Why Are Disabled Persons Who Make Open Category Cut-Off Not Treated as General Candidates? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Case Title:  Reena Banerjee and Another vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (I.A. No(s). 130117 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No(s). 11938 of 2016  with

Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998 
Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Law:  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 34)

Case Summary

On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing disability rights under the constitutional framework and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). The Court intervened on two distinct but connected issues:

1. Upward Movement in Merit Lists for Persons with Disabilities (PWD)
   The Court expressed grave concern over the systemic denial of upward movement in the merit list for PWD candidates in public employment and education recruitment. Despite scoring above the general (unreserved) category cut-off, PWD candidates are treated only as reserved category candidates. This practice leads to lower-scoring PWD candidates occupying reserved seats, which the Court rightly described as "hostile discrimination." The Court directed the Central Government to explain by October 14, 2025, the steps taken to ensure that meritorious candidates are not denied upward movement and that the same principle applies to promotions as well.

2. Project Ability Empowerment: Nationwide Monitoring of Care Institutions
   The Court initiated a comprehensive, independent, nationwide monitoring framework named Project Ability Empowerment. This follows decades of systemic neglect in state-run and private institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The goal is to ensure effective implementation of the RPWD Act, safeguard constitutional rights, and shift away from institutionalisation toward community-based, inclusive models of care.

Key Directions and Distinct Aspects of the Judgment

Resident Profiling, Care, and Rehabilitation

• Individualized profiling of every resident, including age, gender, disability profile, medical history, education level, vocational skills, and psychosocial needs.

• Creation of Individual Care Plans aligned with best practices to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

• Assessment of healthcare access, periodic review of psychiatric prescriptions, and establishment of multidisciplinary care teams.

Accessibility, Infrastructure, and Education

• In-depth audits of physical accessibility aligned with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility.

• Evaluation of accessible transport, assistive technologies, and communication formats.

• Assessment of access to education for children and vocational training for adults, including institutional support for the National Institute of Open Schooling.

Rights, Protection, and Compliance

• Examination of grievance redressal mechanisms, institutional policies, and participatory governance structures.

• Review of use of restraints and behaviour management policies.

• Monitoring compliance with the RPWD Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, including appointment of protection officers and institution registration.

Staffing, Resources, and Accountability

• Analysis of staffing strength, qualifications, training, and remuneration.

• Review of institutional record-keeping, transparency mechanisms, and responsiveness to Right to Information (RTI) applications.

Documentation and Welfare Access

• Recommendations for maintaining an online presence of institutions with an institutional dashboard containing essential functioning information.

• Facilitation of Aadhaar enrollment for every resident to ensure access to welfare schemes.

Reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act

• Strong emphasis on a positive and purposive interpretation of the reservation provision.

• Recognition that disability is not homogeneous, requiring nuanced application of affirmative action.

• Mandate that meritorious PWD candidates should benefit from upward movement, leaving reserved seats for those with greater structural disadvantage.

Implications

This judgment marks a watershed moment in disability rights jurisprudence in India. It firmly rejects outdated medical and charitable paradigms of disability in favour of a rights-based, inclusive constitutional vision. The Court highlighted that reasonable accommodation is not charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The involvement of eight National Law Universities, regionalised across India, introduces a systematic, independent monitoring mechanism. The report due in March 2026 will present a data-driven, actionable pathway toward systemic reforms, including transition from institutional care to community living.

By addressing both affirmative action in public recruitment and the quality of institutional care, the Supreme Court affirmed that the true and substantive benefit of disability reservations and welfare must reach the most marginalized.

Read the judgement dated 12 Sep 2025 here

---

For further detailed updates on disability rights and authoritative case summaries, visit disabilityrightsindia.com.

Central Administrative Tribunal directs CAG to appoint a meritorious candidate with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi

Bench:  Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) & Hon’ble Mr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Case No:    OA No. 339/2022

Case Title: Amit Yadav Vs. Comptroller & Auditor General &Anr. 

Date of Order : 23 January, 2023

Brief:

The CAT Principal Bench directed the CAG to appoint the applicant with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor and added that such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The court held the approach of the CAG as discriminaotry.

In order to raise awareness on the mental illness as a disability, the bench went on to discuss an illustrative list of celebrities diagnosed with OCD and bipolar disease, who have either talked about or living with the symptoms of the condition, have reached their peaks in their career. Among many people from other other countries, the list also highlighted Deepika Padukone, film actress who faced OCD during her career.  

The applicant is a person with benchmark disability (PwBD) having a disability of 55% under the Mental illness category suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) & Bipolar disorder. He has been on medication for the same since 2017.

He appeared in the recruitment process and successfully qualified the exam and was recommended for appointment as Auditor in Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. But the CAG returned his dossiers to SSC on 28.09.2019 claiming that the applicant is not suitable for the post of Auditor and that he may be re-allocated to any other suitable department.

That Section 34 provides for another 1% reservation jointly for two new recognized categories PwBDs under clauses (d) & (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 34. PwBDs with Autism, Intellectual Disability, Mental Illness (MI), Specific Learning Disability (SLD) have been categorized under clause (d) & Multiple Disabilities under clause (e).

The SSC in its official advertisement dated 05.05.2018 just extended the right of reservation to these newly recognized disability categories under the heading “Other PwD” category  but did not mention specific posts reserved for these new categories. The advertisement provided that vacancies will be notified in due course and the candidates belonging to new categories were asked to apply under “Other PwD category”.   Thus the post of Auditor remained recognized for other PwD which includes mentally ill in both the lists of vacancies notified in due course.

The felt that the Section 34 of the RPWD Act clearly rules that there has to be one percent reservation for the PwDs categorized under clauses (d) and (e) and not (d) or (e) i.e. reservation has to be made available to both the categories under clauses and not either of the two. Therefore, the correct course of action would have been to provide reservation to both the categories i.e. under clause (d) and (e) jointly whoever amongst them secures merit would be allotted the post. In this case, the applicant has been recommended as per correct interpretation of law because he was also qualified in the merit list along with other candidates under Multiple disability falling under clause (e). Thus, in the correct course of action, both should have been appointed against one percent reservation.

Explaining the neded of facilitating persons with Mental Illnesss at workplace, the court said, "Bipolar is mood swings, emotions, impulse, what is needed is right kind of professional assistance and  rehabilitation. The persons having bipolar disease are victim of circumstances. Such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The stand adopted by intending department, i.e., CAG by itself is discriminated to the provisions of Section 34 of the 2016 Act qua the categories which are sought to be capable of performing function as Auditors. The action of the respondents defeats the purpose of RPWD Act. The paramount interest of the State is to sub-serve the aims and objects of the Act and, therefore, the persons with mental illness without any intelligible differentia cannot be discriminated qua the other diseases which fall in the zone of consideration under the provisions of RPWD Act.

The court while allowing the OA,  held that the return of dossier by CAG to SSC was bad in law and thus quashed and set aside the same. It further said that the applicant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act. Thus in the event, applicant is found unsuitable for the post of “Auditor” by the Independent Medical Board, he shall be entitled to alternative offer of appointment to alternative suitable equivalent assignment/post in another department in consultation with Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and SSC while re-assigning/re-allocating the applicant to an alternative post, it become necessary that his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected.

Read the judgement/ order below: