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.

---------

Substantive Equality over Technicalities- SC Grants Relief to Woman with Benchmark Disability saying Reasonable Accommodation is a Fundamental Right [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026

Case Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited & Ors.  [PDF 289 KB]

Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 53

Cases Referred: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India (2024 INSC 775); Anmol v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 387); Om Rathod v. DGHS (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130); Ch. Joseph v. Telangana SRTC (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1592); Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) 16 SCC 654; Vikash Kumar v. UPSC; Avni Prakash v. NTA; Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625; Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2257)

---

Brief 

In a significant judgment reinforcing the centrality of reasonable accommodation and substantive equality in public employment, the Supreme Court in Sujata Bora v. Coal India Limited held that technicalities such as expiry of a recruitment panel cannot defeat the fundamental and statutory rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs). The Court directed Coal India Limited (CIL) to appoint the appellant, a woman with benchmark disability, by creating a supernumerary post and ensuring a suitable, accessible desk job with assistive infrastructure. 

Background

Coal India Limited had issued a recruitment notification in 2019 for Management Trainees. Sujata Bora applied under the visually disabled category, qualified for interview, and was later called for document verification and an Initial Medical Examination (IME) in 2021. She was declared medically unfit on the ground of visual disability coupled with residual partial hemiparesis.

Challenging this, she approached the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge quashed the IME result and held that CIL could not deny appointment in the multiple disabilities category, but limited relief by directing consideration in the subsequent recruitment cycle since the earlier process had concluded. The Division Bench, however, set aside even this relief, primarily on the ground that the panel had expired.

Before the Supreme Court, detailed medical assessment was ordered through an AIIMS medical board. The final report assessed her disability at 57%, above the 40% benchmark threshold, making her eligible under the RPwD Act. The Court also interacted with the appellant and noted her determination and capability. 

Key Directions

The Supreme Court:

• Set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court.

• Held that the appellant had been wrongly denied employment through no fault of her own.

• Directed creation of a supernumerary post for her appointment.

• Requested that she be given a suitable desk job, with a separate computer and keyboard consistent with universal design under the RPwD Act.

• Requested posting at North Eastern Coalfields, Assam.

• Exercised powers under Article 142 to do complete justice. 

Reasonable Accommodation as a “Gateway Right”

One of the most important contributions of this judgment is its strong articulation of reasonable accommodation. The Court reaffirmed that:

• Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right.

• It is a gateway right enabling PwDs to enjoy all other rights.

• Denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and undermines substantive equality.

The Court rejected a narrow view of accommodation limited to devices or physical aids, instead endorsing a broad, purposive interpretation aligned with dignity, autonomy, and participation.

Intersectionality: Gender and Disability

The Court expressly recognised intersectional discrimination, noting that the appellant was a single woman with disability striving to overcome compounded barriers. It held that equality analysis cannot be unidimensional where multiple axes of disadvantage operate together. This acknowledgment strengthens the evolving Indian jurisprudence on intersectionality in disability rights.

Directive Principles and the Right to Work

Linking disability rights with constitutional philosophy, the Court invoked Articles 14, 21, 39(a), and 41, reiterating that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are “two wheels of a chariot.” The right to livelihood and work was treated as integral to a meaningful life.

Corporate Responsibility and Disability

Notably, the judgment situates disability inclusion within Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and ESG frameworks, referencing UN Guiding Principles and ILO materials. It emphasises that disability rights are human rights and must be addressed from a non-discrimination perspective, not merely as diversity optics. 

Significance

This ruling is a landmark for several reasons:

1. Panel expiry cannot defeat disability rights where injustice is evident.

2. Reasonable accommodation is firmly embedded as a fundamental right.

3. Supernumerary posts are validated as a remedy in appropriate cases.

4. Intersectionality receives explicit judicial recognition.

5. Public sector employers are reminded that exclusion at the threshold, without exploring accommodations, is unlawful.

The Court’s opening line—“Lack of physical sight does not equate to a lack of vision”—aptly captures the spirit of the decision. The judgment sends a clear message: disability rights are not charity, nor mere policy preferences; they are enforceable legal and constitutional guarantees.

----

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 of India Upholds the Right to Accessible Footpaths as a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Number: IA No. 50798 OF 2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.  295/2012
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: 14 May 2025

Cases Referred: 

• Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors  (1985) 3 SCC 545
• Bombay HC in High Court on its own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21221
• Karnataka HC in the case of D.S. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore & Ors  2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12223

Brief:

In a historic development for pedestrian safety and disability rights in India, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty. This judgment, rooted in constitutional guarantees and grounded in empathy for the lived realities of persons with disabilities (PwDs), marks a significant leap forward in the recognition of accessible urban infrastructure as a legal and human right.

The Background

The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest matter that raised critical concerns about the lack of proper footpaths, rampant encroachments, and the resulting safety hazards to pedestrians — especially those with disabilities. The Court acknowledged the urgent and widespread nature of the problem, noting that without accessible and continuous footpaths, pedestrians are effectively forced onto the streets, putting their lives at constant risk.

Key Observations and Findings

The Bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, made a series of pointed observations that reflect both the legal urgency and the human costs of inaccessibility:

• "Right to have unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court unequivocally stated.
• The safety of pedestrians is not a luxury, but a constitutional obligation of the state.
• The absence of accessible footpaths disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, older persons, and others who rely on mobility aids.

Supreme Court's Directions

The Court issued a set of sweeping directions to ensure nationwide compliance and structural reforms:

1. Mandatory Accessibility: Footpaths must be designed and maintained to be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

2. Encroachment Removal: All encroachments from footpaths must be removed without exception.

3. Universal Footway Standards: Every public road must have proper, inclusive footpaths or walkways.

4. Policy Mandate: All States and Union Territories must evolve and implement policies for the construction, maintenance, and protection of accessible footpaths.

5. Compliance Timeline:

• States and UTs must frame guidelines in line with those issued by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and DS Ramchandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police.
• The Union of India is directed to place on record existing or new national guidelines within two months.
• The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 1st August 2025, to review compliance.

Relevance of the Bombay High Court Model

The Supreme Court emphasized that States should refer to the Bombay High Court’s earlier directions, which already set a progressive precedent on footpath design, accessibility, and encroachment-free pedestrian zones. This reinforces the principle that access to infrastructure must be inclusive by design, not adjusted retroactively.

A Constitutional and Human Rights Milestone

This judgment is not merely about footpaths. It is a profound reiteration that urban design and infrastructure planning are constitutional issues. For persons with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure is not an amenity; it is a prerequisite for dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.

The Supreme Court’s order stands as a powerful reminder that accessibility is not optional — it is a mandated right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment sets the stage for a nationwide shift in how cities and towns approach pedestrian infrastructure to ensure accessible and dignified mobility for all people with disabilities.

Next Steps for Advocates and Stakeholders

• Monitor Compliance: Civil society organizations, disability rights groups, and urban planners must actively engage with State governments to ensure meaningful implementation.
• Participate in Policy Making: Stakeholders must demand participation in the framing of guidelines to reflect diverse accessibility needs.
• Use as Precedent: This order provides strong judicial backing to challenge inaccessible infrastructure in any city or district.

Taking note of standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress and other authorities, the Court directed: All State Governments and Union Territories shall frame guidelines in line with the High Court directions and file compliance reports within two months. The Union of India shall also place on record the policy/guidelines issued for protecting the rights of pedestrians within two months. 

As we approach the next hearing on 01 August 2025, this judgment offers a foundation to push for inclusive, safe, and equitable urban mobility — not just as a policy goal, but as a constitutional promise.

Read the Order dated  14 May 2025 above.

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

Brief

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 sidelined 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:

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:

Supreme Court - Benchmark disability no ground to render a candidate ineligible to pursue MBBS

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:  Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan 
Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.:  Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 15 October 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775

Cases Referred:

• Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 383
• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 2 SCC 209
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
• Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 761
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and others (2023) 2 SCC 286

Synopsis: 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the eligibility of a candidate with a benchmark disability for admission to the MBBS program under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) reservation. The case revolved around the appellant, who qualified NEET (UG) 2024 and sought admission under the PwD and OBC categories. The Disability Certification Centre initially deemed the appellant ineligible, citing that his speech and language disability (44-45%) would hinder his ability to pursue the course under National Medical Commission (NMC) norms.

When the Bombay High Court declined interim relief, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court issued an interim order directing that the appellant’s seat be reserved and constituted a specialized Medical Board to evaluate whether the appellant’s disability genuinely impeded his ability to pursue medical education. Following a favorable report, the Court upheld the appellant's admission.

Key directives of the judgment included:

1. Disability as a Criterion: Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate. Eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board's opinion on whether the disability prevents course completion.
2. Reasoned Decisions: Boards must explicitly state if and why a disability would impede the candidate’s ability to pursue the course.
3. Judicial Review: Negative opinions by Disability Boards can be challenged in courts, which may refer the case to premier medical institutes for independent review.
4. Policy Reforms: Pending reforms by the NMC, the Boards must consider guidelines from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

This landmark decision emphasizes a nuanced, case-by-case assessment of disabilities in educational settings, reinforcing the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

Supreme Court of India Issues Landmark Guidelines for Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Visual Media [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice JB Pardiwala

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5239 of 2024

Case Title: Nipun Malhotra (Appellant) Versus Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors

Date of Judgement: 08 Jul 2024

Brief Introduction:

In a groundbreaking judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at ensuring the dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. This significant ruling emphasizes the importance of respectful and accurate representation, underscoring that negative stereotypes and insensitive portrayals can severely impact the dignity of persons with disabilities and perpetuate social discrimination against them. The Supreme Court said “the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised”. In determining these aspects, the “intention” and “overall message” of the film have to be considered.

The case in question involved the portrayal of disabled persons in the film 'Aankh Mihcoli,' produced by Sony Pictures. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition challenging the film's portrayal of disabled persons. The petitioner sought guidelines for filmmakers regarding the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and recommendations to censor certain parts of the film.

While the Court refused to interfere with the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it took the opportunity to provide a framework for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. The Court's guidelines aim to align such portrayals with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Indian Constitution and the RPwD Act.

Judgment Highlights:

The Court emphasized the prevention of stigmatization and discrimination, recognizing their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the historically oppressive representation of differently-abled persons continues, with persons with disabilities often used to provide comic relief and jokes made at their expense. He noted the historical use of humor to mock disability and how films and visual media tend to perpetuate myths about disabilities, portraying persons with certain disabilities as “super-cripples.”

“This stereotype implies that disabled persons have extraordinary heroic abilities like enhanced spatial sense… this may not apply to everyone. It also may imply that those who do not have such superpowers are less than normal or ideal,” Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked.

The judgment embraced the modern social model of disability, which views disabilities not as personal tragedies but as societal barriers to inclusion. The medical model, which sees disability as a personal tragedy, was deemed obsolete. The Court pointed out that stereotypes and mockery of disabilities arise from a “lack of familiarity” with disabilities, stemming from inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in the dominant discourse.

The Court balanced the issue by stating that not all speech that entrenches stereotypes was against individual dignity. Context, intention, and overall meaning must be considered before determining if remarks made in visual media or films are disparaging.

Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour,’ explaining that disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities while disability humour seeks to better understand and explain a disability.

Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

1. Language Sensitivity: - Avoid words that cultivate institutional discrimination, such as “cripple” and “spastic,” as they contribute to negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. Avoid language that individualizes the impairment and overlooks social barriers (e.g., terms like “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victim”).

2. Accurate Representation:- Strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to avoid perpetuating misinformation and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.

3. Inclusive and Diverse Portrayals:- Reflect the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, capturing their diverse realities and avoiding one-dimensional, ableist characterizations. Showcase the successes, talents, and contributions of persons with disabilities, promoting a more inclusive understanding of disability.

4. Avoiding Harmful Stereotypes:- Do not lampoon persons with disabilities based on myths or present them as “super-cripples” with extraordinary abilities, implying they deserve dignity only if they compensate for their impairments in exceptional ways.

5. Participatory Decision-Making:- Practice the principle of “nothing about us, without us,” involving persons with disabilities in the creation and assessment of visual media content.

6. Collaboration and Consultation:- Collaborate with disability advocacy groups to gain invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.

7. Training and Sensitization:- Implement training programs for writers, directors, producers, and actors to emphasize the impact of portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. These programs should cover the social model of disability, respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that visual media respects and upholds the dignity of persons with disabilities. By issuing these guidelines, the Supreme Court has paved the way for more inclusive and respectful portrayals, which can help shift societal perceptions and promote equality. The involvement of persons with disabilities in the creative process and collaboration with advocacy groups will ensure that media content reflects their lived experiences accurately and empathetically.

The Court's judgment in this case sets a precedent that can influence future portrayals of persons with disabilities in visual media, fostering a more inclusive and respectful society.

Read the Judgement:

Ensuring Fair Trials for Defendants with Hearing and Speech Disabilities: Supreme Court’s Call for Guidelines

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan

Case Title: Ramnarayan Manhar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh

Case No.: SLP (Crl)............ Diary No(s).15153/2024

Date of Hearing: 16 April 2024

Subject: Lack of Guidelines for Fair Trials for Deaf Accused 

Brief

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has brought attention to a critical issue concerning the fair trial rights of individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. The court noted the absence of established guidelines for conducting trials against such accused/ defendants and has taken steps to address this gap in the legal framework by issuing notice to Union of India through the Attorney General to examine this question of law and posted the matter on 26 July 2024.

“However, it is brought to our notice that this Court has not laid down so far the parameters and guidelines for conducting trial against a deaf-and-dumb accused, who is otherwise of sound mind and medically fit to commit a heinous offence like rape.” said the bench.

Background of the case

The case in question, Ramnarayan Manhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, revolves around the conviction of the accused for the heinous crime of raping two minor girls. 

The trial court convicted the perpetrator, the matter was forwarded to the High Court as the accused, being deaf, was not able to understand the proceedings. The same was done in light of Section 318 of the CrPC which provides as under:

"318. Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings.

If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial, and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit."

The High Court, after going through the testimonies of the witnesses, evidence including the medical evidence which corroborated the heinous act, convicted the accused person for attempting to commit rape. Against this conviction, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

After perusing the material on record, the Bench concluded that it was “prima facie satisfied” with the findings of the Trial and the High Court. That being so, the conviction and consequential sentence awarded to the petitioner seems to be justified, the Court expressed.

This move underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equality for all, including those with disabilities.

Read the copy of the order 

Ramnarayan Manhar v. State of Chhattisgarh: