Bombay HC directs BMC to consider use of technology (elevators etc) for all skywalks to make them friendly to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. [Judgemnet included]

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kulkarni and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R N Laddha. 

Case No. : WP/771/2023 [Original]

Case Title: K.P. Purushothamna Nair of Mumbai VS.  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Date of Judgement: 24 April 2023

Subject: Safe and Acessible Pavements / Pedestrian Facilities, Accessibility of Skywalk to persons with disabilities and senior citizens. 

Brief:

On a petition by an HC staff-turned-lawyer K P P Nair, a Bandra resident, the BMC has been directed by the Bombay HC to install mechanical walkways and elevators at both ends of skywalks to help the senior citizens and persons with disabilities in commuting every day. It also ordered that in future, in all skywalks, the BMC must consider the use of technology to make these more sturdy and beneficial for all commuters.

The petiton raised important questions of accesssibilty of pedestrian facilities for the senior citizens and persosn with disabilities.  He narrated that everyday thousands of persons commute between Bandra Railway Station, on Bandra East side towards MHADA End. This segment faces a junction which has a flow of heavy traffic as pedestrians are required to also cross the Western Express Highway. He has submitted that there is only one pavement which is required to be used by these commuters which gets unimaginably crowded, thereby creating a routine situation of accidents taking place and that such a chaotic situation is totally against the interest of the commuters. 

The HC had on an earlier hearing dated 20 March 2023 observed that commuter safety is paramount and any mishap occurring due to non-availability of a safe footpath or walkway would amount to a breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the citizens. The bench noted the Central and Western railways as also the Metro have provided such mechanisms at several railway stations, including escalators. Asking the BMC to consider it too, the bench said, “Benefits of modern technology need to be made available to the commuters, to maketheir commuting life in Mumbai more easier and comfortable. ” 

“We are sure that such aspects as highlighted by us would be considered and borne in mind by the MCGM in consultation with all other authorities, so that not only the proposed skywalk but also all existing skywalks in the city are made ideal, for their best possible utility, so as to achieve the purpose for which they are constructed,” 

The steps being taken by the MCGM and more particularly, that within a period of 15 months from the date of award of the contract, the entire work of restoration of the sky-walk in question would be completed, is a welcome measure being taken by the MCGM. We accordingly dispose of this petition accepting the statements as made in the reply affidavit and permitting the MCGM to progress the work with all expediency, expresed the court in its order disposign off the petition. 

Read the judgement:

Continuous Service Means All Purposes: Delhi High Court Enforces Batch Parity for IFS Officer

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5367/2014 (CM APPL. 7922/2023 & CM APPL. 8021/2023)

Case Title: Shweta Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2023

Citation: 2023:DHC:3330-DB

Precedent Mandate: Final Order and Judgment dated July 29, 2016

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner successfully contested her eligibility for allocation and appointment to the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) under the Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2012 through a landmark writ petition decided by the Delhi High Court on July 29, 2016. The initial judgment issued a mandamus directing the Union of India to appoint her to the IFS, stipulating that while she would not be entitled to retroactively claim backwages, her entire backdated service span would be recognized. Crucially, the Court decreed that the entire period commencing from the date she would have been ordinarily appointed would be treated as part of her continuous service for all purposes, including retiral benefits and the fixation of seniority, effectively positioning her as an officer of the IFS 2013 Batch.

The petitioner approached the High Court via miscellaneous applications in 2023 because the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) created administrative hurdles in implementing her service benefits. Despite her judicially fixed seniority, the MEA refused to grant her the Senior Scale Grade (w.e.f. July 1, 2017) and the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) along with the corresponding rank of Deputy Secretary (w.e.f. January 1, 2022) at par with her 2013 batchmates.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Actual Service Alibi: The respondent ministry defended its denial by raising a technical objection, arguing that the petitioner had not completed the physical, actual service experience thresholds required for promotional increments—specifically, 4 years of physical service for the Senior Scale and 9 years for the JAG layout.

• The Regulatory Omission: The senior counsel for the petitioner dismantled this defence by demonstrating that the formal Service Rules contained no such actual or physical presence pre-condition to block scale advancements once an officer's continuous service and confirmation were established.
• The Administrative Contradiction: The petitioner exposed a glaring contradiction in the MEA's operational logic. The ministry had already granted her the rank of First Secretary alongside her 2013 batchmates effective July 3, 2020, an advancement which was similarly handled without any physical service pre-condition barriers. The MEA's sudden insistence on a literal physical service calculation to deny her subsequent scales directly conflicted with its prior administrative actions and the clear mandates of the court.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an executive ministry can interpret "continuous service" as requiring physical presence to deny statutory pay scales and promotional upgrades when a judicial decree has explicitly directed that the retroactive period be counted for all purposes.
2. Whether the relevant Service Rules impose an actual physical deployment barrier to exclude a litigation-vindicated officer from batch-parity advancements.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the MEA's resistance, characterising it as an entirely untenable and arbitrary stance:

• Judicial Directives Undiluted: The Court observed that the last sentence of the 2016 judgment was absolute and free from ambiguity. The judicial mandate explicitly commanded that her backdated timeline must be integrated as continuous service for all purposes, leaving no room for the executive to strip away scale benefits through retroactive technicalities.
• No Rule-Based Physical Barriers: Upon evaluating the structural criteria of the promotion tables, the Bench verified that there was no active rule-based requirement enforcing actual physical deployment over judicially established seniority matching.
• Protection Against Discrimination: The Court ruled that because her 2013 batchmates received these grades seamlessly, singling out the petitioner based on parameters already resolved by the court amounted to an unlawful denial of benefits.

Directions Issued

1. Finding the department's actions to be in direct violation of the original judicial decree, the High Court issued the following clear directions:
2. The respondents are directed to properly implement the final judgment and grant the petitioner the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) along with the rank of Deputy Secretary at par with the 2013 batch w.e.f. January 1, 2022.
3. The ministry must formally award her the Senior Scale Grade at par with her batchmates w.e.f. July 1, 2017.
4. The appropriate administrative orders executing these scale upgrades must be finalized and issued by the respondents within a strict timeline of four weeks.
5. Career-Long Protection Order: To prevent future institutional friction, the Bench explicitly ordered that the arguments raised by the MEA in this round shall neither be treated as a consequence nor act as an impediment for the rest of her career or future promotions.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement in Shweta Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.

Supreme Court directs Consortium of National Law Universities to provide Scribe to those who are unable to find scribe, among other reliefs.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench:  Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice  and  J B Pardiwala, Justice

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1109 of 2022

Case Title: Arnab Roy Versus Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr.

Date of Judgement: 17 March 2023

Cases Reffered: 

 1. Vikash Kumar Vs Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Brief:

The petitioner,  a lawyer and a disability rights activist, moved these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging certain conditions which were imposed for the conduct of the Common Law Admission Test 2023 scheduled on 18 December 2022. The issue specifically addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe as the restrictive conditons have been imposed belatedly just four weeks before the exams which in turn would mean that atleast 13 visually impaired candidates would not be able to avail the scribe. This included denial of the right to a scribe to candidates who do not have a benchmark disability though they have a genuine difficulty in writing.

The Supreme Court bench  in this matter has taken a progressive stance while dealing with the Examination Guidelines to ensure equal opportunities for candidates with disabilities in the LL.B admissions process particularly about provisions for necessary accommodations and support to participate in the CLAT examination . 

The bench clarified that candidates appearing for the CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) examination conducted by Consortium of National Law Universities can either bring their own scribe or if it is not possible to do so, request the Consortium to provide a scribe who is then made available to the candidate.  Where the candidates are unable to find their own scribe and the Consortium provides a scribe, at least two days’ time should be provided so as to enable the candidate to interact with the scribe, directed the court.

The bench, headed by the Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud  passed several directions to guarantee that candidates with disabilities receive all the facilities specified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,Govt. of India. The Court accepted the suggestion of the petitioner and emphasized the importance of issuing guidelines well in advance, ensuring clarity regarding the facilities available for candidates with disabilities.

Additionally, the bench also directed the consortium to align their guidelines with the official memorandum issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. While there were concerns that the condition of scribes not being involved in coaching for other competitive exams would limit the availability of scribes, the Court has allowed the consortium's request to ensure the sanctity of the CLAT exam. However, it also highlighted that the nature and contents of the Examination Guidelines cannot be frozen for the future. The Consortium would be at liberty to modify the Guidelines bearing in mind the exigencies of the situation and the constantly evolving nature of the knowledge and experience gained in conducting CLAT particularly in the context of the rights of PwD candidates.

This judgement is a significant step towards promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in legal education. The Consortium of NLUs was established to enhance the standards of legal education and coordination among National Law Schools, and this decision aligns with their objective.

This judgement will undoubtedly create a more inclusive and fair admission process for aspiring law students with disabilities in line with the intention of the legislature behind passing the RPWD Act 2016.

Madras HC- Motor Vehicle Tax Exemptions to disabled can not be subject to condition that it is driven by the disabled himself [Judgement Included]

Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

Bench: Hon`ble Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA

Case No: WP(MD).1480/2023

Case Title: Angappan Vs. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu 

Date of Order/Judgement:  13/03/2023

Brief:

One Mr. Angappan claiming to have 80% locomotor disability had approached the court after the Regional Transport Officer, Pudukottai had rejected his application for tax exemption. The officers had demanded production of the disability certificate and a certificate stating that the Angappan can drive the vehicle. They also sought for a certificate from the Retro Fitment Centre, which had adapted the vehicle. Though the certificates were produced, his application was rejected. The authorities however countered this claim by submitting that the tax exemption was available only for self driven vehicles. 

Clearing a misconception that persons with disabilities (PwD) would be exempted from paying tax for their motor vehicles only if they drive the vehicle, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently came to the rescue of Mr. Angappan, a person with 80% locomotor disability who, when he applied for tax exemption for registration of his car, was asked to produce a certificate that he could drive the car.

The court noted that the authorities had in fact misconstrued the provisions of the Government Order. The stand that tax exemption was available only for self driven vehicles was a misconception. Further, the court noted that in the present case, there were no major alterations as contemplated in the Act. The only alteration was for the easy ingress and egress of Angappan. Thus, the court held that Angappan was eligible for tax exemption and directed the authorities to grant the said exemption to him while alowing his petition. 

The Governmetnof Tamil Nadu Home (Transport -T) Department had passed a GO in December 1976 exempting persons with physical disabilities from paying tax for motor vehicles that are specifically designed or adapted for their use, provided that the said vehicles are used only by persons with disabilities. However, the purpose of the GO has been totally misconstrued by the authorities, the judge observed.

“They have understood the notification to be available only to motor vehicles, which are driven by the physically challenged persons themselves. This is an absolute misconception. The said notification is issued in tune with the definition of an ‘adapted vehicle’ as provided in Section 2 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act. The only condition prescribed is that the vehicle should be ‘used’ by the person, for whose use the vehicle has been adapted. Nowhere does it state that it should be driven by the said person,” the judge clarified.

"Neither the definition under Section 2(1) nor Section 52 specifies that it is the person, for whose purpose, the adaption is made, who should ride the vehicle. On the contrary, the definition of adapted vehicle makes it clear that the vehicle should be used solely by or “for such person”.

Justice Asha thus opined that the State should ensure that such persons who are granted exemption enjoy the same and added as below:

“Where a rule or regulation purports to grant a right to a particular section of society, courts must use the rule of purposive interpretation to ensure that the object of beneficial legislation reaches the intended section of the society,” 

The government order, read along with Section 2 (1) and Section 52 of the Act, clearly spells out that a physically challenged person, who owns a vehicle and has adapted the vehicle for his or her use, is entitled to the tax exemption, the judge added and allowed the petition.

Read the order /Judgement dated 13 Mar 2023 below:

DHC directs Delhi Govt. to undertake Special Recruitment Drive To Fill Up Vacancies For PwDs

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Case No. : W.P.(C) 8455/2017
Case Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Date of Judgement: 06.03.2023
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001652

Brief:

While disposing off a public interest litigation filed by National Federation of the Blind alleging inaction on the part of the Delhi Govt. in implementing reervation for persons with disabilities particularly persons with visual disabilities, a division bench of the Delhi High Court directed Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to undertake a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog of vacancies for persons with disabilities (calculated rom 1996 when the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 was enforced @ 3% and from 2017 till date @ 4% in various departments or establishments in a time bound manner. 

The division bench also set out a time schedule to be followed by the GNCTD to carry out the special recruitment for filling up the vacancies. Directing the concerned departments, the court said, “The notification of advertisement by DSSSB/ UPSC, as the case may be, for filling up back-log of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities against requisition sent to them be issued within 30 days from the date of receiving requisition. The DSSSB/ UPSC, as the case may, shall declare the result and the process of appointment be concluded within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of result/ interview.”

Read the detailed Judgement below:

Disabeld Candidates selected on own merit in open competition can't be adjusted against Reserved Disability Quota Vacancies.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case: Civil Appeal No (s). 3303/2015  (arising out of Delhi HC Order dated October 11, 2013 in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. )

Case Title: Union of India (Appellant)  Vs.  Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Respondent(s))

Date of Order: 01 March 2023

Brief Background:

In a significant development, the Central Government recently acknowledged before the Supreme Court that disabled candidates selected based on their own merit in open competition, alongside unreserved candidates, will no longer be counted within the 4% disability quota for public sector employment. This change is expected to result in more disabled candidates with lower merit rankings being chosen within the disability quota, ultimately increasing the overall representation of individuals with disabilities in public sector positions. 

This "own merit" principle for disabled candidates had been outlined in several DOPT Memorandums & other govt. circulars on reservations for persons  with disabilities previously, but it was not consistently followed by various public sector recruiting bodies. Shri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, a visually impaired candidate, raised this grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He alleged that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was not adhering to the principle of own merit for the Civil Services Examination. Several disabled candidates, despite their merit ranking in the unreserved category, were being placed within the disability quota. If they had been categorized as unreserved, Mr. Srivastava, next in line in terms of merit, would have secured selection within the disability quota.

In the case, the UPSC argued that the "own merit" principle couldn't be applied to disabled candidates due to their relaxed medical standards and the use of accommodations such as scribes and extra time for examinations. However, both the CAT and the Delhi High Court disagreed with the UPSC's stance, directing a re-evaluation of the disability quota for the relevant year by moving "own merit" disabled candidates into the open category. 

The UPSC argued that the principle of general merit as evolved by the judicial pronouncements and incorporated in the DoPT OM dated December 29, 2005 is incapable of application in respect of PH Category as the medical standards are incapable of being relaxed for application of the said principle. The principle is unworkable in the scenario of reservation in favour of differently abled persons. The term relaxed standard has not been defined in case of persons with disability and no illustration of relaxed standards as given in respect of SC/ST have been provided in case of person with disability. And that a PwD candidate who would fail medical examination would not be adjusted against the unreserved vacancy and could not be counted on merits. If medical requirements are not relaxed it would not be possible to allocate service to the persons with disability. And lastly a PH category candidate cannot be a general merit candidates because at least he has to avail one or the other relaxation in the medical parameters.  

The Delhi HC said, "There cannot be two opinions about the applicability of the principle of general merit in the light of the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006 issued by the petitioner itself. The same is the situation reflected in the mandate under Rule 17 of the CSE Rules 2008. Thus it is not possible for the petitioner to contend before us that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal in issuing directions to consider the entitlement of the applicants on the basis of said principle. We affirm the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to its observation that grant of the facility of scribe and extra time of 30 minutes in the examination to the visually impaired candidates does not amount to relaxation of standards in their favour. The omission on the part of the executive i.e. DOPT which is the Nodal Department to issue Office Memorandum/Executive Instructions on matters pertaining to the Central Service has created a situation wherein the benefit is sought to be given on the one hand through the issuance of Office Memorandum(s) dated December 29, 2005 and April 26, 2006, and stands taken away by the other hand as a result of the inaction to issue the consequential amendment contemplated by Rule 17 of the CSE Rules, 2008.

The court further said that the Petitioner (Govt.) has itself caused a situation, whereby the entitlements which ought to have been available to the differently abled persons as early as on February 07, 1996 (the date of the commencement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) are being denied to them till today. The situation points out to a grim scenario which is the creation of the petitioner itself. The bench directed the Govt. to make the amendments as contemplated by Rule 17 fo CSE Rules 2008 and upheld the order of the CAT.

Appeal before the Supreme Court:

The matter was further appealed by UPSC in the Supreme Court of India which also rejected the UPSC's position and instructed the Government of India to issue a clarificatory circular to enforce the own merit principle. In compliance, the Government issued an clarifying Office Memorandum on September 27, 2022 on subject: Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Clarification with regard to the concept of own merit.

During the hearing on March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court directed that the OM dated 27 September 2022 be followed in all future selection processes strictly.

Access the Delhi High Court Judgement in W.P.(C) 4902/2013 titled Union of India Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr.:

Madras HC raps a private school for refusing to admit a child with autism

Court:  High Court of Judicature at Madras

Bench: Hon'ble Jutice C.V. Karthikeyan

Case No.: W.P. No. 24973 of 2022

Case Title: The Child Vs. State of Tamilnadu 

Date of Judgement:  22.02.2023

Brief:

Fuming over the denial of admission to a special needs child, the Madras High Court rapped a school run in the name of a missionary for not following the principles of the missionary and betraying her name and Christian faith.

Justice CV Karthikeyan made the comments while disposing of a petition filed by a minor child who was denied admission at a popular missionary school in Vellore. Quoting previous judgments on admitting children with special needs in schools under the right to education act, the judge said the courts have always been sensitive to children with special needs, expressing hope that educational institutions would not betray children with special needs.

“The sixth respondent (school) has failed not only in this duty but also betrayed the name of the noble Missionary and extremely, extremely distressingly their Christian faith,” he deplored. The order was passed on the petition filed by the minor child, represented by her mother, currently residing at Gandhi Nagar, Katpadi in Vellore, seeking orders from the school to admit the child.

The child, diagnosed with mild autism spectrum disorder, was earlier admitted to a CBSE school in Padur. After the covid lockdown, the child developed some difficulties and was taken to the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities (NIEPMED) at Kovalam in Chennai.

The mother, a government officer, got transferred to Vellore and the father resigned from his job to take care of the child before the child was at the CMC Hospital in Vellore in 2021 for assessment and was confirmed special needs child.

After several schools denied admission citing a lack of special educators, the mother approached the missionary school in 2022 for admission. After holding a written examination and an interview with the child, the school refused admission saying that it had no special educators to take care of the child.

The mother, in her affidavit, stated that the website of the school had sported messages about having special teachers to support students with special education needs. Aggrieved over the denial of admission, she approached the concerned government authorities before moving to the High Court.

The judge said the sixth respondent/school is quite pathetically and ironically named after a third-generation American Medical Missionary in India. It makes him wonder whether those in administration today are riding on that name without following her principles or the core conduct which the noble lady adhered to.

Saying that the missionary, who lived between 1870 and 1960 dedicated her life to assuaging the plight of Indian women and worked tirelessly helping those afflicted with ‘bubonic plague, cholera and leprosy’, the judge said, “Very very unfortunately, her name is used by an institution which had taken a conscious decision to drive away a child and her parents, who had sought refuge and admission.”

Finding a touch of hollowness in the belated offer of admission to the school, he felt that such an offer should have been given voluntarily. The judge said the court would not stand in the way of decision-making by the mother. 

“I hope that if at all the mother takes a decision to admit the child in the sixth respondent, they would prove false my words expressed above and if they do so, I shall be the most satisfied person. The entire issue is in their hands,” he said concluding the verdict.

Read /Download the Judgement

Delhi HC appoints Amicus to decide on constituting Special courts under section 84 of RPWD Act for speedy and fair trial for PwDs

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case No.: W.P.(CRL)  2500 / 2022

Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR KALRA DEAF DIVAYANG Vs.   STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI

Dates of Hearings with Orders : 31 Jan 2023 [PDF 508KB] |  21 Feb 2023 [PDF 168KB] | 20 Mar 2023 (renotified) | 07 Jul 2023 |

Brief:

Despite an order by the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (presided by the then SCPD Shri TD Dhariyal) issued in a Suo Motu case No. 988/1141/2019/06/ 3652-3657 Dated: 22 July 2019 and further Notification dated 19 Aug 2019 isued by Department of Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, designating Additional Sessions Judge 02 in all district courts  as Special Courts in Delhi to try offences under the RPWD Act 2016 (PDF 2.9 MB),  the issues seems to be lingering on still. Either the Court & the counsel is not aware of the developments or the Govt. has forgotton its own notification and hasn't yet activated the special courts.

In this case filed by Rakesh Kumar Kalra, a deaf individual, the Delhi High Court has appointed senior advocate N Hariharan as amicus curiae to assist it in deciding the manner in which a special court can be constituted to try offences under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ensuring a fair and speedy trial for persons with disabilities.

While framing issues for consideration, a single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on 31 January 2023 appointed Adv Hariharan to assist the court in deciding “how can a special court be constituted as per Section 84 to try offences under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016”. Hariharan will also be assisting on how a speedy and fair trial for the differently abled persons can be ensured and how the judicial system can be improved for the benefit of the differently abled.

Chapter XIII of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act deals with the special courts to try offences under the Act. Section 84 of the Act states that for the purpose of providing speedy trial, the state government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the high court, by notification, specify for each district, a court of session to be a special court to try the offences under this Act.

Section 85 also provides for the appointment of a public prosecutor for every special court by the state government or the appointment of an advocate, who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a ‘special public prosecutor’ for the purpose of conducting cases in that special court. With respect to offences under the enactment, the Act states that any person who contravenes any provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs 10,000 and for any subsequent contravention with a fine, which shall not be less than Rs 50,000 but which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Read the order below:-

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

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi

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

Case No:    OA No. 339/2022

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

Date of Order : 23 January, 2023

Brief:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the judgement/ order below:

Delhi High Court Affirms Equality for Deaf Athletes: Government Directed to Consider Parity with Para Sportspersons

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case No.: W.P.(C) 1839/2020

Case Title: Virender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Decided on: 19 January 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:462

Background

The Delhi High Court was called upon to address an important issue concerning the rights of deaf sportspersons and their entitlement to equal recognition and benefits available to para athletes.

The petitions were filed by renowned deaf athletes, including Virender Singh, all of whom possessed disability certificates certifying 100% hearing and speech impairment. The petitioners contended that despite bringing laurels to India in international deaf sporting events, they were being denied several benefits that were already extended to para sportspersons under various governmental schemes.

During the pendency of the petitions, the Government introduced several policies recognizing para athletes and extending cash awards and incentives to athletes with disabilities. However, the petitioners highlighted three continuing areas of discrimination:

1. The Deaf Asian Games had not been included among recognized deaf sporting events.
2. Deaf athletes were excluded from the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS).
3. Deaf sportspersons were denied post-retirement benefits equivalent to those available to Olympic and para athletes.

The petitioners sought parity with para sportspersons, arguing that such exclusion violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and the principles underlying the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Issues Before the Court

The Court considered the following questions:

1. Whether deaf sportspersons are entitled to treatment equal to para sportspersons in governmental sports policies.
2. Whether the exclusion of deaf athletes from schemes such as TOPS and post-retirement benefits was legally sustainable.
3. Whether the Court could direct the Government to formulate or modify sports policies granting specific benefits.
4. Whether the Government was required to reconsider the concerns raised by deaf athletes in light of constitutional equality.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that considerable progress had already been made by the Government during the pendency of the litigation by extending recognition, awards and incentives to para athletes as well as athletes participating in blind and deaf sports.

The Court, however, noted that certain important concerns still remained unresolved. The Bench unequivocally observed that:

There can be no doubt that deaf sportspersons and para sportspersons must be treated equally and neither category can be discriminated against the other.

While recognizing the principle of equality, the Court also emphasized the constitutional limitations upon judicial review in matters involving governmental policy. The formulation of sports schemes, financial incentives, and welfare programmes falls primarily within the executive domain. Courts ordinarily do not substitute governmental policy with judicial directions unless such policy is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's observations in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that policy choices are best left to the Government, subject to constitutional scrutiny.

The Court nevertheless found merit in the specific grievances raised by the petitioners and held that the Ministry ought to examine them fairly.

Directions Issued by the Court

Instead of issuing a mandatory direction extending the benefits immediately, the Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to consider the petitioners' representation on the following issues:

• Inclusion of the Deaf Asian Games within the recognized category of deaf sporting events.
• Extension of the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) to deaf athletes.
• Grant of post-retirement benefits to deaf sportspersons on par with Olympic and para athletes.

The Court directed the Ministry to take a fair and reasoned decision within three months.

Recognizing the urgency arising from ongoing sporting events, the Court further directed that if any interim assistance could be provided to deaf athletes, the same should be considered within four weeks.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of while leaving all other remedies open.

Significance of the Judgment

Although the Court stopped short of issuing positive directions compelling policy changes, the judgment is significant for several reasons.

First, the Court expressly recognized that deaf athletes and para athletes are entitled to equal treatment. This judicial affirmation strengthens the constitutional principle that disability-based classifications within sports welfare schemes must satisfy equality standards.

Secondly, the judgment reflects judicial sensitivity towards the unique challenges faced by deaf athletes, who have historically received comparatively less institutional support than para athletes.

Thirdly, the decision illustrates the delicate balance between enforcing constitutional equality and respecting executive discretion in policy formulation. Rather than rewriting sports policy, the Court ensured that the Government meaningfully reconsidered the issues raised by the petitioners.

Finally, the judgment reinforces the broader objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by encouraging inclusive sporting policies and equal opportunities for athletes with disabilities.

Commentary

The decision marks an important step towards the recognition of deaf sports as an integral component of India's disability sports ecosystem.

Historically, deaf athletes have often occupied a grey area within sports policy. While para athletes have gradually received institutional recognition through dedicated schemes, deaf sportspersons have frequently remained outside the ambit of flagship programmes despite representing India at international competitions.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh's observation that there should be no discrimination between deaf sportspersons and para sportspersons carries considerable persuasive value for future policy development. Even though the Court refrained from mandating specific policy outcomes, it clearly established the constitutional expectation of parity.

The judgment also demonstrates judicial restraint. Instead of assuming the role of policymaker, the Court respected the executive's domain while ensuring that disability rights concerns receive serious and timely consideration.

In the long run, the case contributes to the evolving jurisprudence that disability rights extend beyond accessibility and reservation to include equal participation in sports, recognition of sporting excellence, and equitable access to governmental welfare schemes. It serves as an important reminder that inclusivity in sports requires not only participation opportunities but also equal recognition, institutional support, and post-career security for all athletes with disabilities.

Read the Judgement:

Virender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 1839/2020