Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. Surya Kant, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
Case title : Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal Vs. Union of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2021
Authored by: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Date of Judgement: 17 December 2021
Brief
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the rights of employees with mental health conditions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), setting aside disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF officer who had developed Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Major Depression during service.
The appellant, recruited to the CRPF in 2001, began suffering from psychosocial disabilities in 2009. In 2010, while posted in Ajmer, he faced complaints of unauthorized absence, use of unparliamentary language, and threats—events that occurred when his mental health was deteriorating. Despite being diagnosed with a 40–70% permanent disability and declared unfit for duty in 2016, he faced multiple disciplinary inquiries.
The legal dispute involved the interplay between the earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), alongside government notifications exempting CRPF "combatant personnel" from certain protections.
The appellant was a Central Reserve Police Force personnel who started facing obsessive-compulsive disorder and clinical depression. A complaint was registered against the appellant by his superior Deputy Inspector General of Police stating that his mental state is not sound and he might be a threat to himself and others. Pursuant to the complaint, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant and he was suspended from service. The Supreme Court, concluded that persons with mental health disorders have a right against workplace discrimination and are entitled to reasonable accommodation.
Examples of reasonable accommodation for persons with a mental disability might include quiet office space, changes in supervisory methods, and permission to work from home. The Supreme Court held that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act advances the guarantee of reasonable accommodation to persons with mental disabilities.
The Government establishment has a positive obligation to shift an employee who acquired a disability during service to a suitable post with the same pay scale and service benefits. The provision further states that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, they may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available or when they attain the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court
-
RPwD Act Applies – The Court held that the 2016 Act, not the 1995 Act, governed the case.
-
Exemption Notifications Inapplicable – The 2002 exemption for CRPF under Section 47 of the 1995 Act did not carry forward, and the 2021 RPwD Act notification did not apply, as the appellant’s rights crystallized in 2020.
-
Broader Anti-Discrimination Mandate – Section 20 of the RPwD Act has a wider scope than Section 47 of the 1995 Act; rights against discrimination are inherent in the statute and informed by Article 5 of the UN CRPD.
-
Mental Health as Disability – The Court recognized mental health disorders as disabilities under the RPwD Act, moving away from outdated, stigmatizing approaches.
-
Misconduct & Disability – Where conduct is influenced by mental disability, disciplinary action may amount to indirect discrimination, even if disability is not the sole cause.
-
Reasonable Accommodation Required – Under Section 20(4), employers must explore reassignment to an equivalent post with preserved pay and benefits, factoring in safety considerations.
-
International Influence – The Court drew on the UN CRPD and ILO Code of Practice to reinforce a rights-based approach.
Judgment Outcome
- Disciplinary proceedings quashed from the first inquiry stage.
- Directed reassignment of the appellant to a suitable post with equivalent pay, benefits, and service conditions, ensuring no role involving firearms or hazardous duties if unsuitable.
- Affirmed that psychosocial disabilities require proactive workplace accommodation, not punitive action.
Commentary
This decision marks a historic shift in Indian disability jurisprudence, particularly for employees with mental health conditions. The Supreme Court not only clarified that protections under the RPwD Act apply to acquired disabilities in service but also addressed the unique ways in which mental disabilities can intersect with workplace discipline.
By recognising indirect discrimination—where facially neutral policies disproportionately disadvantage persons with disabilities—the Court aligned Indian law with international human rights standards.
The ruling sends a strong message to government and security forces: disability rights extend beyond physical impairments and include psychosocial disabilities, with an obligation to provide reasonable accommodation rather than resort to termination or punishment.