Reliance on Outdated Disability Classification Cannot Defeat Right to Employment: Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Candidates with SLD and Mental Illness

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 43728/2025
Case Title: Sudhanshu Kardam v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 232

In a significant ruling reinforcing the evolving framework of disability rights in public employment, the Supreme Court of India has held that candidates with benchmark disabilities such as Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and mental illness cannot be denied appointment on the basis of outdated identification lists of posts.

The judgment arose from a challenge to the denial of appointment to candidates who had successfully cleared the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for the post of Auditor in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Background

The dispute traces back to the recruitment process initiated in 2018. Candidates, including the appellant Sudhanshu Kardam and another candidate, Shri Amit Yadav, had qualified through all stages of the examination and were recommended for appointment under the Persons with Disabilities category.

However, their candidature was rejected by the CAG on the ground that the post of Auditor had not been identified as suitable for persons with mental illness or Specific Learning Disability, relying on the 2013 identification list.

Aggrieved, the candidates relied upon the Gazette Notification dated 4 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which updated and expanded the list of identified posts to include these categories of disabilities.

Key Findings of the Court

The Supreme Court took note of the 2021 notification, which superseded the earlier 2013 list and expressly identified Group ‘C’ posts such as Assistant (Audit) and Auditor-II as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities including mental illness and SLD.

Relying on the affidavit filed by the CAG, the Court recorded that there was no longer any legal or administrative barrier to accommodating the candidates in suitable posts.

Importantly, the Court rejected the continued reliance on outdated classification systems, implicitly affirming that administrative inertia cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act.

Directions Issued

The Court issued the following operative directions:

• The Staff Selection Commission was directed to forward the dossiers of the candidates to the CAG within two weeks.

• Upon receipt, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India must consider them for appointment to suitable Group ‘C’ posts.

• If the originally advertised vacancies from 2018 had already been filled, the authorities were directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the candidates.

• The appointments would take effect from the date of joining.

Significance

This ruling is important for several reasons:

1. Dynamic Interpretation of Disability Rights:
   The judgment underscores that identification of posts must reflect current statutory frameworks, particularly the expanded categories introduced under the RPwD Act, 2016.

2. Primacy of Updated Notifications:
   Authorities cannot rely on obsolete identification lists when a subsequent statutory notification has redefined suitability criteria.

3. Substantive Equality in Employment:
   By directing the creation of supernumerary posts, the Court ensured that procedural delays or administrative decisions do not deprive persons with disabilities of their rightful employment opportunities.

4. Recognition of Invisible Disabilities:
   The decision affirms the inclusion of less visible disabilities such as mental illness and Specific Learning Disability within mainstream public employment.

Commentary

The judgment is a clear message that the promise of reservation and inclusion under the RPwD Act cannot be diluted by outdated bureaucratic practices. It aligns with a rights-based approach where identification of posts is not a static exercise but one that must evolve with law and policy.

For disability rights jurisprudence, this decision strengthens the principle that eligibility once recognized by law must translate into actual access to employment, and that the State carries a positive obligation to remove institutional barriers—even if that requires creation of additional posts.

Read the Judgement (PDF 204 KB)

Menstrual Dignity is a Fundamental Right: Supreme Court on MHM in Schools

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2022
Case Title: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India & Ors. [PDF 786 KB]
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026

Background

The petition, filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, brought to the fore a persistent but under-acknowledged barrier to girls’ education — the absence of menstrual hygiene management (MHM) facilities in schools. The petitioner pointed out that lack of access to sanitary products, private functional toilets, water, and safe disposal mechanisms was leading to absenteeism and, in many cases, girls quietly dropping out of school.

The plea invited the Court to view menstrual health not merely as a matter of policy preference but as a question of constitutional rights.

Key Observations

The Supreme Court located menstrual health squarely within the guarantees of life, dignity, equality, privacy and education. The Bench emphasised that dignity must be experienced in everyday conditions and not remain a constitutional slogan. For menstruating students, the absence of facilities often translates into stigma, embarrassment, and exclusion.

The Court recognised that “period poverty” directly undermines equal access to education. Compelling a girl to miss school or manage menstruation in unsafe ways was held to be a violation of bodily autonomy and privacy. The judgment also noted that autonomy is meaningful only when supported by enabling conditions — functional toilets, water, menstrual products, and hygienic disposal.

Importantly, the Court acknowledged the social dimension of menstruation. It underlined the need to sensitise male teachers and students to normalise conversations around menstruation and prevent harassment or intrusive questioning.

Directions Issued

Through a continuing mandamus, the Court directed States and Union Territories to:

• Provide functional, gender-segregated toilets in all schools, government and private, in both rural and urban areas.

• Ensure toilets are hygienic, have water supply, and safeguard privacy.

• Make oxo-biodegradable sanitary napkins available free of cost, preferably through vending machines located within toilet premises.

• Set up designated MHM corners with emergency supplies such as spare uniforms, innerwear and disposal bags.

• Install safe and environmentally compliant disposal systems, including covered bins or incinerators.

• Educate and sensitise male staff and students about menstruation.

The Court also linked compliance to the Right to Education Act. Government schools failing to meet Section 19 norms may invite accountability, while private schools risk de-recognition for non-compliance.

Commentary

This judgment is significant for reframing menstrual health from a welfare measure to a rights-based entitlement. By rooting MHM in Articles 14 and 21, the Court has made the issue justiciable and enforceable.

For the disability rights community, the ruling carries an added layer of importance. The Court’s insistence on privacy, functional infrastructure, and barrier-free access implicitly includes girls with disabilities, who often face compounded exclusion. Accessible toilets, water availability, and dignified spaces are not optional extras but constitutional necessities.

The decision also signals a broader judicial trend: recognising that exclusion in education often happens through design failures and social silence rather than formal denial. Addressing menstruation with candour and constitutional seriousness is a step toward substantive equality in schools. In effect, the Court has said what many girls already knew from lived experience — education cannot be equal if dignity is conditional.

While the judgment speaks in the language of all menstruating students, its implications are particularly profound for girls with disabilities — a group whose experiences around menstruation are rarely centred in policy or law. For many girls with disabilities, menstruation is not only a matter of hygiene but also of accessibility, support, and autonomy.

Girls with locomotor disabilities often encounter toilets that are technically “separate” but not usable — narrow doors, high thresholds, inaccessible taps, or disposal units placed beyond reach. For girls with visual disabilities, poorly designed facilities without tactile cues or consistent layouts can make independent menstrual management difficult. Girls with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities frequently face over-medicalisation, stigma, or denial of information about their own bodies. In some instances, families and institutions resort to restrictive practices out of fear or lack of support systems.

Against this backdrop, the Court’s insistence on dignity, privacy, and enabling conditions becomes highly relevant. When the Bench states that autonomy can only be exercised where infrastructure and resources exist, it indirectly affirms what disability rights advocates have long argued — that bodily autonomy is inseparable from accessible environments.

The reference to barrier-free access under the RTE norms is particularly important. If implemented in its true spirit, this could mean toilets that are accessible, safe, and usable for girls with diverse disabilities. MHM corners, if thoughtfully designed, could include accessible storage, clear signage, and support materials in multiple formats. Sensitisation of teachers and students can also reduce the infantilisation and silence that many girls with disabilities face around menstruation.

This ruling therefore opens a door. It allows future advocacy to explicitly demand disability-inclusive menstrual health frameworks within schools. The judgment may not detail these dimensions, but its rights-based reasoning readily accommodates them.

Menstrual dignity, for girls with disabilities, is not a peripheral concern. It sits at the intersection of education, health, accessibility, and gender justice. The real test now lies in whether implementation will recognise this intersectionality. If it does, the judgment could quietly become a turning point for some of the most marginalised students in the school system.

---------

Supreme Court directs Reasonable Accommodation and Protections under Section 20 RPDA for Employees acquiring disability in service

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026
Case Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

 

Background

 

The case arose from a dispute concerning the employment rights of a worker who had acquired a disability during the course of her service with Coal India Limited, a public sector undertaking. The petitioner contended that after acquiring a disability, she was denied meaningful reasonable accommodation in the workplace and faced administrative actions that effectively undermined her continued employment.

 

She argued that the actions of the employer violated the statutory protections provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly the obligation of employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to ensure that employees who acquire disabilities are not discriminated against.

 

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the central question was whether public sector employers could evade their obligations under the RPwD Act by relying on rigid service rules that failed to account for the needs of employees who acquire disabilities during service.

Key Observations

 

The Supreme Court emphasised that the RPwD Act represents a shift from a welfare-based understanding of disability to a rights-based legal framework grounded in dignity and equality. Public authorities and government-controlled entities are therefore under a positive obligation to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to participate in employment on equal terms.

 

The Court observed that employees who acquire disabilities during service are particularly vulnerable, as they may suddenly find themselves excluded from the very institutions they have served for years. In such circumstances, the law requires employers to explore reasonable accommodation measures rather than resorting to administrative actions that result in exclusion.

 

The Bench reiterated that the RPwD Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities and mandates the creation of inclusive workplaces. Employers must therefore interpret service rules in a manner that promotes participation rather than exclusion.

 

The Court also noted that public sector undertakings, as instrumentalities of the State, are bound by constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. Administrative decisions affecting employees with disabilities must therefore be consistent with both statutory protections and constitutional principles.

 

Directions Issued

 

• The Supreme Court held that the employer was required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

• The authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s employment status in light of the statutory requirement to provide reasonable accommodation.

• The Court emphasised that public sector employers must adopt measures that enable continued employment of persons who acquire disabilities during service.

• Relevant authorities were directed to ensure that future administrative decisions are consistent with the principles laid down in the RPwD Act.

Commentary

 

The judgment highlights the growing recognition within Indian constitutional jurisprudence that employment rights form a critical component of disability inclusion. For many individuals, employment is not merely a source of income but also a foundation for dignity, independence and social participation.

 

Employees who acquire disabilities during service often face a sudden erosion of these rights. Without strong legal protections, they may find themselves marginalised within the workplace or pushed out of employment altogether. The RPwD Act seeks to address this problem by imposing clear obligations on employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to prevent discrimination.

 

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case reinforces the transformative nature of the statute. By insisting that employers interpret service rules in a manner consistent with disability rights, the Court underscored that inclusion requires institutional adaptation rather than mere formal compliance with existing regulations.

The broader significance of the decision lies in its recognition that disability rights cannot remain confined to theoretical guarantees. For persons with disabilities to participate fully in public life, workplaces must be designed and administered in ways that anticipate diversity and remove barriers to participation. The ruling therefore strengthens the evolving framework of disability rights law in India by reaffirming that equality in employment requires proactive institutional reform.

Read the judgement: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. [PDF 289KB]

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act

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

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Guidelines on Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities, calls it "The Muruganantham Doctrine"

Court: The Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Case Title: L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 844
Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025 

Precedents Cited

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 – Arrest guidelines violated; factual foundation for compensation.
• Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 12 SCR 311 – Recognised denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination under Art. 14/21; Court extends principle to prisons.
• Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 4 SCR 638 – Human-rights-based approach to disability; influences Court’s interpretive stance.
• Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658 – Framework of prison reforms adopted and expanded.
• Rama Murthy v. State Of Karnataka (1997) 2 SCC 642 – Need for an All-India Jail Manual and recognition of prisoners’ double handicap (ill-health and incarceration).
• People’s Watch v. Home Secretary, TN (2023) 2 MLJ 478 – Emphasised visitorial oversight; its directives were “re-emphasised”.
• International Instruments: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD); UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules).

Overview:

This case highlights the critical need for systemic reforms in Indian prisons to ensure the rights and dignity of prisoners with disabilities. The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate with Becker Muscular Dystrophy, autism, and mental illness, was illegally arrested and incarcerated. He alleged that during his custody, he was denied proper food, medical treatment, and accessible facilities, leading to a deterioration of his health.

Issues Before the Court

1. What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” for prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)?
2. Do infrastructural or administrative shortcomings in prisons amount to human rights violations requiring compensation?
3. What structural reforms are constitutionally necessary to safeguard dignity and equality of prisoners with disabilities?

Factual Background and Journey Through Courts:

• Illegal Arrest and Harassment: The appellant was falsely implicated in a criminal case and illegally arrested by Respondent No. 2 (police officer) at the behest of his paternal uncle.
• Incarceration and Alleged Neglect: During his incarceration from February 29, 2020, to March 10, 2020, at Central Prison, Coimbatore, the appellant alleged denial of essential support, including physiotherapy, psychotherapy, protein-rich food, and accessible sanitation facilities. He claimed this aggravated his physical and mental health conditions.
• SHRC Proceedings: The appellant filed a complaint with the SHRC, seeking compensation and action against officials. The SHRC awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation and recommended disciplinary action against Respondent No. 2, but dismissed the complaint against the prison authorities (Respondent No. 3), finding no specific human rights violation attributable to them.
• High Court Proceedings: Aggrieved by the SHRC's limited relief, the appellant filed a writ petition. The High Court partly allowed his petition, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- from the State and Rs. 1,00,000/- recoverable from Respondent No. 2) and awarding Rs. 25,000/- in costs. However, it upheld the dismissal of the complaint against the prison authorities, stating that while the arrest was a human rights violation, the non-provision of certain amenities during a short incarceration period did not amount to a "serious Human Rights violation" by jail authorities.
• Supreme Court's Findings:
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of illegal arrest and harassment.
  • It found the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be "fair, just, and reasonable," noting that while the appellant did not receive certain appropriate medical and dietary facilities, this stemmed from "institutional limitations" rather than "deliberate neglect or malice" by prison authorities. Thus, these shortcomings did not, "per se, amount to a violation of human rights attributable to the jail authorities."
  • However, the Court expressed "deep concern" over the systemic neglect of incarcerated individuals with disabilities and emphasized the urgent need for comprehensive prison reforms.

Key Takeaways 

This Supreme Court judgment, while affirming existing compensation, serves as a landmark directive for advancing disability rights within the Indian carceral system. Here are the key takeaways for our blog:

1. Reinforcing the Right to Dignity and Accessibility in Prisons: The Court unequivocally states that "Lawful incarceration does not suspend the right to human dignity." It stresses that failure to provide reasonable accommodations and basic care to disabled prisoners is not merely an administrative lapse but a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and breaches the RPwD Act, 2016, and UNCRPD.
2. Beyond "Deliberate Neglect": Systemic Failure as a Violation: While the Court didn't attribute "human rights violation" to prison authorities in this specific instance due to lack of "deliberate neglect," it highlighted "institutional limitations" as the root cause. This implicitly recognizes that systemic failures leading to deprivation of rights for disabled prisoners are unacceptable and necessitate immediate attention.
3. Mandatory Healthcare and Assistive Devices: The judgment reiterates that persons with disabilities in custody must receive healthcare "equivalent to that available in the general community," including physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices. This is a crucial affirmation of their right to comprehensive medical support, explicitly stating that "Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation."
4. Comprehensive Directives for Prison Reforms: The Supreme Court has issued 15 comprehensive, "immediate and time-bound" directives covering:
   • Identification and Information: Prompt identification of disabled prisoners and provision of information in accessible formats.
   • Infrastructure Accessibility: Mandating wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments.
   • Therapeutic Services: Dedicated spaces for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and other therapeutic services.
   • Audits and Compliance: State-level access audits and compliance with accessibility guidelines (Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021).
   • Training and Sensitization: Comprehensive training for all prison staff and medical officers on disability rights, appropriate handling, and non-discrimination.
   • Dietary Needs: Provision of nutritious and medically appropriate diets tailored to individual needs.
   • Manual Review and Amendment: Review and amendment of the State Prison Manual to conform with the RPwD Act and UNCRPD, prohibiting discrimination and promoting reasonable accommodation.
   • Data Collection and Transparency: Maintenance and public dissemination of disaggregated data on disability status, accessibility, and accommodations (compliance with Article 31 UNCRPD).
   • Consultation and Monitoring: Periodic consultations with civil society organizations and constitution of monitoring committees.
5. Emphasis on International Standards: The judgment frequently references the UNCRPD and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), reinforcing India's commitment to international human rights standards for incarcerated persons with disabilities.
6. Accountability and Public Interest: The Court emphasizes that these directions are "in the larger public interest to uphold the dignity, and healthcare rights of prisoners with disabilities in all custodial settings," underscoring the State's "constitutional and moral obligation." The requirement for compliance reports to the State Human Rights Commission every three months ensures a mechanism for accountability.

This judgment provides a strong judicial push for a "systemic transformation" towards a "humane and just carceral system" that affirms the rights and provides necessary care for the rehabilitation of prisoners with disabilities. It sets a clear roadmap for state governments to implement the RPwD Act and international obligations effectively within their prison systems.

Read the judgement in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others embedded below:

Supreme Court issues directions to make the process of Digital KYC accessible for persons With disabilities, declares it an integral part of fundamental right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 & W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

Case Title: Pragya Prasun v. Union of India & Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 30 April 2025

Published on: May 1, 2025
By: Disability Rights India Team

Background

The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose from writ petitions filed by persons with disabilities highlighting accessibility barriers in the digital KYC and e-KYC verification processes used by several financial institutions, telecommunications providers and other service platforms. The petitioners argued that the design and functioning of these digital verification systems prevented persons with visual impairments and facial disfigurements from independently completing identity verification procedures.

According to the petitioners, many digital KYC mechanisms relied on technological requirements such as capturing live photographs, facial recognition and other verification steps that were not compatible with the needs of persons using assistive technologies. These systems often required actions such as blinking or visually aligning documents, which created significant barriers for persons with blindness or severe eye injuries.

The petitioners contended that such barriers effectively excluded persons with disabilities from accessing essential services including banking facilities, telecommunications connections and other digital governance platforms. They argued that this failure violated the obligations imposed on public authorities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which requires government institutions and regulated entities to ensure accessibility in information and communication technologies.

In a historic and far-reaching judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to digital access is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent-setting decision is a major milestone in the struggle for disability rights in India, specifically addressing the systemic digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements.

The judgment was delivered in two writ petitions:
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025  —filed by advocates and disability rights activists seeking digital accessibility in the e-KYC process for individuals with blindness and acid attack survivors.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued 20 binding directions that mark a significant overhaul of the digital architecture for service delivery, with inclusivity and accessibility at the center.

Here are some of the landmark directives:

Digital KYC Must Be Inclusive

• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) must issue new guidelines that incorporate alternative methods to verify "liveness" or live photographs, moving beyond the default “blinking of eyes” method.
• Entities must now accept thumb impressions as valid authentication for visually impaired users during the e-KYC process.

Right to Reasonable Accommodation

• All reporting entities (REs), whether public or private, are directed to adhere to accessibility standards, appoint digital accessibility nodal officers, and undergo periodic audits by certified professionals.
• All apps, websites, and platforms must involve persons with visual impairments in user acceptance testing for any new digital service.

Mandatory Accessibility for Government and Private Services

• All government websites and digital services must comply with Section 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates both electronic and print media be accessible.
• WCAG 2.1 and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) are now mandatory for all government platforms.

Communication and Service Delivery

• Public services must provide information in alternative formats—including Braille, easy-to-read formats, and audio-described content.
• Helplines, grievance redressal mechanisms, and human review of rejected KYC applications must be set up for PwDs.

Sensitization and Training

• Disability awareness and inclusion modules must be part of training for employees of all regulated entities.
• RBI is directed to monitor implementation and regularly conduct public awareness campaigns about inclusive KYC processes.

A Game-Changer for Digital Equality

This judgment unequivocally affirms that access to digital services is no longer a privilege—but a constitutional right, especially for persons with disabilities who have been persistently side-lined in India’s digital revolution. The Court has not only addressed the how (mechanisms and guidelines) but also the why—the deep need to treat persons with disabilities as equal citizens entitled to dignity, convenience, and autonomy.

This move will have far-reaching consequences across all sectors—from banking and governance to education and healthcare. It is a wake-up call to both government and private entities that accessibility is not an afterthought—it is a non-negotiable obligation under the law.

Next Steps and Accountability

As disability rights advocates, it is now essential to monitor the implementation of these directions and hold entities accountable. Civil society must collaborate with regulators, tech developers, and service providers to translate these orders into practice on the ground.

The judgment reinforces the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and aligns with the Accessible India Campaign. It is now up to us—activists, organizations, and allies—to ensure that these rights are not just declared but delivered.

Download/Read the judgement 

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. 

Supreme Court Upholds Equal Access to Judicial Services for Persons with Disabilities [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Title:  Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vs. The Registrar General , The High Court of Madhya Pradesh  (Suo-Motu)

Case No.: SMW(C) No. 2/2024  (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) by holding that no candidate can be denied consideration for judicial service recruitment solely due to their disability. The ruling strikes down discriminatory provisions and upholds the principles of equality and affirmative action enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

The judgment is a significant milestone in the journey toward an inclusive and equitable judicial system. The Supreme Court explicitly held that persons with disabilities must not face discrimination while seeking employment in the judiciary and that the state is responsible for ensuring an inclusive framework. The Court emphasized that any indirect discrimination—such as unreasonable cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be removed to uphold substantive equality.

By striking down a provision in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service, the Court has sent a strong message against systemic exclusion. The ruling makes it clear that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in the selection process for judicial positions.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which disqualified visually impaired candidates.

• Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as a three-year practice period or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks, was also struck down to the extent that it discriminated against PWD candidates.

• The Court held that reasonable accommodations must be provided to PWD candidates during the recruitment process, in line with the RPwD Act, 2016.

• The judgment extends relief to PWD candidates in Rajasthan who were denied a separate cutoff in the Rajasthan Judicial Service preliminary exams, ensuring they will be considered in future recruitments.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the exclusion of her son from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court subsequently issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue gained prominence after the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the RPwD Act. Interim measures were taken by the Court to ensure participation of visually impaired aspirants, but their selection was made subject to the final outcome of the case.

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

The judgment underscores a rights-based approach to disability inclusion in the judiciary. It affirms that disability is not a limitation but a social barrier that must be addressed through reasonable accommodations and affirmative action. The Court recognized that once recruited, judicial officers with disabilities must be provided the necessary training and support to discharge their duties effectively.

The ruling aligns with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation for PWDs in government jobs, including judicial positions. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, already provide for a 6% reservation in state services, further reinforcing the need for compliance with disability rights legislation.

Implications for the Future 

The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a crucial precedent for other states and institutions in India. It reaffirms that arbitrary barriers preventing PWDs from equal participation in public service must be dismantled. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities.

For aspiring judges with disabilities, this ruling is a ray of hope. It not only paves the way for their rightful inclusion in the legal profession but also strengthens the foundation of a truly representative and diverse judiciary.

This judgment is a reminder that the fight for disability rights is far from over, but each legal victory brings us closer to a more inclusive society.

Judgement

Read the Judgement below:

Indian Supreme Court expands Access to Scribes in Examinations for All Persons with disabilities who need it, Benchmark threshold not a pre-requisite [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Date of Judgement: 03 February  2025

Background

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) by allowing all disabled candidates to use scribes for writing exams, regardless of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by a candidate diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a chronic neurological condition, who was denied the facility of a scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner had a 25% permanent disability, certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore. Despite this, recruitment bodies refused him the accommodations typically granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). He challenged the restrictive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which failed to ensure reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities below the 40% benchmark.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court emphasized that restricting scribe facilities to only those with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The ruling referenced several landmark judgments, including:

• Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) – Held that denying a scribe to candidates below the benchmark disability threshold was discriminatory.

• Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021) – Reinforced the importance of reasonable accommodation in examinations.

• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) – Strengthened the principle of equality in educational assessments.

The Court also considered international precedents, such as Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, which advocate for inclusive policies ensuring equal access to education and employment opportunities for disabled individuals.

Key Directives from the Supreme Court

To address inconsistencies in examination accommodations, the Court issued the following directives to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:

1. Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.

2. Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.

3. Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.

4. Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.

5. Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.

6. Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.

7. Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.

8. Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.

9. Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.

10. Penalize non-compliance – Take strict action against examination bodies that fail to implement the prescribed guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant victory for disability rights in India. By extending scribe accommodations to all disabled candidates, the ruling ensures greater inclusivity and fairer opportunities in competitive examinations. This judgment reinforces the core principles of the RPwD Act, 2016, and underscores the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation as a legal and ethical obligation.

Read the Judgement

Supreme Court Mandates Enforcement of additional guidelines along with the UOI's Airport Guidelines for Dignified Assistance to Persons with Disabilities

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala  and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case No. W.P.(C) No. 121/2024

Case title: Arushi Singh vs. Union of India  

Date of Judgement: 12 November 2024

Brief Summary

On November 12, 2024 the Supreme Court disposed off a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with a benchmark disability, addressing an incident of alleged humiliation at Kolkata Airport. Singh reported being asked by security personnel to stand up from her wheelchair during security screening, a situation that left her feeling disrespected and violated. The Court affirmed that the guidelines proposed by the Union Government for treating persons with disabilities with dignity at airports would now be mandatory, also extending to elderly and injured passengers requiring wheelchair assistance.

Incident Leading to the Petition  

Arushi Singh, a graduate of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and LL.M. holder from the National University of Singapore, recounted her experience on January 31, 2024. She alleged that she waited for approximately 20 minutes without assistance outside the airport and was subsequently asked to stand during security screening three times, despite her repeated explanations of her disability. The insensitivity allegedly displayed by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel prompted Singh to file the petition, seeking effective enforcement of relevant regulations, including the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, and the Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022.  

Supreme Court Observations and UOI's Suggestions  

A bench comprising former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala had noted during earlier hearings that the issues raised required action by the Union of India. During the proceedings, a joint statement was presented, outlining several suggestions for ensuring dignified treatment of specially-abled individuals at airports:  

1. Mobile Application for Wheelchair Availability: Real-time updates on wheelchair availability at designated airport points for easy access by users.  

2. Mechanized Wheelchairs: Availability of mechanized wheelchairs for passengers traveling solo or in cases of delayed assistance.  

3. Boarding Pass Coding:  Incorporation of an alphabet code indicating the type of disability and a color scale denoting the severity of the condition.  

4. Integration of Unique Disability Identity Database:  Streamlining the ticket booking process by linking the database, enabling instant access to verified disability information for better assistance.  

5. Specialized Kiosks for Boarding Passes: Contactless kiosks equipped with voice recognition and response technology to aid persons with disabilities.  

6. Regular Sensitization Training for Airport Staff: Comprehensive and periodic training for airport staff, emphasizing understanding various disabilities and compassionate assistance.  

Court’s Directives  

The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, Abiha Zaidi, that these suggestions should be treated as mandatory guidelines. The bench further emphasized that these measures should not be limited to wheelchair users but also include elderly and injured passengers requiring assistance. Importantly, it clarified that physical assistance already being provided at airports would not be withdrawn under these guidelines.  

Concluding the matter, the bench remarked:  

"We dispose of the Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms laying more stress on sensitizing the staff at the airport to be more compassionate towards the specially abled passengers." 

Read the judgement

Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi case holds the recommendatory nature of Sectoral Accessibility Guidelines under Rule 15 as ultra vires the RPWD Act. Grants 3 months to UOI to make corrections in consultation with stakeholders

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Case Title:  Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005

Date of Judgement: 08 Nov 2024

Summary

On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India & Ors., reshaping the landscape of accessibility rights for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India. 

One of the major difficulties faced in enforcing the accessibility mandate and making accessibility a real right had been that the language in RPWD Rule 15 incorporated no compulsion to comply. Despite this absence, the Union of India kept claiming that the rules were mandatory. The Supreme Court bench called off the bluff and asked the Union of India to create a mandatory floor on accessibility. The bench directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed this judgment in a PIL filed by Mr Rajive Raturi, a  person with visual impairment, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

The latest judgment was passed in the light of the report submitted by NALSAR - Centre for Disability Studies, headed by Professor Dr. Amita Dhanda titled “Finding Sizes for All- A Report on the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India” which was prepared by the Centre in collaboration with persons with disabilities, disabled persons organizations and experts on accessibility.

The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, after analysing international treaties such as United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & judgments, culled out the following principles:-

a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and

b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives.

The Court noted that the CDS report opined that while the RPwD Act 2016 creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, whereas the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, create a mechanism which only prescribes self- regulatory guidelines.

Agreeing with this view, the Court observed :

"Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules have transformed into self- regulation by way of delegated legislation. The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of the RPWD Act While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non- negotiable floor. A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act."

The Court therefore directed the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months. "This exercise may involve segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR- CDS is directed to be involved in the process. It is clarified 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. However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules must be prescribed in Rule 15," the Court observed.

Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories were directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented in cases of non- compliance with Rule 15.

The judgement in para 22  highlights the importance of Accessibility as a Human Right in the following words:-

"Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities, to exercise their rights fully and equally. Without accessibility, individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society, whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation in cultural and civic activities. Accessibility ensures that persons with disabilities are not marginalised but are instead able to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else, making it an integral part of ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity. By embedding accessibility as a human right within existing legal frameworks, it becomes clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the exercise of other rights."

Para 37 of the judgement explains relationship between Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility in following terms:-

"At this stage, it is also crucial to understand the relationship between reasonable accommodation and accessibility, as both are essential for achieving equality for PWDs. While accessibility generally refers to the removal of barriers in the environment or infrastructure to ensure equal access for all, reasonable accommodation is more individualised. It involves making specific adjustments to meet the unique needs of a person with a disability. In other words, accessibility ensures that environments are designed to be inclusive from the outset, while reasonable accommodation ensures that individuals who face specific challenges can enjoy their rights on an equal basis in particular contexts."

The judgement in Para 39 reiterates the duty of state vis-à-vis accessibility as below:-

"It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning that the State is required to implement accessibility measures proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. The State must establish broad, standardised accessibility standards in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring that these standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all relevant stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests".

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Mandatory Accessibility Standards 

The Court found that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, 2017, previously framed as "guidelines," was ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as it lacked enforceability, which was the intent of the RWD Act 2016. This judgment mandates the government to replace these aspirational guidelines with binding rules within three months. This reading down of Rule 15 from voluntary guidelines to mandatory standards in light of the mandate of the RPWD Act is a major advancement in accessibility rights, aiming to provide PWDs with meaningful access to public spaces and facilities, which is critical for them to exercise other rights.

2. Historical Context and Slow Progress 

This ruling traces its roots to an earlier Supreme Court judgment on December 15, 2017, that directed states and union territories to take actions towards accessibility. Despite the passage of several years, compliance was found lacking, prompting the appointment of NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) to assess the implementation status based on a court order. The report by NALSAR-CDS, coupled with submissions from both the petitioner and the Union of India, formed the basis for this historic judgment.

3. Highlighting Legislative Gaps and Need for Uniformity 

   The judgment underscores discrepancies in accessibility standards across different sectors, such as the Ports and Civil Aviation sectors. Rule 15(1) and its various standards were criticized for presenting conflicting guidelines on fundamental requirements, like accessible toilets, and for the presence of non-enforceable, technical errors. By declaring Rule 15(1) ultra vires to the RPWD Act, the Court has called for a single, enforceable accessibility framework aligned with the Act's legislative intent.

4. Principles for Accessibility and Universal Design. 

The Court directed that the following principles of accessibility should be considered while carrying out the above exercise:

a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations or specialized design;

b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis;

c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers, audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure digital and informational accessibility across public and private platforms; and

d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.

5. Government Accountability and Timelines 

The Union Government has been directed to frame these mandatory rules within three months, in consultation with NALSAR-CDS and stakeholders. Compliance with the redefined Rule 15 will be monitored under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the RPWD Act, ensuring accountability through penalties and non-issuance of completion certificates for non-compliance.

Moving Forward: A Collective Win for Accessibility Rights

This ruling is not merely a judicial milestone; it reflects the resilience and advocacy of India’s disability rights movement. By transforming accessibility from an aspirational goal into a mandatory legal standard, the Supreme Court has advanced India towards becoming a more inclusive and accessible society. The judgment enshrines accessibility as a prerequisite for realizing the rights and dignity of all citizens, ensuring that everyone can participate fully and equally in public life.

As the government works to implement the Court’s directives, the ongoing role of DPOs, NGOs, and individuals in shaping and monitoring these standards will be crucial. This collective approach will uphold the inclusive spirit of the RPWD Act, reinforcing that accessibility is not just a right but a shared responsibility. 

The Writ Petitions have been adjourned to 07 March 2025 on which date, the Union Government must report compliance to this Court.

Read the judgement here: