional Commissioners within the same period, and issued further directions concerning the finalisation of accessibility rules and enforcement of the Act.

The matter has remained under continuous monitoring to ensure effective implementation of the judgment. Earlier, by an order dated 11 February 2026, the Court had sought detailed status reports from the Union Government regarding progress made in framing the new accessibility framework.

When the matter was taken up on 29 July 2026, the Court considered the latest status report filed by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and issued several important directions concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act. The order addresses three significant issues: the appointment of statutory disability commissioners, progress in framing accessibility rules, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms under the Act.

Accessibility Rules Under the RPwD Act

The Union Government informed the Court that substantial progress had been made in framing the new accessibility rules pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment.

According to the status report placed before the Court:

• the draft notification relating to the built environment is ready for final notification;
• draft rules relating to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have already been published; and
• a draft report relating to assistive technologies, services and products has also been prepared.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that before the draft rules are finalised and notified, the suggestions already submitted by disability organisations and domain experts should be meaningfully considered so that no deficiencies remain in the final framework.

Accepting this submission, the Court observed that there should be no difficulty in ensuring that the Rules effectively fulfil the objectives of the RPwD Act. Noting that several stakeholders had already submitted detailed suggestions before the committees constituted by the Ministry, the Court urged the Union Government to carefully examine those recommendations before finalising the Rules.

The Bench observed that once the Rules are notified, shortcomings should not subsequently emerge that could have been addressed during the drafting stage itself.

The Court further requested the learned Additional Solicitors General to provide copies of the latest status report along with the draft Rules to all stakeholders so that they may examine the proposals and submit their responses at the earliest.

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Independent State Commissioners

One of the most important aspects of the order concerns the continued absence of State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in several States and Union Territories.

During the hearing, Advocate Rahul Bajaj pointed out that despite the statutory requirement contained in Section 79 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, several States had still not appointed State Commissioners. It was submitted that these authorities perform a crucial role in ensuring effective implementation of the Act and in providing an institutional mechanism for grievance redressal and monitoring compliance.

The Court recorded that the following States and Union Territories had not appointed State Commissioners:

• Delhi
• Haryana
• Rajasthan
• Himachal Pradesh
• Karnataka
• Tamil Nadu
• Sikkim
• Nagaland
• Puducherry
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed all these Governments to appoint State Commissioners within four weeks in accordance with Section 79 of the RPwD Act. The Court made it clear that the direction must be strictly complied with, observing that any laxity would be viewed "very strictly".

Commissioner Must Hold Independent Charge

The Court also clarified an important aspect that has frequently arisen in disability governance.

Many States have, in the past, assigned the office of State Commissioner to serving officers as an additional charge, rather than appointing an independent statutory authority.

The Supreme Court expressly disapproved this practice and clarified:

"The State concerned shall appoint the Commissioner with an independent charge. The State should not appoint anyone as a Commissioner holding additional charge."

This clarification reinforces the independent character of the statutory office created under the RPwD Act.

Appointment of Chief Commissioner and Additional Commissioners

The Court also considered submissions regarding the prolonged vacancy in the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). It was pointed out that since 2019 there has been no full-time Chief Commissioner, with the Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, functioning only as an officer holding additional charge.

Reference was made to Section 74 of the RPwD Act and Rule 30 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which contemplate appointment of an independent Chief Commissioner and provide that a serving Government officer must retire from Government service before assuming the office.

Accepting these submissions, the Court directed the Union Government to complete the appointment of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities; and two Additional Commissioners, within four weeks, in accordance with Section 74 of the RPwD Act. The Court also specifically invited the attention of the Union Government to Rule 30 while making these appointments.

Effective Recovery of Penalties Under Section 89

Another issue raised before the Court related to Section 89 of the RPwD Act, which prescribes penalties for contravention of the Act and the Rules.

Counsel submitted that although the Act provides for monetary penalties, it does not prescribe any effective mechanism for recovery of those fines, thereby limiting practical enforcement.

The Supreme Court requested the Union Government to consider incorporating an appropriate recovery mechanism while finalising the new Rules so that penalties under Section 89 can be effectively enforced.

Existing Accessibility Standards Continue to Apply

The Court also reiterated an important clarification contained in paragraph 83 of its judgment dated 8 November 2024.

The Bench noted the submission that while new accessibility standards are being framed, compliance with existing accessibility obligations must continue.

The Court reiterated that:

"progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue unabated."

This clarification is significant because it prevents authorities from postponing compliance on the ground that revised accessibility standards are under preparation.

Non-Negotiable Accessibility Norms to be Finalised Within Six Months

The Court directed that the issuance of the non-negotiable accessibility norms envisaged in the main judgment must be completed within six months. The matter has been directed to be listed on 20 January 2027 for reporting compliance with all directions issued by the Court.

Significance

The order strengthens the institutional framework established under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. For nearly seven years, the office of the Chief Commissioner has remained without a full-time incumbent, while several States have either failed to appoint State Commissioners altogether or have entrusted the office to officials holding additional charge. By directing appointments within a fixed time frame and expressly requiring independent charge, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that these statutory authorities are intended to function as independent oversight institutions rather than as additional responsibilities assigned to serving bureaucrats.

The order also ensures that the ongoing process of framing accessibility rules remains consultative and participatory by directing meaningful consideration of stakeholder inputs before final notification. At the same time, the Court has reiterated that existing accessibility obligations under the RPwD Act and the Accessible India Campaign remain fully enforceable until the new framework comes into force.

The proceedings will now continue on 20 January 2027, when the Supreme Court will examine compliance with these directions.

Read the Order dated 27 July 2026

Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Stronger Enforcement of Disability Commission Orders

Court: Supreme Court of India
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:

1. 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.
2. Direct the Union Government to fill vacancies in the Office of the Chief Commissioner, including the vacant post of Additional Commissioner.
3. Ensure constitution of advisory committees at both central and state levels.
4. 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.