Statutes Over Contract- Delhi HC Rules on Transfer of Disabled Employees in CPSEs in IRCON International Ltd v. Bhavneet Singh

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Case No.: LPA 133/2024 and C.M. No. 9793/2024

Case Title: IRCON International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh

Date of Judgment: July 18, 2024

Citation: 2024:DHC:5269-DB

Cases Referred: Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022);  Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2014 14 SCC 383);  V.K. Bhasin v. State Bank of Patiala and Ors. (2005:DHC:19141-DB); Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board ((2009) 13 SCC 758); Anju Mehra v. Canara Bank (2020:DHC:3183); Sudhanshu Tripathi v. Bank of India (MANU/MP/0932/2018); Pradeep Kumar Shrivastav v. CBI (OA No. 2233/2017); Manoj Kumar Gupta v. UOI (2013:DHC:444); S.K. Tandon v. Export Inspection Council of India & Anr. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 5461); Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. St. of Bihar & Ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 659); H.K. Chawla v. Indian Oil Corp ((2005) 80 DRJ 411); Madanjit Kumar v. UOI (2016:DHC:7563); Amarjeet Singh Dagar v. UOI & Ors. (2022:DHC:847-DB).

Summary & Brief Background

This judgment marks a decisive chapter in the ongoing legal battle concerning the rotational transfer policies applied to employees with benchmark disabilities. The appellant, IRCON International Limited (a Central Public Sector Enterprise), preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the landmark judgment of a learned Single Judge bench delivered on December 15, 2023. As previously covered on our blog (see our detailed breakdown of the Single Judge's order at Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Disabled Employee Transfer Case), the initial ruling quashed a punitive transfer order dated August 22, 2022, that sought to relocate the respondent from New Delhi to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project in Bilaspur.

The respondent, an Assistant Manager within the Human Resources and Management (HRM) cadre, is a person with a 72% permanent locomotor disability arising from cerebral palsy. His functional condition requires regular clinical tracking in Delhi, the continuous physical assistance of a paramedic, and the maintenance of a knee-length prosthetic ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) with a 4-inch raise. He additionally manages severe medical complications, including lumbar spondylosis, a degenerative cervical spine, and tendinosis. Prior to the contested relocation, the respondent had already been subjected to two separate systemic transfers within a span of five years. Following complaints filed before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities regarding derogatory organizational behaviour , the respondent was abruptly served a relocation order. He successfully resisted the transfer before the Single Judge , leading to this subsequent confirmation battle before the Division Bench.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Management Prerogative Defense: IRCON IL strictly maintained that workplace transfers are a natural, non-negotiable incident of civil employment. They asserted that corporate management retains an absolute administrative prerogative to deploy human resources based on functional requirements, qualifications, and localized staffing deficits. They further alleged that the regulatory Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) protecting disabled workers do not inherently bind corporate entities like CPSEs.
• The "Suitability & Infrastructure" Alibi: The appellant argued that Bilaspur possesses multiple super-specialty multi-specialty healthcare networks, ensuring that the respondent's accessibility and orthopedic updates could be facilitated at the new location without impacting his health.
• The Systemic Targeting Contradiction: The legal team for the respondent, heavily fortified by the specialized insights of the Amicus Curiae, exposed a glaring institutional contradiction in how IRCON applied its own rotation policies. IRCON had issued an internal circular mandating that employees stationed at a single location for 5 years or more must be prioritized for rotational transfers. The record revealed that multiple completely non-disabled employees matching these transfer filters were retained in Delhi. Meanwhile, the respondent—who had highly meritorious performance evaluations, including an "Outstanding" Annual Performance Report (APR)—was selectively picked for relocation. The appellant attempted to justify this by citing unspecified interpersonal friction and alleged office behavioural updates. This exposed the institutional reality that the transfer was structurally punitive and discriminatory rather than an objective "administrative necessity".

Key Issues Addressed

• Whether Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) can escape the legal obligation to comply with central government guidelines and DoPT Office Memorandums that exempt disabled employees from routine rotational transfers.
• Whether an explicit transfer clause contained within a standard employment contract can override or subordinate the protective social legislation enacted under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Upon whom does the burden of proof rest to validate "administrative exigency" when an order uproots an employee with a severe benchmark physical disability.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, establishing that corporate convenience cannot diminish statutory disability mandates:

1. The Fallacy of Unconditional Corporate Transfers: The Court held that while the general standard of minimal judicial interference applies to standard transfers, substantial caveats govern actions affecting employees with disabilities. Relocations must strictly align with the welfare objectives of the RPwD Act, ensuring that disabled workers are exempted from rotational systems, placed near their choice of supportive locations, and kept in environments with uninterrupted medical accessibility.
2. Statutes Supersede Employment Contracts: The Court rejected the argument that signing a standard transferable employment contract limits a worker's rights to challenge an unfavourable transfer: "A contractual arrangement between parties, including an employment contract, is always subordinate to the legislative framework governing the field occupied by the subject contract... If the terms and conditions of the employment contract executed between an employer and a differently-abled person are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 2016 Act, the latter would prevail."
3. Shifting the Burden of Proof: The Court ruled that employers must justify any transfer of a benchmark-disabled employee by presenting verifiable, clear administrative constraints. IRCON’s reliance on vague denials was deemed legally insufficient, particularly when non-disabled alternatives were readily available: "...when a transfer order is passed concerning a differently-abled person, the burden to prove that it was triggered due to administrative exigencies or constraints would be on the employer."
4. The Mandate of a Model Employer: The Court noted that transferring an individual as a workaround for interpersonal friction violates the core duties of public sector entities. Instead of executing exclusionary transfers, organizations must actively implement sensitization frameworks: "As a model employer, IRCON IL could arrange training sessions for non-disabled employees to sensitise and help them prepare for their interactions with differently-abled persons."

Directions Issued

Upholding the Single Judge's decision, the Division Bench issued the following orders:

1. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by IRCON International Limited was dismissed.
2. The quashing of the impugned transfer order dated August 22, 2022, and the corresponding relieving order dated August 23, 2022, was sustained, allowing the respondent to continue working at the corporate office in Delhi.
3. Legal costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- were imposed on the appellant, with a strict directive to remit the amount to the respondent within a period of two weeks.

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

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

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

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

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

Date of Judgement: 08 Jul 2024

Brief Introduction:

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

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

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

Judgment Highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Read the Judgement:

Supreme Court Orders Appointment of 11 Visually Impaired Candidates from CSE 2008 Batch against backlog vacancies within three months

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case: Civil Appeal No. 3303 OF 2015 

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

Date of Order: 08 July 2024

Introduction:

In a landmark ruling aimed at ensuring justice and inclusivity, the Supreme Court has directed the government to appoint 11 visually impaired candidates from the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2008 batch against backlog vacancies within three months. This decision comes as a significant victory for the respondents who have been fighting for their rightful place in the civil services for over a decade.

Background of the Case

The primary respondent in this case, referred to as Respondent No.1, is 100% visually impaired. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination in 2008 and opted for the following services in order of preference: Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Revenue Services-Income Tax (IRS (IT)), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS), and Indian Revenue Service-Customs and Excise (IRS (C&E)). Despite clearing the written test and interview, he was denied an appointment. This led to the filing of Original Application No. 2402 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi, arguing that backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities, as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, were not filled.

Tribunal's Directive

On October 8, 2010, the CAT directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate the backlog vacancies within six months and to inform Respondent No.1 about his service allocation. However, on September 9, 2011, UPSC informed him that his name did not feature in the merit list for his disability category (visually impaired). This prompted Respondent No.1 to file another Original Application No. 3493 of 2011 before the CAT.

Further Tribunal Orders and Appeals

On May 30, 2012, the CAT ordered that candidates selected on their own merits should be adjusted in the unreserved/general category as per the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005. The Tribunal also directed that candidates belonging to the PH-2 (Visually Impaired) category be selected against the reserved category and be given appointments. However, on August 30, 2012, the UPSC once again denied Respondent No.1 an appointment, stating he was not qualified for the PH-2 quota. In response, Respondent No.1 filed a review application, highlighting that many vacancies for visually impaired candidates remained unfilled.

The Union of India challenged the Tribunal’s judgment dated May 30, 2012, by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition on October 11, 2013, leading to the Union of India filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observations and Directions

The Supreme Court noted the existence of several backlog vacancies for the visually impaired in the IRS (IT) and acknowledged that since CSE-2014, visually impaired candidates have been selected for the IRS (IT). The Court criticized the Union of India for failing to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, effectively, thereby forcing the respondent to seek justice repeatedly.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and issued the following directions:

1. Appointment Consideration: The cases of Respondent No.1 and the other 10 candidates belonging to the visually impaired category, who are above him in the merit list of CSE-2008, shall be considered for appointment against the backlog vacancies of PWD candidates in IRS (IT) or other services/branches.

2. Timely Action:The necessary actions to give appointments must be completed within three months. The appointments will be made prospectively, and the appointees will not be entitled to arrears of salary or seniority benefits.

3. Retirement Benefits: For retirement benefits, their service shall be counted from the date the last candidate of the visually impaired category from CSE-2008 was appointed.

4. One-Time Measure: These directions are issued as a one-time measure and shall not be treated as a precedent.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the importance of implementing disability laws in their true spirit and ensuring that visually impaired candidates receive their rightful opportunities. The Supreme Court’s directive serves as a crucial reminder of the need for inclusivity and fairness in the civil services selection process. This judgment not only provides relief to the 11 candidates but also sets a significant precedent for future cases involving the rights of persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

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 

Child Care Leave (CCL) for Mothers of Children with Disabilities is a Constitutional Right: Supreme Court Directs Himachal Pradesh to Reform Leave Policy

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Case No. : SLP (Civil) No. 16864 of 2021  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-04-2021 in CWP No.3861/2020 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)

Case Title: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,
Date of Order: 22 April 2024

Background

In a significant order strengthening the rights of parents of children with disabilities, the Supreme Court has held that Child Care Leave (CCL) is not merely an employment benefit but an essential constitutional measure to ensure equal participation of women in the workforce.

The case arose from the plight of Ms. Shalini Dharmani, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at Government College, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. She is the mother and primary caregiver of her fourteen-year-old son who suffers from Osteogenesis Imperfecta (Brittle Bone Disease), a rare genetic disorder requiring repeated surgeries, continuous medical treatment and constant care.

Because of her son's medical condition, she exhausted every category of leave available under the Himachal Pradesh service rules. However, unlike Central Government employees, State Government employees in Himachal Pradesh were not entitled to Child Care Leave because the State had deleted the corresponding provision from its leave rules.

Her request for Child Care Leave was rejected, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed her writ petition on the ground that no such provision existed under the applicable State Rules. She therefore approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The petitioner relied upon Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which permits a woman Government servant to avail 730 days of Child Care Leave during her entire service.

By an Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2010, the Central Government further extended this benefit for women employees having children with disabilities by allowing Child Care Leave until the child attains 22 years of age, instead of the general age limit of 18 years.

The petitioner also relied upon the objectives and mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which seeks to ensure equal opportunity and inclusion for persons with disabilities.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following important questions:

• Whether denial of Child Care Leave to a mother caring for a child with disability merely because the State has not adopted the Central Rules violates constitutional guarantees?
• Whether State employment policies must be aligned with the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
• Whether Child Care Leave is simply a service benefit or an essential component of substantive equality and equal opportunity for women?

Supreme Court's Observations

The Court made several significant observations that go beyond service law and enter the realm of constitutional rights.

1. Women's Participation in Employment is a Constitutional Right

Rejecting the argument that Child Care Leave is merely a policy concession, the Court observed:

"The participation of women in the work force is not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution; besides Article 19(1)(g)."

    The Court recognised that without adequate caregiving support, many women         may be forced to leave employment altogether.

2. Mothers of Children with Disabilities Need Greater Protection

The Court observed that the constitutional concern becomes even more compelling where a mother is caring for a child with special needs requiring continuous medical intervention.

Such situations require the State to adopt policies that acknowledge the additional caregiving responsibilities arising from disability.

3. State Policies Must Conform to Constitutional Values

The Supreme Court held that although framing service rules is a matter of policy, those policies cannot operate independently of constitutional guarantees.

The Court observed that State policies must remain consistent with constitutional protections and the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

Recognising the wider policy implications, the Supreme Court directed the Government of Himachal Pradesh to comprehensively reconsider its Child Care Leave policy.

The Court ordered the constitution of a Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary comprising:

• State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act;
• Secretary, Women and Child Development Department;
• Secretary, Social Welfare Department.

The Committee was also directed to engage with the concerned Ministries of the Union Government before submitting its recommendations.

Pending the final policy decision, the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner's application for special leave should be considered favourably.

What Happened After the Judgment?

Following the intervention of the Supreme Court, the Himachal Pradesh Cabinet approved amendments to its leave rules by adopting the Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024.

The amended Rules now provide:

• Child Care Leave up to 730 days during the entire service;
• applicable to female Government employees caring for children having benchmark disabilities (40% or more);
• bringing the State's policy substantially in line with the Central Government framework.

The case thus demonstrates how constitutional litigation can directly influence public policy for the benefit of persons with disabilities and their families.

Why This Judgment Matters

Although the case concerns Child Care Leave, its significance extends much further. The decision recognises that disability rights are not confined to ramps, accessible websites or reservation in employment. They also require Governments to acknowledge the additional responsibilities borne by families of persons with disabilities.

The judgment reinforces several important principles:

• caregiving responsibilities arising from disability deserve legal recognition;
• women should not be forced to choose between employment and caring for a child with disability;
• equality requires reasonable accommodation in employment policies;
• service rules must evolve consistently with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
• constitutional guarantees cannot be defeated merely because an enabling service rule has not been framed.

Disability Rights India View

This decision represents an important step in recognising caregiving as a disability rights issue.

Parents—particularly mothers—often shoulder lifelong caregiving responsibilities that extend far beyond ordinary parenting. Hospital admissions, rehabilitation, therapy sessions, assistive devices, educational interventions and emergency medical care require substantial time and flexibility.

The RPwD Act recognises the need for equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation. That objective cannot be achieved unless employment policies also accommodate the realities of disability-related caregiving.

While the Supreme Court's order arose in the context of a woman Government employee, the broader principle has implications for all Governments across India. States that continue to deny Child Care Leave or other flexible work arrangements for parents of children with disabilities should revisit their policies in light of the constitutional principles articulated by the Supreme Court.

The judgment also serves as a reminder that reasonable accommodation extends beyond physical accessibility. Inclusive employment requires policies that enable caregivers to remain in the workforce without sacrificing the care and support required by children with disabilities.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court recognised that women's participation in employment is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
• Child Care Leave is an important measure for achieving substantive equality in employment.
• State leave policies must be consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Governments must recognise the enhanced caregiving responsibilities associated with disability.
• Following the Supreme Court's intervention, Himachal Pradesh amended its leave rules to provide 730 days of Child Care Leave for female Government employees caring for children with benchmark disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

Citation: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 16864 of 2021, Supreme Court of India, Order dated 22 April 2024. 

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