Universal Accessibility Gets Judicial Backing: Karnataka High Court Issues Comprehensive SOP, Declares Accessibility a Fundamental Right

Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11351 of 2020
Case Title: PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Others
Date of Judgment: 1 June 2026

Introduction

In a judgment that may significantly influence the future of accessibility jurisprudence in India, the Karnataka High Court has issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on Universal Accessibility covering government institutions, private establishments, educational institutions, transport infrastructure, public spaces, housing developments, and digital platforms.

The judgment arose from a dispute involving a teacher who acquired a severe locomotor disability while attempting to save a student from a potentially fatal incident. However, the Court transformed what began as an individual grievance into an opportunity to address the systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities across Karnataka.

The resulting 465-page judgment stands out as one of the most comprehensive judicial interventions on accessibility ever delivered by an Indian court. Our sector colleague Dr. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate represented the Respondents in the case.

The Background

Mrs. Barnali Rout, a teacher employed by PSBB Learning Leadership Academy, Bengaluru, suffered a serious spinal injury in August 2013 while attempting to prevent a student from jumping from a school building. The incident left her with approximately 90% permanent locomotor disability.

The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed the school to pay compensation and provide relief. The school challenged the Commissioner's order before the Karnataka High Court, raising multiple legal questions, including:

• Whether the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 applies to private educational institutions.
• Whether private employers are obligated to provide reasonable accommodation.
• Whether the State Commissioner possesses authority to issue corrective directions.
• What obligations educational institutions owe to employees who acquire disabilities during service.

The Court answered each of these questions in favour of a robust and purposive interpretation of disability rights.

Accessibility Is a Fundamental Right

Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment is its unequivocal recognition that accessibility is not a welfare measure.

The Court held that accessibility flows directly from the guarantees of equality, dignity, freedom, and life under the Constitution. Drawing from Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 38, 41, and 46, the Court declared that accessibility is a fundamental right and not an act of charity.

The judgment adopts the principles of:

• Universal Design;
• Inclusion by Design;
• Reasonable Accommodation;
• Barrier-Free Environment; and
• Substantive Equality.

Importantly, the Court also recognised the concept of intersectionality, acknowledging that disability often overlaps with gender, age, caste, poverty, geography, and other forms of disadvantage.

A Landmark SOP on Universal Accessibility

The most enduring feature of the judgment is the Court's issuance of a detailed Standard Operating Procedure on Universal Accessibility.

The SOP has been directed to operate throughout Karnataka as binding directions until the State Government frames comprehensive accessibility rules under Sections 40 and 45 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

Who Is Covered?

The SOP extends to an extraordinary range of establishments, including:

Government Institutions

• Secretariat buildings
• Government departments
• Courts and tribunals
• Police stations
• Panchayat offices
• Municipal offices
• Prisons and correctional facilities

Public Commercial Establishments

• Shopping malls
• Commercial complexes
• Multiplexes and cinemas
• Hotels and restaurants
• Banks and ATMs
• Fuel stations

Educational Institutions

• Schools
• Colleges
• Universities
• Coaching centres
• Libraries
• Examination centres

Healthcare Facilities

• Hospitals
• Clinics
• Rehabilitation centres
• Mental health institutions

Transport Infrastructure

• Railway stations
• Metro stations
• Bus terminals
• Airports
• Taxi stands
• Parking facilities
• Footpaths and pedestrian crossings

Religious and Cultural Institutions

• Temples
• Mosques
• Churches
• Gurudwaras
• Museums
• Heritage sites
• Sports complexes

Residential Developments

• Apartment complexes
• Housing societies
• Student hostels
• Senior living facilities

Digital Platforms

The SOP is particularly notable for its detailed treatment of digital accessibility. It applies to:

• Government websites;
• Mobile applications;
• E-governance portals;
• Court filing systems;
• Online grievance portals;
• Smart-city platforms; and
• Public-facing private digital services.

The Court has mandated compliance with recognised digital accessibility standards and emphasised WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance, keyboard accessibility, screen-reader compatibility, captioning, and support for Indian Sign Language.

Accessibility Obligations for New and Existing Buildings

The Court has adopted a phased compliance model.

New Constructions

• Every new public or private building must be designed as accessible from inception.
• No building approval or completion certificate should be granted unless accessibility requirements are incorporated into the design.

Existing Buildings

The SOP requires accessibility retrofitting through defined timelines. High-footfall facilities have been prioritised for early compliance, such as:

• Airports,
• Railway stations,
• Metro stations,
• Bus terminals,
• Shopping malls, and
• Commercial complexes

The Court has also mandated accessibility audits, annual reviews, renewal audits, and surprise inspections. Significantly, the Court directed that occupancy certificates and trade licence renewals should be linked to accessibility compliance. This is potentially one of the strongest enforcement mechanisms seen in Indian accessibility jurisprudence.

Detailed Accessibility Standards

Unlike many previous judicial directions that merely refer to accessibility in general terms, the Karnataka High Court has prescribed specific measurable standards.

The SOP includes requirements relating to:

• Ramp gradients;
• Accessible toilets;
• Lift dimensions;
• Corridor widths;
• Service counters;
• Signage;
• Wayfinding systems;
• Emergency evacuation measures;
• Areas of Rescue Assistance;
• Accessible parking;
• Public seating; and
• Communication accessibility.

The judgment therefore moves beyond principles and enters the domain of practical implementation.

Special Directions for Educational Institutions

The Court devoted particular attention to schools and educational institutions. Every educational institution is required to:

• Establish Disability Anti-Discrimination Committees;
• Adopt Inclusive Education Policies;
• Ensure that admissions are not denied solely on the ground of disability;
• Install safety features in buildings;
• Maintain accessible facilities; and
• Develop emergency response protocols.

These directions have significance far beyond the facts of the present case and may serve as a model for educational institutions nationwide.

Private Sector Obligations Clarified

One of the most important legal findings concerns the applicability of the RPwD Act to private establishments.

The Court carefully distinguished the position under the 1995 disability law and held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 expressly covers private establishments.

The judgment notes that the statutory definitions of "establishment" and "private establishment" leave little room for doubt.

Consequently, schools, companies, trusts, societies, hospitals, commercial entities, and other private organisations are bound by many obligations under the RPwD Act, including non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

This clarification is likely to have significant implications across India.

State Accessibility Authority

Recognising that rights without implementation mechanisms often remain ineffective, the Court directed the State Government to establish:

State Accessibility Authority

The Authority is expected to:

• Monitor compliance;
• Empanel accessibility auditors;
• Issue certifications;
• Maintain monitoring systems;
• Update standards; and
• Publish annual accessibility reports.

District Accessibility Committees

The Court also directed constitution of District Accessibility Committees across Karnataka to ensure local-level implementation and monitoring.

Relief to the Teacher

The Court upheld the compensation awarded to the teacher and directed the school to offer meaningful reinstatement through reasonable accommodation measures, including:

• Ground-floor wheelchair-accessible classrooms;
• Accessible washroom facilities;
• Transport allowance;
• Additional rest breaks;
• Online teaching options when required; and
• Necessary support arrangements.

The Court firmly rejected the argument that the teacher's conduct in attempting to save a student could diminish the school's obligations under disability rights law.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is remarkable for at least five reasons.

1. First, it treats accessibility as a constitutional right rather than a welfare measure.
2. Second, it recognises that disability rights obligations extend beyond government establishments to the private sector.
3. Third, it bridges the longstanding implementation gap by prescribing concrete standards and timelines.
4. Fourth, it places digital accessibility on an equal footing with physical accessibility.
5. Fifth, it creates an institutional framework for monitoring compliance rather than leaving implementation to goodwill alone.

DRI's Perspective

For years, disability rights advocates have highlighted that India's challenge is no longer the absence of law but the absence of implementation.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 contains an extensive framework on accessibility. Yet progress across many sectors has remained uneven because accessibility standards have often lacked enforceable implementation mechanisms.

The Karnataka High Court's judgment seeks to address precisely this gap.

While many aspects of the SOP may require further scrutiny and some directions may ultimately be tested before appellate courts, the judgment unquestionably represents one of the boldest judicial attempts to operationalise accessibility rights in India.

Its influence is likely to extend far beyond Karnataka.

If implemented effectively, the judgment may become a model for other States and contribute significantly to transforming accessibility from a legal promise into a lived reality.

Accessibility is not charity. Accessibility is not welfare. Accessibility is a right. The Karnataka High Court has now said so in unmistakable terms.

Read the Judgement dated 01 June 2026 in PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Others 

Disability Reservation Cannot Be Rendered Illusory: Patna High Court on Implementation of Quota in State Services

Court: Patna High Court
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Case No.: CWJC 1373 of 2025
Case Title: Rajeev Ranjan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 6 February 2026

 

Background

The petition before the Patna High Court arose from concerns regarding the implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities in recruitment to state government services in Bihar. The petitioner, a candidate with benchmark disability, challenged the recruitment process conducted by the State authorities on the ground that the disability reservation mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 had not been properly implemented.

 

According to the petitioner, although certain posts were formally earmarked for persons with disabilities, the manner in which the recruitment process was conducted effectively prevented candidates from benefiting from the reservation policy. In particular, the petitioner argued that the State had failed to properly identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities and had not ensured that the statutory quota was meaningfully implemented.

 

The State authorities contended that the recruitment process had been conducted in accordance with existing service rules and administrative procedures. They argued that the reservation policy had been applied within the framework of the recruitment rules governing the relevant service.

 

The dispute therefore raised an important question regarding whether the mere formal existence of a disability quota satisfies the requirements of the RPwD Act, or whether authorities must take proactive steps to ensure that the reservation framework operates effectively in practice.

Key Observations

The Patna High Court emphasised that the reservation framework established under the RPwD Act is intended to ensure meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in public employment. Simply declaring a certain percentage of posts as reserved for persons with disabilities does not fulfil the statutory obligation if the recruitment process is designed in a manner that prevents those posts from being filled.

 

Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay observed that the identification of suitable posts is a critical component of the disability reservation framework. Public authorities must undertake a careful assessment of the functions attached to each post and determine whether appropriate accommodations can enable persons with disabilities to perform those functions effectively.

 

The Court also noted that the RPwD Act represents a shift from a welfare-oriented approach toward a rights-based framework grounded in equality and inclusion. State authorities are therefore under a positive obligation to ensure that recruitment systems are structured in a way that enables the participation of persons with disabilities.

Importantly, the Court cautioned that failure to properly implement disability reservation policies could render the statutory guarantee meaningless and defeat the objectives of the legislation.

Directions Issued

• The Court directed the State authorities to review the implementation of disability reservation in the recruitment process in question.
• The authorities were instructed to ensure that posts reserved for persons with disabilities are properly identified and filled in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act.
• The State was directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that recruitment procedures facilitate the effective participation of candidates with disabilities.

 

Commentary

The judgment highlights a recurring challenge in the implementation of disability reservation policies in India: the gap between formal reservation provisions and their practical enforcement. While the RPwD Act mandates reservation in public employment, the effectiveness of this framework depends heavily on the manner in which recruitment processes are designed and administered.

One of the most significant obstacles faced by candidates with disabilities is the failure of authorities to properly identify posts suitable for persons with disabilities. Without such identification, reserved posts may remain vacant or may be effectively inaccessible due to the structure of recruitment procedures.

 

By emphasising that disability reservation must translate into real employment opportunities rather than symbolic compliance, the Patna High Court reaffirmed the transformative objectives of the RPwD Act. The decision underscores that equality for persons with disabilities requires active institutional commitment rather than passive adherence to statutory quotas.

More broadly, the ruling contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on disability rights by highlighting the importance of systemic implementation. The effectiveness of disability legislation ultimately depends not only on the text of the law but also on the willingness of public authorities to design inclusive administrative processes that remove barriers to participation.

Read the judgement [PDF 249 KB]

Supreme Court of India Urges Bar Council of India to Consider Reservation for Advocates with Disabilities in Elections

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1045 of 2025
Case Title: Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Date of Order: November 3, 2025

Brief

The Supreme Court has urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine the issue of providing reservation for advocates with disabilities in Bar Councils and Bar Associations, emphasizing that the matter raises vital questions of policy and equality under the Constitution.

The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Yadav, a practicing advocate known for espousing the cause of persons with disabilities. The petitioner sought directions to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to reserve certain positions in their governing bodies for advocates with disabilities.

It was noted during the hearing that elections for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had already been notified, though nominations were yet to be filed. The Court, therefore, observed that it would be difficult at this stage to interfere with the ongoing electoral process or issue a positive mandamus directing such reservation.

However, while declining to intervene directly, the Court underscored the importance of inclusivity and representation in professional bodies. It stated that the issue deserved careful consideration within the framework of existing laws and the constitutional principles of equality.

“The reservation for persons with disability essentially being a policy matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Bar Council of India to consider the cause espoused by the petitioner in light of the relevant legislative policies and statutes emanating from the constitutional principles of equality,”
— Order of the Supreme Court dated 3 November 2025.

The Court further clarified that all stakeholders are free to take an appropriate decision on the issue and that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum again, if necessary. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.

Significance and Perspective

This order, though brief, is an important development in the discourse around representation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in professional self-governing bodies. The Supreme Court’s direction places the onus on the Bar Council of India — the apex regulatory body of the legal profession — to introspect on the inclusivity of its governance structures.

At present, no Bar Council or Bar Association in India formally reserves seats for advocates with disabilities, despite statutory recognition of equality and non-discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 16. The petitioner’s plea, therefore, opens a larger debate on how persons with disabilities can have a voice in decision-making spaces within the legal profession itself.

While several states have begun reserving or nominating persons with disabilities to local self-government bodies, such as municipal or ward-level committees, and women have reserved seats in state legislatures and Parliament, there remains an absence of similar affirmative mechanisms for persons with disabilities in elected professional or representative bodies.

Bar Councils and Bar Associations perform critical regulatory and welfare functions — from enrolment and discipline to welfare schemes and representation before authorities. Inclusion of persons with disabilities in their governing structures would not only enhance diversity but also ensure that policies and welfare measures are attuned to the lived realities of disabled advocates.

This case, therefore, marks an important judicial nudge toward recognizing representation as an essential dimension of equality. Whether or not the Bar Council of India takes proactive steps will determine if this moment becomes a turning point in building a more inclusive legal fraternity in India.

Citation:
Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1045 of 2025, Order dated 03.11.2025, Supreme Court of India.

Download Order: View PDF in Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Bar Council of India

All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case Title: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Case No.: Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1091-1092/2023

Date of Judgement: 03 April 2025

Brief

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle of equality for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court has ruled that prescribing different retirement ages based on the type of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that all benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) constitute a single homogenous class for the purposes of service-related benefits—and must be treated equally.

Case Background:

The case arose when Kashmiri Lal Sharma, an electrician with 60% locomotor disability, was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. However, under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013, employees with visual impairments were permitted to serve up to 60 years of age. Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the appellant challenged the policy as arbitrary and discriminatory, invoking both the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

After unsuccessful representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled in the appellant’s favour. The Court struck down the impugned policy, declaring that prescribing different retirement ages solely based on the nature of disability lacks any rational basis and violates Article 14.

“There is no intelligible differentia to justify extending the retirement age benefit to only one category of benchmark disability while denying it to others. Such discrimination is arbitrary,” the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that all benchmark disabilities listed under the 1995 and 2016 disability laws must receive uniform service benefits, including retirement age.

Reference to Precedent:

The Bench relied on its earlier approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which also upheld the principle of parity in service benefits across all recognized disability categories.

Relief Granted:

While the State had later withdrawn the 2013 OM on November 4, 2019, the Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to continue in service until that withdrawal. As a result, the Court ruled:

“The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. He is also entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, along with all consequential benefits impacting his pension.”

The Court thus partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision dated 28.07.2021, which had earlier upheld the retirement.

Significance:

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory mandate of non-discrimination in employment policies affecting persons with disabilities. It sends a strong message that disability-based classifications in service benefits must meet the test of reasonableness and equality.

The decision underscores the spirit of the RPwD Act, which aims to ensure equal opportunity, protection of rights, and full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life—including public employment.

Read the Judgement

Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Madras HC- State Govt. ought to have ensured Kilambakkam Bus Terminus disabled friendly as per the accessibilty mandate of RPWD Act

Court: Madrash High Court, Principal Benchat Chennai

Bench:  Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Case No. WP No. 29942 of 2023

Case Title: Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority & Others

Date of Judgement: 24 Jan 2024 (PDF 164 KB)

Subject: Accessibility of Public Transportation system, Access Audit of Public Buildings and Built Environment, Grant of Completition Certificate to Buildings,

Brief:

The petition was filed seeking directions against the first respondent to take necessary measures so as to ensure that the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus in Tamilnadu is fully compliant with design and standards prescribed in the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 as as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Durign the hearing on 15 Dec 2024, the government of Tamil Nadu had informed that steps have been taken to make the terminus disabled-friendly. Observing that it is now 'mandatory in every building to have disabled friendly access facilities', the Chief Justice had stressed that "this has to be done before starting the construction".

The petitioner Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar had sought the court to restrain the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) from issuing a completion certificate to the bus terminus without being certified as compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules by an empanelled access audit agency.

She also wanted the court to issue directions to conduct a detailed accessibility audit of the terminus through an empanelled access audit agency as it is not in compliance with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.

Jayakumar had argued that the terminus was found slippery, there was reflective flooring without adequate contrast, absence of even a single toilet enabling bilateral wheelchair transfer onto the commode, the entire first floor does not have tactile flooring or warning and no dropped kerb (lowered areas of pavement) for wheelchair users to get onto the bus bay tarmac from the elevated seating area.

Ensuing Access Audit report pointed outu some 17 deficiencies and the first respondent subsequently issued work orders with regard to seven deficiencies and with regard to the remaining ten deficiencies, it assured that the work orders would be issued within two months from today. 

The petitioner submitted that in additon there are four more bus stands coming up one each at Koothambakkam, Venpakkam, Varadarajapuram and Mamallapuram. "The aforesaid bus stands will have to be constructed in compliance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 and the first respondent shall take necessary steps while issuing the tender notice." the bench directed.

Court also expressed, "We would appreciate if the Access Auditors would make periodical inspection during the construction activity of the bus stands and make necessary suggestions as and when required" and accordingly dispossed off the petition with directions to submit Compliance Report on 25.3.2024.

Read the disposing judgement dated 24 Jan 2024 in the instant case below:

Supreme Court directs appointment of independent Disability Commissioners in all states by 31 Aug 2023

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ; Mr. Justice PS Narasimha and Mr. Justice Manoj Misra 

Case Title: Seema Girija Lal And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. 

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 29329/2021 

Date of Order:  17 Jul 2023 

Previous Order: 13 Jan 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 18 Sep 2023

Brief:

Please refer to the brief write up on the previous order passed by the court dated 13 Jan 2023 in this PIL seeking the formation of district-level committees to enforce the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, when the Hon'ble supreme court was pleased to issue a notice, without even admitting it or the registry allocating it a Writ petition number.  The petition stated that India’s basic infrastructure to meet the needs of its nearly 3 crore persons with disabilities is 'visibly absent', and that the top court should take judicial notice of this concern. 

The bench had then specifically passed the following order:

"We direct that notice shall be issued to Union of India and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Ministry shall file counter affidavit within a period of a month. The affidavit shall indicate state wise the implementation. Union of India shall convene a meeting with all concerned states and state advisory boards with a view to eliciting the present status of compliance. We request Ms. Divan, ASG to assist. At this stage we're not issuing notice to state govts. Based on affidavits, we'll decide."

During the hearing on 17 July 2023, the Chief Justice expressed the concern that the current state of implementation of the RPWD Act 2016 revealed a distressing situation throughout the country. 

Pertinently, the bench noted that disability commissioners were entrusted with several statutory duties under Section 75 and Section 80G of Act. However, a report before the Court indicated that several States and Union Territories had failed to appoint such independent commissioners as required under Section 79 of the Act. And thus it direted the appointment of such commissioners by August 31, 2023.

The Court further ordered the concerned Union Ministry to coordinated with the relevant ministry of all State governments to file an updated affidavit by September 17. The States were asked to upload relevant details on the dashboard of the Central government.

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on September 18, 2023.

Read the Order dated 17 July 2023 below:

Delhi HC: Children with Disabilities entitled to basic facilities free of costs that includes, school uniform, books, assistive devices, transportation etc. [Judgement Included]

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh

Case No: W.P.(C) 14032/2022

Case Title: Manish Lenka Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of  Order: 12 December 2022

Next Date of Hearing: 22 March 2023

Subject: Free Educational Facilties for children with Disabilities

Matter in brief:

Petitioner, a student of Class 6 at a Kendriya Vidyalaya school in Noida, with a visual impairment of over 75 per cent, had moved the high court seeking a grant of books, learning material, and assistive devices along with other facilities provided under the RPWD Act. The boy’s counsel argued the child’s father is a daily wager who is unable to afford his son’s educational requirements.

The child claimed the facilities were not being provided by the school pursuant to which he approached the Court of Chief Commissioner under the RPWD Act. The Chief Commissioner on October 13, 2020, had directed that “books, learning materials, uniforms etc, as well as the facility of scribe/lab assistant” be granted to the student. The student claimed that despite the said order the facilities were not granted to him.

Submitting its status report before the high court, the school argued that all the items as requested had been provided including a scribe during offline exams for the 2021-22 session and the same shall be provided in future as well. However, the child’s counsel argued his client had not been given a waiver of the uniform fee, computer fee, and transportation cost to date.

Perusing the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD), 2016, the bench observed, “A perusal of the said provisions show that facilities such as uniform, computer fee and transportation cost are all covered under the statute… These constitute basic facilities for a child… Considering the recognition given to the rights of persons with disabilities, there can be no doubt that these facilities ought to be provided especially at Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools which are government schools present all over the country, in order to ensure that children with disabilities are not deprived of proper education”.

The bench directed the school to provide uniforms free of cost to the student within a period of two weeks and also waived the computer fee. With respect to transportation costs, since the school did not provide it, the child’s counsel was asked on the next date of the hearing to make a submission on the transportation cost incurred by the child for travelling between his home to the school and back.

The bench also directed the Centre to file a status report regarding the measures that are to be taken in regard to the transportation cost and other facilities as directed under the RPWD Act. The Centre was also directed to file a status report on the student’s requirement for an assistive device. The bench added if the child is not provided with the requisite facilities as directed by the court, he would be free to approach the Court by way of an application. 

The matter has been next listedon 22 March 2023.

Read the Judgement here:

Calcutta HC: RPwD Act shifts focus from protection to empowerment [Judgement Included]

High Court: Calcutta HC

Bench/ Judge:  Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

Case Title: WPA 6043 of 2022, Dr. Arun Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 

Date of Judgement/Order: 08 August 2022

The Calcutta High Court  quashed a resolution passed by the Governing Body of a College refusing to consider a person with physical impairment for appointment in the disability category, finding it to be in violation of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The court observed that the 2016 Act which replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted to empower persons with disability rather than protect them. The Single Judge also made significant observations on the nature of the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act, adding that in the 2016 Act, the canvas was more about effective integration of persons with disability and less about recognition of a physical condition as a limiting factor.

"The 2016 Act is a declaration of rights and opportunities to persons with disability. While the idea of freedom from the physical limitations germinated in the 1995 Act, in 2016 the focus shifts from protection of persons with disability to empowerment; recognition of limitations to removing barriers; the right to participation to affirmative action. In essence, the statute facilitates the movement of the community from the margins to the mainstream of opportunities.", the court observed.

The petitioner was a  person with benchmark disability with a 80% disability as a result of the amputation of his upper limbs following an accident. He served as the Assistant Professor at Kandi Raj College for seven years and thereafter sought an appointment in a college nearer to his residence finding it difficult to travel 480 km on a daily basis. He was soon recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission for an appointment at the Acharya Girish Chandra Bose College in the Disability category. However, the Governing Body of the College passed a resolution asking the Commission to reconsider its recommendation of the petitioner as a candidate.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed by a Single Judge in 2020 for want of requisite pleading. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Governing Body. Accordingly, he moved another petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned decision of the Governing Body culminated in the College refusing to issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner and that it was thereby arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the 2016 Act.

Counsel  for the college submitted that a mere recommendation for appointment to a post does not confer any right on the petitioner to be appointed to such post. It was also argued that since the advertisement for the post was published by the College Service Commission in 2015, the facts would be governed by the 1995 Act and not the 2016 Act.

While deciding the question of whether the petitioner's case would be governed under the 1995 Act or the 2016 Act, Justice Bhattacharya recalled that Section 102(2) of the 2016 Act provides for a saving clause with reference to anything done or any action taken under the 1995 Act as deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the 2016 Act. "Hence, even if the advertisement was published by the Commission on 30th June, 2015 before the 2016 Act came into force, the action of the Commission and the College taken on the basis of such advertisement would continue under the provisions of the 2016 Act." observed the Judge.

Moreover, the Single Judge found that the objects of the 2016 Act make it evident that it is a piece of beneficial legislation for preserving the rights of persons with disabilities and empowering them with equal opportunities. "If this be the case, attempting to slot the petitioner into one legislation to the exclusion of the other would be an unnaturally restrictive vision of the bridge between the two Acts and their commitment to inclusivity," the Court observed.

Analysing the definition of 'disability' under the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act respectively, the judge observed, "While the 1995 Act associated disability as a condition from birth,  the 2016 Act had a more inclusive definition for the same, which included evolving forms of disability within its fold."

Either way, it was found that in a legislation intended to benefit persons with disability, a definition of disability cannot be frozen with the repealing of the 1995 Act particularly when the whole object of the 2016 Act was to include broad-spectrum disabilities which were not within the recognition of the framers of the earlier statute and to empower persons with disabilities to effectively integrate with society.

In any event, the cause-effect factor cannot be discounted to limit spectrum disabilities just because the petitioner did not have 80% disability from birth, the Court held. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner was a person with disability as defined under the Acts.

The Court then observed that the objective of the 2016 Act was full participation of persons with disabilities and empowering them to realize their full potential. The Judge also found it essential to analyse the definition of 'barrier' as given under Section 2(c) - any factor including communicational, cultural, economic and environmental impeding the full participation of persons with disability in society.

Thus, it was clear that the goal of the 2016 Act was to remove barriers in all forms which would frustrate the object of the Act. Viewed from this angle, it was clear that the decision of the Governing Body, in essence, revealed a set of prejudices which squarely fit into the definition of a  "barrier". The Court added that this was also a reflection of a mindset barrier and that it falls foul of the statutory mandate on all counts.

"The impugned decision is opaque, reflects an intransigent mindset and a systemic obstacle to the personal and intellectual growth of persons with disability. The decision is regressive and chains the freedoms and opportunities of the community." observed the judge.

The court held that the Governing Body had a duty to consider the import of the provisions of the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act which imposed a duty on the Body to act in terms of the mandate of the law which it failed to do.

"There cannot be any denial of the fact that the Governing Body of the College had a duty to act responsibly with sensitivity, having regard to the statutory position governing persons with disabilities. It is all the more surprising that the Governing Body directed the Chairman and Secretary of the College Service Commission to replace the recommendation of the petitioner "by another one with same category" (the words are further indicative of the mindset of the Governing Body)." expressed the judge.

The impugned decision also gave rise to serious civil consequences on the petitioner's rights in specific and persons with disabilities in general, hence the impugned decisions are denounce-worthy as per the 1995 and 2016 Acts and being in direct contradiction with the objectives sought to be achieved by the statutes.

While the Court may not appropriate unto itself the power of recommending the petitioner for appointment, the Court deems it fit to direct the Governing Body to arrive  at a fresh consideration of the facts before it and revisit the issue with due regard to the statutory mandate. The resolution taken by the Governing Body was quashed and it was directed to come up with a fresh decision within 8 weeks. The appeal was thus partially allowed.

Supreme Court of India- Degree of disability no ground to deny reasonable accommodation [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1882 of 2021 

Case Title: Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others.

Date of Judgement: 11 February 2021  

Cited as:  2021 SCC OnLine SC 84

Cases refered/quoted: 

• Jeeja Ghosh vs. Union of India (2016)  7 SCC 761; 
• V Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu;  
• Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 ; 
• Disabled Rights Group and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 397.

Case Brief:

On February 11, 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (Vikash Kumar) held that that an individual with Writer’s Cramp or dysgraphia which is neither an identified disability in the Act nor has been certified as benchmark disability, is entitled to a scribe in India’s Civil Services’ Examination (CSE). 

The judgement is a significant step towards ensuring inclusivity for persons with disabilities as it emphatically affirms their position as rights bearers. It represents a move from a medical model of disability wherein disability is viewed as an affliction to a human rights model in consonance with the mandate of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCPRD).

This judgement proposes reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination as the fulcrum of contemporary disability jurisprudence. The judgement goes on to valorise the social model of disability and rejects the medical model of disability.

Case details:

In a landmark 62-page judgment, the Supreme Court of India has said that the principle of reasonable accommodation, spelt out in the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. 

The Court further said that “…Cases such as the present offer us an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution in the project of creating the RPwD generation in India… A generation of disabled people in India which regards as its birthright access to the full panoply of constitutional entitlements, robust statutory rights geared to meet their unique needs and conducive societal conditions needed for them to flourish and to truly become co-equal participants in all facets of life.”

The case concerned a person with a chronic neurological condition resulting in Writer’s Cramp, or extreme difficulty in writing. He was denied a scribe for the Civil Services Exam by the UPSC, on the ground that he did not come within the definition of person with benchmark disability (40% or more of a specified disability).  The Court, in rejecting this stand, held that the petitioner was a person with disability and that provision of scribe to him came within the scope of reasonable accommodation.  The Court said ” … the accommodation which the law mandates is ‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the requirements of each condition of disability. The expectations which every disabled person has are unique to the nature of the disability and the character of the impediments which are encountered as its consequence…”

In a detailed analysis of Indian and International disability law, the Court said that disability is a long-term condition which due to barriers in the environment hinders full and effective participation in society. Reasonable accommodation implies looking at the specific disabling condition and providing amenities in accordance. Examples: Blind persons need screen reading software to work on the computer, hearing impaired need sign language interpreters. Reasonable accommodation extends to all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disabilities.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) argued that as per the CSE Rules 2018 a scribe could only be provided to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy which resulted in an impairment of function by at least 40%. The Supreme Court observed that the UPSC’s response was contrary to the reply filed by the nodal ministry in India for implementing the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The law had been enacted after India became a party to the UNCRPD in 2007.

The reply of the ministry recognised that there may be certain medical conditions not identified as disability per se but which have a detrimental impact on the writing capability of a person. Therefore, the onus was on the examining body, in consultation with India’s health ministry, to consider such cases for grant of scribe, extra time or other facilities, on production of a medical certificate. 

In this context, the Supreme Court noted that a ‘person with disability’ under the RPwD Act includes individuals with a ‘long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, hinders full and effective participation in society equally with others’. The RPwD separately defines persons with ‘benchmark disability’ as those who are certified to have not less than 40% of the disabilities specified in the Schedule of the RPwD Act.

The Supreme Court opined that the higher threshold of benchmark disability could not be imposed to deny equal access to persons with disabilities contrary to the ethos of non-discrimination enshrined in the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. 

The judgement clarified that the scheme of the RPwD Act imposed a benchmark disability as a precondition only for access to specific entitlements such as affirmative action as under Sections 32 and 34 of Chapter VI. In other words, the absence of benchmark disability could not be used to deny other forms of reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. 

The bench relied upon the landmark precedent of Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India wherein it was held that equality is not only limited to preventing discrimination but also embraces a wide ambit of positive rights including reasonable accommodation. The principle of reasonable accommodation, the Court observed in Vikash Kumar, is a facet of substantive equality set out in General Comment 6 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Court also held that the denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes disability-based discrimination under Section 3 of the RPwD Act. The object of the provision is to ensure that persons with disabilities can overcome insidious barriers of exclusion without the imposition of a disproportionate burden. In this context, the state has an obligation to develop an appropriate environment guaranteeing equality of opportunity to persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodation, such as the facility of a scribe, is therefore an enabling instrument for securing substantive equality.

Further, the state had raised a concern that the provision of a scribe could offer an undue advantage to persons with disabilities. In response, the Court pointed to  the absence of empirical data to hold that this argument of misuse was unsubstantiated. The unfounded suspicion, the Court also remarked, in fact perpetuated the stereotype that persons with disabilities have to resort to state largesse due to their inability to compete on a level-playing field.

Finally, the Court emphasised that it expected the government to consult persons with disabilities in a bid to democratise policy making. It remains to be seen whether such an endeavour results in lasting impact.

Read the judgement embedded below in Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1882 of 2021 titled as Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others. 

Download the judgement  [418 KB]

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 

Madras HC to Tamil Nadu Govt. - No purchasing buses for public transport, unless they are disabled friendly

Court: Madrash High Court, India

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy 

Case No(s): W.P. No. 5957 of 2021(Lead Case) along with WP 38224 of 2005 and WP 923 of 2007

Case Title:     Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & two Others (Lead Case)

Date of Hearing: 22 July 2021

Case Brief 

In a push for the rights and independence of people with disabilities in their commute, the Madras high court on Thursday restrained Tamil Nadu from purchasing any new bus to its fleet in the public transport system unless such buses were disabled-friendly as prescribed by law.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim injunction on a batch of pleas that have been pending before the court for years including from as far back as 2005, seeking universal use of disabled-friendly buses in public tranport fleet. 

One of the writ petitions in the batch i.e. W.P. No. 5957 of 2021 had been filed by cross disability rights advocate, Vaishnavi Jayakumar. She had challenged a Government Order (GO) issued on February 24 this year, for introduction of only 10% of low floor buses and 25% of buses fitted with lift mechanism or any other suitable mode, to provide easy access to wheelchair bound passengers, out of the total buses to be procured for Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited.

The petitioner had contended that the GO violates Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. The legislation requires the State government to take suitable measures to provide facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports and also access to all modes of transport by even retrofitting old modes of transport wherever it was technically feasible.

She said the GO for introducing only 10% of low floor buses and those with lift mechanism was also in violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. “The GO is an arbitrary exercise of power by the State. It is not only in complete violation of the rights of persons with disabilities but also contumacious, since it violates several judicial orders,” she said.

The petitioner had sought to restrain the state from acquiring any further bus unless it conforms to the requirements of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 and under the latter, Rule 15 in particular. Rule 15 mandates that every establishment complies with the specified standard as indicated in a notification issued by the Government of India on September 20, 2016.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram said the government was purchasing disabled-friendly buses in phases because the roads were in bad shape and they would damage the low-floored buses.

Advocate Rita Chandrasekar, representing Metropolitan Transport Corporation, said the low floor buses cost ₹58 lakh each as against ₹26 lakh for regular buses and hence there was a delay in purchasing such buses.

The state's submission that low-floor buses were expensive and would be damaged by bad roads was rejected. The state has been submitting excuses of certain practical difficulties, particularly in finding resources not only to acquire the more expensive buses but also to create the road infrastructure required for such sophisticated buses. It sought more time to indicate a roadmap.

Rejecting their submissions, the bench in its order said, "In view of the mandate of the statute, read with the Rules framed thereunder and the notification published in accordance therewith, there may be no room to manoeuvre and little scope for the court to delay the implementation of the policy as reflected in the statute and the laws made thereunder.

The court further said in its order, "the State seeks time to indicate a road-map. However, it is necessary that the State be restrained from acquiring any further bus for the public transport system which does not conform to the specifications indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016 referred to above. In other words, the State will not acquire any new bus for use thereof as part of the public transport system unless such bus meets the standards indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016".

Read the interim order dated 22 Jul 2021, embedded below:

Read the Final updates in the case and Final Order dated 05 Jul 2022 on link: Madras HC | TN Govt. GO to the extent it offends RPWD Act or Provisions of Harmonised Guidelines & SC Judgement in Rajive Raturi case.