Calcutta High Court Orders Punjab National Bank to Pay ₹3 Lakh for Discrimination Against Disabled Employee [Judgement included]

Court: Calcutta High Court, India

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

Case Title: Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others

Case No: WPA 10195 of 2023

Date of Hearing: 20 June 2024

Subject: Inhuman conduct of employer bank with a disabled employee, transfer on promotion 

Brief

In a landmark judgement, the Calcutta High Court has directed Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to a bank official with a 70 percent disability for what the court described as "inhuman" conduct towards him [Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others]. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha emphasized the need for sensitivity and compliance with disability rights laws in the banking sector.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anirban Pal, a Scale-III officer at PNB, was severely injured in a motor accident in 2015, resulting in a 70 percent disability. Despite his condition, Pal was promoted to Scale-IV in 2018. However, PNB insisted on transferring him to Patna, disregarding his repeated requests to remain in Calcutta, where he had access to essential caregiving.

Pal initially avoided the bank's promotion process in 2016, fearing transfer. Observing that two colleagues with physical disabilities were promoted without transfer, he participated in the 2018 promotion process. Although promoted to Scale-IV, his request to stay in Calcutta was denied, forcing him to move to Patna under duress.

Unable to cope with the move, Pal took leave due to severe discomfort and pain. PNB's threats of coercive action further aggravated his situation. Pal then appealed for repatriation to Calcutta, either in his promoted role or by reverting to his previous Scale-III position. Following intervention from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Pal was transferred back to Calcutta in December 2018, albeit demoted to Scale-III.

Court's Findings

The Court condemned PNB’s actions, highlighting their failure to accommodate Pal’s disability needs and their blatant disregard for the directives of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Court mandated disciplinary actions against the responsible officials and ordered the sensitization of all Public Sector Bank officials regarding the "Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016" and the bank's special rules pertaining to disability.

Sensitization and Disciplinary Measures

The High Court's judgement underscores the urgent need for greater awareness and adherence to disability rights within public institutions. The Court's directive to sensitize officials across all Public Sector Banks aims to prevent future instances of discrimination and ensure that employees with disabilities receive the support and accommodations they are entitled to under the law.

This judgement serves as a critical reminder of the legal and ethical obligations of employers to uphold the rights and dignity of employees with disabilities. It is a significant step towards fostering an inclusive and supportive work environment in India's banking sector and beyond.

Read the Judgement

Delhi HC Orders Consideration of Plea Against Exclusion of Several Disabilities from Nursing Reservations

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7634/2024
Case Title: Dr. Satendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2024

The Delhi High Court has directed authorities to examine concerns raised against restrictive disability eligibility criteria in nursing admissions that allegedly exclude several categories of persons with disabilities recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petition challenged the legality of regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council that confined reservation benefits primarily to candidates with locomotor disability affecting the lower extremities. The Court, while refraining from adjudicating the legality of the regulations at that stage, directed the competent authority to treat the writ petition as a formal representation and decide the issues raised in accordance with law.

Background

The public interest petition was filed by disability rights advocate Dr. Satendra Singh challenging Clause 8 of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised) Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. Nursing Program, 2020.

The impugned provision restricted reservation benefits in nursing admissions to candidates with locomotor disability of 40% to 50% involving the lower extremities. According to the petitioner, the regulation effectively excluded persons with several other benchmark disabilities recognised under the RPwD Act, including muscular dystrophy, dwarfism, acid attack survivors, low vision, hearing impairment, speech and language disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.

The petition argued that such restrictive eligibility standards created systemic barriers at the entry stage itself, preventing persons with disabilities from accessing professional nursing education and, consequently, limiting future employment opportunities in the healthcare sector.

The petitioner also challenged a public notice issued by the National Testing Agency reducing reservation for persons with disabilities from 5% to 3%. It was contended that the reduction violated Section 32 of the RPwD Act as well as the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondents submitted that the impugned public notice and eligibility conditions had been issued in accordance with the prevailing policy framework and applicable guidelines.

Observations of the Court

The High Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted multiple representations before the concerned authorities raising objections to the restrictive disability criteria and reduction in reservation.

The Court observed that despite the serious issues raised regarding implementation of the RPwD Act, the competent authority had not taken a decision on those representations.

Without examining the substantive legality of the regulations or reservation policy at that stage, the Court considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration of the grievances raised by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the writ petition itself be treated as a representation before the concerned authority for appropriate decision-making in accordance with law.

Directions Issued

• The writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation before the competent authority.
• The authority was directed to decide the representation preferably within four weeks.
• The rights and contentions of all parties were kept open.

Commentary

Although the order is procedurally limited, the case raises important questions about exclusionary disability standards in professional education. The petition directly challenges the practice of narrowing statutory reservation benefits through sector-specific eligibility conditions that recognise only selected forms of disability while excluding others expressly protected under the RPwD Act.

The matter is particularly significant because it links educational exclusion with long-term denial of equal opportunity in employment. Restricting access to professional courses such as nursing can effectively shut persons with disabilities out of entire sectors of public and private employment despite the statutory mandate of inclusion.

The petition also exposes an ongoing tension between the rights-based framework of the RPwD Act and professional regulatory regimes that continue to rely on outdated medicalised assumptions regarding disability and functional capability.

While the High Court adopted a cautious approach by directing administrative consideration instead of immediately ruling on the legality of the regulations, the proceedings nevertheless bring judicial attention to the broader issue of structural exclusion in higher and professional education.

The case therefore remains important in the continuing debate over whether professional admission standards in India genuinely reflect the principles of reasonable accommodation, non-discrimination and substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act.

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:

Karnataka HC: Husband with 75% disability can not be directed to pay maintenance to estranged wife [Judgement included]

Court: Karnataka High Court, India

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Case No.: WP No. 48615 of 2013 (GM - FC)

Case Title: Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar 

Date of Judgement: 05 April 2024

Brief:

In a recent judgment by the Karnataka High Court, presided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, a significant ruling was made regarding the obligation of a husband to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. The case, titled Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar, addressed the dispute between a husband and wife, where the husband, suffering from a 75% disability, was contested by the wife for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Background:

Mr. Pankaj Singh Sengar and Mrs. Priyanka Singh were married in 2011 and had a daughter together. However, marital discord ensued, leading to the husband filing for annulment of the marriage, alleging the wife's voluntary departure from their matrimonial home. Amidst legal proceedings, the wife filed for interim maintenance, initially granted at Rs. 15,000 monthly, which became a subject of dispute over unpaid arrears. The husband, acquiring a 75% disability due to a stroke, resigned from work, leading to the wife's pursuit of maintenance through execution petitions, resulting in arrest warrants against him.

Court's Decision:

The court, after careful consideration, ruled in favor of the husband, stating that his 75% disability rendered him incapable of securing employment and thus exempted him from paying maintenance. Citing legal precedents and emphasizing the husband's inability to function as an able-bodied individual, the court held that maintenance cannot be expected from someone incapacitated to such a degree.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• The husband's 75% disability incapacitated him from earning and maintaining the wife and child.
• The court recalled the maintenance order, restricting it to the date of the husband's disability, to avoid exacerbating his dire situation.
• Maintenance cannot be granted without considering the spouse's ability to provide it.
• The responsibility for the grandchild's necessities was placed on the husband's father.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar sets a significant precedent regarding the obligation of spouses, particularly those with disabilities, to provide maintenance. The ruling reflects a nuanced understanding of familial responsibilities amidst challenging circumstances, ensuring fairness and equity in matrimonial disputes.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the importance of considering spouses' abilities and circumstances in maintenance disputes, particularly in cases involving disabilities. It highlights the need for empathy and pragmatism in legal proceedings concerning family matters, ensuring just outcomes for all parties involved.

Kerala HC takes Suo Motu notice of Accessibility Challenges in Places of Worship in Kerala [Judgement Included]

Court: Kerala High Court, India

Bench: Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Harisankar V Menon

Case No: DBP No. 25 of 2024

Case Title:  Suo motu v. State of Kerala

Date of Hearing: 27 March 2024

Next Date of Hearing: 20 May 2024

Brief:

In a landmark move highlighting the significance of inclusivity within religious spaces, the Kerala High Court has taken a proactive stance by addressing the accessibility concerns of physically disabled individuals in temples. The court's recent suo motu cognizance of a devotee's plea underscores the imperative of ensuring that all worshippers have equal opportunities to participate fully in religious practices, regardless of physical ability.

Background

The suo motu notice, initiated on March 27, 2024, stems from a heartfelt complaint by a woman devotee who faced barriers in accessing the 'Naalambalam' (sanctum sanctorum) of temple due to her physical disability. She sought permission for wheelchair access within temple premises to enable herself and others like her to engage in darshan, a sacred visual communion with the deities.

The bench, led by Justices Anil K Narendran and Harisankar V Menon, appointed Advocate V Ramkumar Nambiar as an amicus curiae, highlighting the court's commitment to a thorough examination of the issue. This proactive approach signifies a broader effort to reconcile religious customs with the principles of equality and inclusivity enshrined in international human rights instruments particularly the UN Conventionon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Constitution of India and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 among others.

At the core of this case lies the fundamental right to practice one's religion, a right that should be accessible to all without discrimination. The denial of wheelchair access not only impedes individuals' freedom to worship but also raises pertinent questions about societal treatment towards the disabled community.

The petitioner's poignant experience of being carried by relatives to partake in darshan underscores the significant challenges faced by many in accessing religious services. Moreover, the difficulty in viewing the deities from a seated position on the ground further accentuates the sense of exclusion felt by disabled devotees.

As the case progresses, it presents a unique opportunity to strike a balance between respecting religious traditions and ensuring equal access for all worshippers. The outcome of this legal deliberation could set a precedent for how religious institutions accommodate the needs of disabled individuals, fostering a more inclusive approach to spiritual practice.

The next hearing scheduled for May 20, 2024, holds great anticipation for advocates of disability rights and religious organizations alike. It marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing discourse and implementation of legal mandate surrounding inclusivity in religious spaces and underscores the pivotal role of the judiciary in upholding the dignity and rights of every individual.

Importantly, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act of 2016 defines public buildings, and public services including places of worship like temples, within its scope. The Act mandates accessibility standards to be implemented within a specified timeframe with the accessibility standards issued under the Act. Incidently, the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of India, a nodal authority under section 40 of the RPWD Act 2016 had also issued sectoral guidelines titled,"Guidelines for Making Religious Places Accessible" in 2019. These guidelines outline measures to make religious places accessible, emphasizing the importance of compliance with disability rights legislation.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy to mention the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities' order in Case No. 247/1101/2018/05/6629-6644  dated 15.10.2019 , which directed the all the district magistrates to ensure compliance of the provisions of the RPWD Act 2016 and accessibility standards/ guidelines issued thereunder in religious places in Delhi. This order sets a precedent for other states, highlighting the imperative for religious institutions to ensure equal access for all individuals, regardless of their physical abilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's proactive intervention in addressing accessibility issues in places of worship exemplifies a commitment to upholding the principles of equality and inclusivity. By recognizing and addressing the barriers faced by disabled individuals, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in fostering a society where all members can participate fully in religious practices, regardless of physical ability. It is equally important to address the attitudinal barriers towards persons with disabilities in the places of worship in particular and in the larger society in general.

Read the Order

Below is the copy of the Order dated 27 March 2024 in Suo motu v. State of Kerala

Punjab & Haryana HC seeks report from three Govts on accessibility of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities [Interim order included]

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Bench: Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji

Case No.: CWP-PIL-56-2024

Case Title: Court on its Own Motion vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Date of Hearing & Interim Order: 21 March 2024

NDOH: 16 April 2024

Subject: Accessibility of courts and judicial complexes

Brief:

The present petition was listed before the division bench on account of a reference made by the learned Single Judge Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, to provide appropriate infrastructure to make judicial complexes across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh accessible to persons with disabilities, in public interest, keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Taking a suo motu cognizane of the lack of infrastructure in judicial complexes which may be inaccessible to persons with disabilities in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh the division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji on 21 Mar 2024 sought a status report from the Governments of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh on the accessibility status of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities. 

The division bench asked the Governments whether there is compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the infrastructure of Judicial complexes in various court complexes of districts and High Court.

The matter was referred to the bench on a plea was filed by a 60-year-old disabled lady who sought transfer of her case at District Court Punjab's Malerkotla, from the first floor to the ground floor as the judicial complex did not have any provision for a ramp or an elevator to facilitate a disabled person to attend the Court proceedings.

The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term. Absence of appropriate facilities in public buildings, especially judicial complexes, equates to a denial of access to justice and amounts to discrimination against persons with disabilities.

The State has been reminded of its obligation to create a level playing field and provide all necessary facilities to realize the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens by the Constitution, including the right to move freely across the territory of India. The next date of hearing is scheduled for 16 April 2024, where the State is expected to file a special affidavit concerning the District Court of Malerkotla.

This case is a testament to the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding the rights of the disabled and ensuring that justice is accessible to all, regardless of physical limitations. It serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be inclusive and accommodating to the needs of every citizen.

The order though restricts to seeking status on provisions of lifts and ramps, thus leaving out a huge gamut under the accessibility domain that includes, parking, signage and orientation, tactile maps, TGSIs, colour contrasts, floor surface, accesssible toilets, emergency evacuation for people with disabilities, sign language interpretation for deaf litigants and lawyers, braille and ICT Access for persons with vision impairments among others. 

The court should ideally call for a proper access audit of all the district courts in the two states and the UT of Chandigarh from empanelled access auditors of Govt. of India and follow up until the access recommendations  are implemented in toto. We have already delayed the accessibility mandate as the law provided for 5 year time frame for buildings that expired in 2022.

Read the interim order 

Hostel Accommodation is Part of Inclusive Education: Delhi High Court Upholds Rights of Visually Impaired JNU Student

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 75/2024
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2024

Background

In an important judgment concerning accessibility and inclusive education, the Delhi High Court held that hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be treated merely as a discretionary facility and forms an integral part of ensuring equal access to higher education under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”).

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, a student with 100% visual disability, approached the Court seeking hostel accommodation from Jawaharlal Nehru University during his M.A. Sociology programme.

The petitioner had earlier pursued multiple academic programmes within the University. Initially admitted in 2017 to a five-year B.A.-M.A. programme in German, he had been provided hostel accommodation during the course. Thereafter, he enrolled in another Master’s programme in Political Science with specialisation in International Studies and continued to reside in university accommodation, including a room in Sabarmati Hostel designated for students with disabilities.

However, after securing admission to a third programme — M.A. Sociology — the petitioner was denied hostel accommodation despite repeated requests.

Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities alleging violation of Section 16 of the RPwD Act, which mandates inclusive education and non-discrimination against students with disabilities.

The University resisted the claim by relying upon provisions of the JNU Hostel Manual. According to the University, students pursuing a second Master’s degree were not entitled to hostel accommodation under the prevailing rules and priority criteria.

JNU also attempted to rely upon allegations concerning the petitioner’s conduct and previous disputes with hostel authorities. However, these allegations bore no connection with the legal issue regarding accessibility and entitlement under disability rights law.

The legal question

The case therefore raised a broader and significant question — whether residential accommodation for students with disabilities is merely an administrative privilege or an essential component of accessible and inclusive higher education.

Key Observations of the Court

The bench delivered a significant ruling affirming that accessibility within higher education extends beyond classroom participation and includes residential and institutional support systems necessary for meaningful educational access.

At the outset, the Court rejected the University’s attempt to rely upon allegations regarding the petitioner’s conduct. The Bench observed that such allegations were wholly irrelevant to the issue of entitlement under disability rights law. The Court clarified that if disciplinary proceedings were warranted, the University remained free to proceed in accordance with law, but such allegations could not justify denial of statutory rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.

A particularly important aspect of the judgment lies in the Court’s recognition that hostel accommodation for a visually impaired student directly impacts accessibility, mobility, participation, and safety within the educational environment.

The Court examined Section 16 of the RPwD Act and emphasised that educational institutions are under a statutory obligation to ensure inclusive education for students with disabilities. Importantly, the Court adopted a purposive and rights-based interpretation of the provision rather than a narrow administrative approach.

The judgment recognised that denial of hostel accommodation to a student with 100% visual disability could substantially impair the student’s ability to effectively pursue higher education. Residential accommodation within the university campus facilitates access to academic resources, mobility support, peer interaction, and participation in campus life.

The Court also examined the relationship between institutional regulations and statutory disability rights obligations. It held that internal hostel policies cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that defeats the objectives of the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the Bench recognised that substantive equality may require differential accommodation and affirmative institutional support. Applying hostel rules mechanically without considering the impact upon disabled students would amount to formal equality devoid of fairness and inclusion.

The Court thereby reaffirmed that disability rights law imposes positive obligations upon educational institutions requiring active institutional adaptation rather than passive non-discrimination.

The judgment also acknowledged the importance of dignity and equal participation, recognising that exclusion from hostel accommodation may lead to isolation, logistical hardship, and reduced participation in university life for students with disabilities.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court granted relief in favour of the petitioner and directed Jawaharlal Nehru University to provide hostel accommodation to him.

The Court effectively held that:

• Hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be denied through rigid or mechanical application of hostel eligibility criteria.
• Institutional rules must yield where necessary to fulfil obligations under the RPwD Act.
• Inclusive education under Section 16 of the RPwD Act includes ancillary and supportive facilities necessary for meaningful participation in higher education.
• Students with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation and equal participation within university environments.

The judgment thereby reinforced that educational inclusion extends beyond admission to classrooms and encompasses the broader ecosystem necessary for participation, accessibility, and dignity.

Commentary

The decision in Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors. is an important contribution to disability rights jurisprudence because it expands the understanding of inclusive education from a purely academic concept to a holistic institutional obligation encompassing residential accessibility and campus integration.

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is its recognition that barriers within higher education are not confined to classrooms alone. For students with disabilities — particularly students with visual impairments — access to residential accommodation within campus premises may fundamentally determine their ability to participate in educational life on equal terms.

The judgment meaningfully advances the constitutional principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would simply apply hostel rules identically to all students irrespective of disability. The Court instead recognised that identical treatment in unequal circumstances can itself produce discrimination.

Another important aspect of the ruling is its affirmation that internal institutional regulations cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act. Universities frequently rely upon administrative rules, hostel manuals, or infrastructural limitations to deny accommodations to disabled students. The present judgment correctly places disability rights obligations above rigid administrative formalism.

The Court’s reasoning also aligns with evolving international disability jurisprudence under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which conceptualises accessibility and inclusion as encompassing the entire educational environment rather than mere admission into educational institutions.

Importantly, the judgment rejects attempts to indirectly stigmatise disabled students through unrelated allegations or administrative objections. By refusing to allow the petitioner’s alleged conduct to influence adjudication of accessibility rights, the Court reaffirmed that disability rights cannot be made contingent upon institutional convenience.

The ruling also highlights broader structural shortcomings within Indian universities, where hostel accessibility, mobility support, assistive technologies, and inclusive campus infrastructure continue to remain inadequately addressed despite statutory obligations.

At a broader constitutional level, the judgment reinforces that education under the RPwD Act must be understood as a participatory and dignitarian right. Inclusion requires not merely permitting disabled students to enrol in universities, but ensuring that they can genuinely live, study, interact, and participate within institutional spaces on equal terms with others.

The decision therefore stands as an important precedent affirming that accessibility in higher education necessarily includes residential inclusion, institutional accommodation, and removal of barriers that impede full and effective participation of students with disabilities within university life.

Read the judgement

Kerala HC- Eight Years for a Promotion: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan's Long Battle for Reservation in Promotion

Court: High Court of Kerala (followed by dismissal of State's SLP by the Supreme Court of India)

Bench: Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran

Case No.: O.P. (KAT) No. 312 of 2023

Case Title: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Others

Date of Judgment: 9 August 2023

Supreme Court Proceedings: State of Kerala & Anr. v. Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7352 of 2024, dismissed on 23 February 2024.

Cases Referred:

• State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 9 SCC 208
• Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153
• Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) 19 SCC 572
• Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair (2023 SCC OnLine SC 801)
• Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 626

Summary:

The struggle of Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a senior government doctor with benchmark disability in Kerala, is a stark reminder that having a right on paper does not necessarily translate into its enjoyment in practice. Despite clear statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and binding Supreme Court precedents recognizing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to spend nearly eight years in litigation before obtaining the promotion to which he was legally entitled.

Background

Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a doctor with 40% locomotor disability, was serving in the Health Services Department of Kerala. His claim related to promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services under the reservation in promotion provisions applicable to persons with benchmark disabilities.

The Kerala Government had issued Government Order G.O.(P) No. 5/2022/SJD dated 15 July 2022 to provide reservation in promotion to persons with disabilities in compliance with Supreme Court judgments. However, while considering Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim, the Government adopted a restrictive interpretation of the order and rejected his request.

The State argued that reservation in promotion would be available only where the higher post could be filled both by direct recruitment and by promotion. Since the post of Deputy Director of Health Services was filled exclusively through promotion, the Government contended that reservation in promotion was unavailable.

When Dr. Unnikrishnan challenged the decision before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), the Tribunal accepted the Government's interpretation and dismissed his Original Application.

Kerala High Court Sets Aside the Tribunal's Order

The High Court found the Tribunal's reasoning fundamentally flawed.

The Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Leesamma Joseph had already held that Kerala was required to implement reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities and had directed the State to ensure compliance with the law.

The High Court relied extensively upon Leesamma Joseph as well as the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, where the Court reaffirmed that reservation for persons with disabilities extends to promotional posts and that the term "appointment" includes promotion.

Rejecting the State's interpretation, the High Court observed that the Government Order could not be read to mean that reservation in promotion would be denied where a post is filled solely by promotion. Such an interpretation, the Court held, would be hyper-technical, unreasonable and contrary to the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.

The Court made an important observation: where a post is filled exclusively through promotion, there can be no justification for denying reservation in promotion merely because direct recruitment is not one of the methods of appointment.

Accordingly, the High Court:

1. Set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order;
2. Quashed the Government order rejecting Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim;
3. Directed reconsideration of his case for promotion in accordance with the law;
4. Directed the authorities to complete the exercise within a time-bound period.

State Carries the Matter to the Supreme Court

Instead of implementing the judgment, the State of Kerala challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

On 23 February 2024, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition.

The order was brief but significant. The Supreme Court stated:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

Although the Court kept the broader question of law open, the High Court's relief in favour of Dr. Unnikrishnan remained intact.

Even After Losing in the Supreme Court, the State Delayed Compliance

One would have expected the matter to end after the Supreme Court's dismissal of the State's challenge. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Despite losing before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Government failed to grant the promotion. Dr. Unnikrishnan was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings to secure compliance with the judicial orders.

Only when faced with contempt proceedings did the State finally issue orders on 19 May 2026 promoting him as Additional Director of Health Services with retrospective effect from October 2017.

The promotion came almost nine years after it became due and more than two years after the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment.

A Victory Beyond One Individual

The significance of this case extends beyond Dr. Unnikrishnan's individual grievance.

The litigation highlights a recurring pattern witnessed across the country. Despite authoritative pronouncements in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju, Leesamma Joseph and A.K. Nair, public authorities continue to deny reservation in promotion to employees with disabilities, compelling them to engage in prolonged litigation merely to secure rights already recognized by law.

The facts of this case also demonstrate the human cost of such resistance. During the years spent litigating, Dr. Unnikrishnan continued serving the public health system in lower-level positions while his contemporaries moved ahead in the promotional hierarchy. Had the law been implemented when due, he may have been considered for even higher positions.

The Problematic Caveat

Reports indicate that while granting the promotion, the Government inserted a condition stating that the order would not operate as a precedent.

Such a caveat is deeply problematic. Rights under the RPwD Act do not depend upon individual benevolence or case-specific exceptions. Reservation in promotion is a statutory entitlement recognized by the Supreme Court. The benefit cannot be confined to one employee who succeeded after years of litigation while similarly situated employees are forced to commence fresh legal battles.

The obligation of the State is to implement the law uniformly and proactively, not merely to comply with court orders in isolated cases.

Conclusion

Dr. B. Unnikrishnan's victory is both inspiring and troubling.

It is inspiring because it demonstrates the perseverance of a disabled professional who refused to surrender his legal rights despite years of resistance. It is troubling because a right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court still required nearly a decade of litigation, a High Court judgment, a Supreme Court dismissal, and contempt proceedings before the State finally complied.

The case stands as an important reminder that the true measure of disability rights is not found in statutes or judgments alone, but in their timely implementation. Reservation in promotion is not a concession. It is a legal entitlement flowing from the constitutional promise of equality and the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Until governments internalize that principle, many more employees with disabilities may find themselves fighting the same battle that Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to wage for nearly a decade.

Read the Kerala Hight Court Judgement (PDF embedded)

Madras HC- State Govt. ought to have ensured Kilambakkam Bus Terminus disabled friendly as per the accessibilty mandate of RPWD Act

Court: Madrash High Court, Principal Benchat Chennai

Bench:  Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Case No. WP No. 29942 of 2023

Case Title: Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority & Others

Date of Judgement: 24 Jan 2024 (PDF 164 KB)

Subject: Accessibility of Public Transportation system, Access Audit of Public Buildings and Built Environment, Grant of Completition Certificate to Buildings,

Brief:

The petition was filed seeking directions against the first respondent to take necessary measures so as to ensure that the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus in Tamilnadu is fully compliant with design and standards prescribed in the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 as as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Durign the hearing on 15 Dec 2024, the government of Tamil Nadu had informed that steps have been taken to make the terminus disabled-friendly. Observing that it is now 'mandatory in every building to have disabled friendly access facilities', the Chief Justice had stressed that "this has to be done before starting the construction".

The petitioner Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar had sought the court to restrain the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) from issuing a completion certificate to the bus terminus without being certified as compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules by an empanelled access audit agency.

She also wanted the court to issue directions to conduct a detailed accessibility audit of the terminus through an empanelled access audit agency as it is not in compliance with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.

Jayakumar had argued that the terminus was found slippery, there was reflective flooring without adequate contrast, absence of even a single toilet enabling bilateral wheelchair transfer onto the commode, the entire first floor does not have tactile flooring or warning and no dropped kerb (lowered areas of pavement) for wheelchair users to get onto the bus bay tarmac from the elevated seating area.

Ensuing Access Audit report pointed outu some 17 deficiencies and the first respondent subsequently issued work orders with regard to seven deficiencies and with regard to the remaining ten deficiencies, it assured that the work orders would be issued within two months from today. 

The petitioner submitted that in additon there are four more bus stands coming up one each at Koothambakkam, Venpakkam, Varadarajapuram and Mamallapuram. "The aforesaid bus stands will have to be constructed in compliance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 and the first respondent shall take necessary steps while issuing the tender notice." the bench directed.

Court also expressed, "We would appreciate if the Access Auditors would make periodical inspection during the construction activity of the bus stands and make necessary suggestions as and when required" and accordingly dispossed off the petition with directions to submit Compliance Report on 25.3.2024.

Read the disposing judgement dated 24 Jan 2024 in the instant case below:

Responding to a PIL in Karnataka HC, Govt Mandates Voice-Based Public Address Systems in Buses: A Victory for Inclusive Transportation

Court: Karnataka High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit

Date of Hearing: 20 Dec 2023

Brief:

In a significant stride towards inclusive transportation, the Karnataka State government has taken a decisive step by mandating the installation of voice-based public address systems and disabled-friendly mechanisms in all existing buses. This development, revealed during a hearing at the High Court of Karnataka, marks a crucial milestone in response to a PIL petition filed by N. Shreyas Reddy, a visually impaired lawyer, advocating for improved accessibility for commuters with disabilities.

The government's commitment to enhancing public transportation accessibility was demonstrated through the issuance of a circular on December 19, 2023 which stipulates the mandatory installation of voice-based public address systems. This initiative, aimed at benefiting visually challenged commuters, underscores the State's proactive approach in addressing the needs of vulnerable segments of society.

During earlier proceedings, the government assured the court of its intention to introduce a voice-based alert system, signaling a promising commitment to inclusive transportation policies. Subsequently, during the hearing on 20 Dec 2023, the government counsel confirmed the issuance of the circular and assured that both public and private stage carriage vehicles would be equipped with these systems by June 30, 2024.

The circular outlines clear directives for both new and existing vehicles. For new vehicles, the installation of these systems will be verified at the time of registration, while for existing vehicles, it will be assessed during the renewal of fitness certificates. Additionally, the government counsel informed the court of forthcoming clarity through another circular regarding the installation process, further demonstrating a proactive approach towards implementation.

In response to these developments, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit adjourned further proceedings while requesting the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation to provide a compliance report on the assurance given to the court regarding the installation of these systems in new buses procured from January 2024 onwards.

This proactive stance by the Karnataka government reflects a commendable commitment to fostering inclusive transportation infrastructure. By prioritizing the needs of visually challenged commuters, the government sets a precedent for other states to emulate, furthering the cause of accessibility and inclusivity in public transportation networks.

As these initiatives progress, there is renewed optimism for a future where transportation systems are not only efficient but also equitable, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of ability, can access essential services and opportunities.