Private School Autonomy Cannot Override Disability Rights: Delhi High Court

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Manmohan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2699/2016
Case Title: Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 26 August 2016

Background

In a significant judgment strengthening the principles of inclusive education and disability rights, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that educational institutions cannot deny admission to children with disabilities on the basis of institutional inconvenience, infrastructural limitations, or rigid procedural requirements.

The case arose from proceedings concerning Master Priyanshu, a child who had suffered amputation following a motor accident and thereafter used a prosthetic leg. Proceedings relating to his rehabilitation and compensation had earlier been initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

Taking note of the child’s educational deprivation and rehabilitation needs, the Tribunal directed facilitation of his admission in Siddharth International Public School under the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) and Disadvantaged Group (“DG”) category with appropriate relaxation in age criteria.

Aggrieved by these directions, the petitioner-school approached the High Court challenging the legality and jurisdictional basis of the orders passed by the Tribunal.

The school argued that:

• the MACT lacked jurisdiction to direct admission of the child;
• no vacant EWS seats were available;
• the directions interfered with institutional autonomy in admission matters;
• the child exceeded the prescribed age limit for Class I admission;
• the school could not be compelled to provide special educators or barrier-free infrastructure; and
• transportation facilities for the child were unavailable.

The school further contended that admitting a ten-year-old child into Class I would adversely affect the educational environment for other students.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the school had failed to comply with its obligations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”) and that inclusive education required accommodation of the child under the EWS/DG framework.

The matter therefore raised an important constitutional issue — whether institutional rules and administrative barriers could override the educational rights of a child with disability.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Manmohan adopted a rights-based and constitutionally sensitive approach while examining the dispute.

At the outset, the Court clarified that the matter could not be treated merely as a technical controversy concerning admission procedures or seat allocation. Instead, the Court viewed the issue through the broader constitutional framework of equality, dignity, inclusion, and access to education.

A particularly important aspect of the judgment lies in the Court’s rejection of the petitioner-school’s attempt to invoke institutional autonomy to deny admission to a child with disability.

While private educational institutions often rely upon autonomy in administrative matters, the Court made it clear that such autonomy cannot override constitutional obligations flowing from welfare legislation and the rights of vulnerable children.

The judgment recognised that private schools performing public educational functions remain bound by constitutional values and statutory obligations aimed at ensuring social justice and educational inclusion.

The Court also rejected the school’s infrastructural objections, including its contention that it could not be compelled to provide special educators, barrier-free access, or disability-sensitive accommodations.

In doing so, the Court effectively affirmed the principle of reasonable accommodation — now recognised as a foundational component of disability rights jurisprudence. The judgment makes it clear that educational institutions cannot refuse admission merely because inclusion requires institutional adaptation or infrastructural effort.

Another important feature of the ruling is the Court’s purposive and child-centric interpretation of the educational framework under the RTE Act.

The Court declined to adopt a rigid approach regarding age eligibility and instead prioritised the child’s right to education and rehabilitation. It recognised that mechanical insistence upon procedural requirements, especially in cases involving vulnerable children facing extraordinary circumstances, may itself amount to exclusionary discrimination.

The Bench thereby embraced the principle of substantive equality rather than mere formal equality.

Importantly, the Court recognised that educational inclusion for children with disabilities is not a matter of charity or benevolence but a constitutional and statutory entitlement flowing from Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Constitution of India.

The judgment also acknowledged the larger social importance of inclusive education. Implicit within the ruling is the understanding that schools must reflect constitutional values of fraternity, diversity, empathy, and equal participation.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court upheld the essential objective underlying the directions passed for the child’s educational inclusion and rejected the challenge raised by the petitioner-school.

The Court effectively affirmed:

• that children with disabilities cannot be denied educational access on the basis of institutional inconvenience or infrastructural inadequacy;
• that private schools remain obligated to comply with inclusive education mandates under welfare legislation;
• that procedural and technical barriers cannot defeat the fundamental right to education of vulnerable children; and
• that educational institutions are under a duty to facilitate inclusion through reasonable accommodation and supportive measures.

The judgment thereby reinforced that educational access for children with disabilities must be interpreted in a rights-based and constitutionally sensitive manner.

Commentary

The decision in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Anr. is an important reaffirmation of inclusive education as a constitutional obligation rather than a matter of institutional discretion.

One of the most significant contributions of the ruling lies in its rejection of the assumption that disability accommodation is optional or dependent upon institutional convenience. The Court instead recognised accessibility and inclusion as indispensable components of the right to education itself.

The judgment meaningfully advances the constitutional principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would merely allow disabled children to apply for admission; substantive equality requires dismantling the structural and institutional barriers that prevent meaningful participation in educational spaces.

Another transformative aspect of the ruling is its recognition of the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. Rather than expecting disabled children to adjust themselves to inaccessible educational systems, the judgment places responsibility upon institutions to become inclusive and responsive to diverse educational needs.

The decision also contributes significantly to the evolution of disability rights jurisprudence in India by rejecting bureaucratic and procedural formalism when dealing with vulnerable children. The Court recognised that rigid adherence to age norms, infrastructural limitations, or admission procedures cannot override constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and educational opportunity.

Importantly, the ruling departs from traditional charity-based understandings of disability and instead adopts a rights-based framework grounded in inclusion, autonomy, and equal citizenship.

The judgment also carries broader implications for private educational institutions across India. In an increasingly privatised educational landscape, vulnerable groups are often excluded through administrative and procedural barriers. The present decision acts as an important constitutional safeguard against such exclusionary practices.

The ruling further aligns with the principles embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which recognises inclusive education as a fundamental human right requiring equal participation within mainstream educational systems.

At a broader constitutional level, the judgment reinforces that schools are not merely academic institutions but constitutional spaces where values of equality, dignity, fraternity, and social justice must be realised in practice.

The decision therefore stands as a powerful affirmation that children with disabilities cannot be excluded from educational opportunities on the basis of inconvenience, inflexible procedures, or institutional reluctance. The Constitution requires accommodation, accessibility, and meaningful inclusion — not exclusion disguised as administrative limitation.

Read the judgement

Bombay HC favours aspiring candidates with cerebral palsy for admission to MBBS; Orders re-constitution of Medical Board with 2 Neuro-specialists [Judgement Included]

Dear colleagues,

This petition by two candidates with cerebral palsy who are aspiring to become doctors/ surgeons revolves around three larger questions often faced by many candidates with disabilities aspiring to be doctors:

(a) Whether a person with cerebral palsy can be a doctor?
(b) Whether the 40-70% disability criteria set by MCI for admission to MBBS courses is constitutionally valid ?
(c) Whether  a team of ophthalmologist, a pathologist, an orthopaedic, a general physician and a surgeon can assess the disability of a person with cerebral palsy in absence of a neuro specialist?

The Medical Board set up by State Directorate of Medical Education and Research mechanically assessed the candidates above 70% disability looking at the etiology of their disability i.e. cerebral palsy. The Board did not have neuro-specialists. Hon'ble Bench ordered to re-examine the candidates citing that the Medical Board was not competent to even assess the candidates with cerebral palsy. The court expressed that the Medical Board should include two doctors who have a specialization in neuroscience and asked for re-constitution of the same to assess the disability and to keep two seats vacant for them.  However, it seems the judgement doesn't address the impugned criteria of 40-70% disability!  Another area that is worth our concern is the tendency of authorities to adjust candidates with disabilities in disability quota even when the candidates have scored higher marks in the common entrance test like general candidates. This must be checked at every stage.

It is pertinent to mention that the candidates did not have functional impediment of upper limbs, they had a restriction of the lower limbs while walking. However, since the disability is a result of cerebral palsy, the medical board often indicates all four limbs involved. Same is the case with the List of identified posts by Govt. of India wherein the assessment or identification doesn't highlight the functional abilities as it mechanically goes with categories as One Arm, One Leg, Both Legs. Merely on the basis of slight involvement of limbs the candidates are declared ineligible even where the affected limb hasn't lost its functional competence. (Eg. a person with a deformed feet but with no functional limitation in walking is declared as ineligible for a post not meant for both leg affected candidate.) These inconsistencies in the list of identified jobs and their mechanical implementation by departments is causing more harm than good.

Click here for the Combined Court Order dt 22 Aug 2016 in WP(C) 9299/2016 titled Rajnandinee P. Mane Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.  ;  WP(C) 9556/2016 titled Rutuja D. Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Here is the brief coverage by Times of India of this specific case.

Can a student with cerebral palsy become a doctor?

Girl with Cerebral Palsy gets HC nod to pursue medicine
 

Indian Currency not friendly to Blind, NAB files petition in Bombay High Court

Dear Colleagues,

Coins of various denominations and notes of Rs 100 and Rs 500 have no different identification marks which will help blind persons in differentiating among them claims a petition filed by the National Association for Blind (NAB), before the Bombay High Court. Advocate Uday Warunjikar, who has moved the petition, said: "Under provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, there are various provisions which have been made by the government for safeguarding the interest of the disabled. Several provisions are also there for ensuring a disable-friendly environment. However, in the present coins and notes it is difficult for persons who are blind or with low vision to differentiate between them."

The petition states that the problems of identification have been aggravated in the last few years. Earlier, blind or low vision person were easily able to identify coins and notes. There were unique marks on each coin; some coins were raised/embossed and tactile. Moreover, on a written request sent by RBI and Mint asking for feedback from NAB on the shape of coins and notes. A detailed suggestion was forwarded to the government in which it was said that there is no much difference between Rs 100 and Rs 500 notes. Coins of Rs 2, Rs 1 and Rs 50 paise are similar, there should be coins with proper borders, different designs, shapes, different textures for avoiding confusion, nothing is being done.

The plea says the suggestions were given last year and it was expected that appropriate decision would be taken. However, till now nothing is being done to address the issue. Earlier, the association would teach blind persons to identify currency notes. Now, it has become difficult to educate them. The petition prays for directions to the authorities to place on record steps it has taken to protect the rights of blind persons to have access to information about the currency notes and coins. Direct the respondents to make changes in the currency notes and coins to help blind persons easily identify them.

Source: DNA

Travelodge sued for discriminating with a deaf customer with guide dog in USA

Dear Colleagues,

A deaf woman who uses a service dog is suing the Travelodge of La Mesa, alleging discrimination for how she was treated when she tried unsuccessfully to check into the hotel earlier this year.

The Travelodge though did not initially bar her from staying overnight with her guide dog, it demanded that she sign a damage policy form for pets that she and her lawyers say is discriminatory, according to a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court.

When she protested during the check-in process, the desk clerk informed her that she and herguide dog were no longer welcome to stay at the hotel, the suit says. She asked for a refund but was denied one at the time because the hotel stay was booked on Expedia, the desk clerk told her.

The plaintiff, Naomi Sheneman, of Rochester, New York, is alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

She is seeking a court order requiring Travelodge to comply with policies prohibiting discrimination against the deaf and to train its staff on a regular basis about the rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing under state and federal laws. The suit also seeks compensatory damages.

“There are a lot of hotels out there that don’t follow the law and require additional burdens for people with service animals,” said attorney Andrew Rozynski of Eisenberg & Baum Law Center For The Deaf and Hard of Hearing, which is representing Sheneman. “This suit is to show that you can’t have these additional burdens for people with disabilities because that’s the law. To require her to sign this form and say she can’t stay there and embarrass her is humiliating.”

Travelodge said it was reviewing the complaint with its attorneys. “However, we want to make it clear that Ms. Sheneman, who was a returning guest and totally familiar with the policies and rules of the hotel, was not presented any additional requirements because of her service animal,” the hotel said in a statement. “She was asked for the same deposit as any customer and presented the same information that would be given to any guest with a non-service animal.”

The La Mesa hotel said it did not refuse service to Sheneman, and that it “has never discriminated against persons with service animals. We welcome service animals as advertised on our website, and guests with service animals are staying on a regular basis at the Travelodge of La Mesa.”

While the Travelodge of La Mesa does not permit pets, it notes on its website that “ADA defined service animals are welcome at this hotel.” When Sheneman checked in, she was told that a damage deposit for the room was required, which she provided.

But when she was given a form setting forth additional charges to be applied specifically to damage caused by a guest’s animal, she said she was uncomfortable signing it because it “appeared to impose additional terms or obligations on her because of her service animal,” states the suit.

Sheneman was forced to stay at another hotel and ultimately received a full refund from Travelodge of the $185.53 she had paid.

Source: The San Diego Union Tribune

Are meritorious candidates with disabilities pushed into disability quota against the spirit of Section 33?

Dear Colleagues,

The govt. departments, who should be complying with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995 have been flouting these very provisions under different garbs. This is not a new phenomenon. I remember in April 2005, I had challenged on behalf of All India Confederation of the Blind an advertisement of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and UPSC for filling up 90 posts of Principals without giving 3% reservation for persons with disabilities. In the counter filed by the Delhi Govt. it was suggested that they will adjust all persons with disabilities against reserved quota even if they cleared on their own merit. The Hon'ble Court presided by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat then had given a categorical judgement saying this could not be allowed and issued rule. The Delhi Govt. even went in appeal through LPA No.2042, 2043 and 2044/2005, however, on 21 Dec 2005 vide a common judgement, the double bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice Madam B Lokur dismissed the said appeals upholding that Article 46 of the Constitution provides that the State shall promote the interests of weaker sections and weaker section would include not just SCs and STs but also persons with disabilities. The court had dismissed the LPAs with directions that a candidate with disabilities who has qualified in the selection and whose merit is so high that if he were a general category candidate he would still have been selected, then his appointment will not be made against the quota of persons with disabilities. Such a candidate would be treated as if in the general category and the reserved seats of the disabled category will be calculated excluding him or be filled up accordingly.

In fact, this fact has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that concessions to help / enable a candidate appear in examinations cannot be termed as “reservation benefits“ if she/he qualifies on merit. [PGI Medical Education and Research V. K.L. Narasimham, (1997) 6 SCC 283]

The trend of subverting the laws against the marginalized section continues to be pushed by many employing departments rendering the minimum reservations as maximum reservations. As simple as age relaxations, fee relaxations, lower threshold of qualifying marks and additionally in case of disabled candidates - using a scribe or availing compensatory time during examination is being used as the basis to classify them as "reserved candidates". Using a scribe or compensatory time or fee/ age /qualifying marks relaxation can at best be considered as enabling provisions. These provisions can not be used to push them in to the "reservation quota" thereby defeating the original intent of such beneficial legislation.

The National Commission for SCs is examining this issue and has issued notice to UPSC, DoPT etc. on receipt of complaints from the stakeholders. The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on the other hand, has not taken any suo moto notice of several such cases happening right under their nose. This is an alarming situation where the statutory bodies are lagging behind in restoring justice to the most marginalized and have failed to protect their rights and equal participation in the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995.

Supreme Court says Section 33 entitles reservation for employees with disabilities in promotion in Group A,B,C & D alike [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others Versus Union of India and Others

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2008

Date of Judgement: 30 June 2016

Subject: Reservation in Promotion for Disabled to Group A and B posts; Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities Act 1995

Brief:

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier posts dated 02 March 15 and  10 Oct 14, on the subject. 

In a historic judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2008 titled Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others Versus Union of India and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30 Jun 2016 has set aside / quashed the two below office memorandums issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, terming them as illegal and inconsistent with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.:-

•  OM No. 36035/16/91-Estt.(SCT) dated 18.02.1997  and 
•  OM No. No.36035/3/2004-Estt. (RES) dated 29.12.2005 

In the instant case the petitioners, Rajeev Kumar Gupta and seven other persons with disabilities serving as engineers in Prasar Bharti made the grievance that the higher level posts in the engineering cadre were filled mostly by promotion. Although these posts were suitable for persons with disabilities, the Government was denying them 3% reservation in these posts, which amounted to defeating the intent and purpose of reservation provided for in the Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995. At the heart of the problem were the DoPT instructions dated 18.2.97 and 29.12.2005, which prohibited reservation in promotion for disabled persons in Group A and B posts. 

Petitioners had argued that a large number of Groups A and B were filled only through promotion and because of the impugned DoPT memorandums, the benefit of reservation under Section 33 of the 1995 Act was denied with respect to those posts. Petitioners therefore lost out on a significant amount of opportunities at the upper end of the organizational hierarchy.

The government opposed concession to the disabled, contending that they have no right to demand reservation in promotion to identified Group A and Group B posts. It also cited the nine-judge bench ruling by the apex court in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal reservation) case, to maintain reservation should be confined to recruitment at the initial level, and not at the stage of promotions.

It may be pertinent to mention that in the Indra Sawhney case while dealing with caste based reservation issue, the Bench had held "Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it."

But the bench dismissed the government’s arguments, noting that once the posts for the disabled have been identified under Section 32 of the Act, the purpose behind such identification cannot be frustrated by prescribing a mode of recruitment which results in denial of statutory reservation.

“It would be a device to defraud persons with disabilities of the statutory benefit. Once a post is identified, it means that a person with disability is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 to an extent of not less than 3 per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the State for filling up of the said post,” it held.

The bench further said that Indra Sawhney’s case shall not impose a bar on reservation for the disabled, since the principle laid down in this case is applicable only when the State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment to the backward class.

“The basis for providing reservation for persons with disabilities is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1) such as caste, religion etc. The objective behind the 1995 Act is to integrate those living with disabilities into the society and to ensure their economic progress… persons with disabilities are not and cannot be equated with backward classes contemplated under Article 16(4),” it said. Article 16 of the Constitution empowers the state to prescribe preferential treatment to certain classes in matters of public employment.

The judgement is historic and a major milestone in the fight for restoring the rights of persons with disabilities in India. 

The argument in this case were concluded on 17.03.2016  and the bench had reserved the judgement.

The case, represents success in a hard fought battle waged by persons with disabilities for equal opportunity and representation in the higher echelons of Government. Hitherto, disabled persons were likely to stagnate at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy, as their promotion to higher level posts was made difficult because of their physical disadvantage. 

Brief Background of related matters

It may be pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court  had on 08 Oct 2013 in the case titled Union of India vs. National Federation of the Blind delivered a land mark judgment directing the Govt, of India and State Governments to compute 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in all groups of posts against the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength. The Hon'ble Court also laid down that the computation had to be done in an identical manner in respect of all groups of posts. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 10 Dec 2013 in a case titled as MCD Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta upheld a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court which declared that Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, provided for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in Groups A and B also.

But instead of implementing the judgement, the Govt. of India had been contesting the issue through various frivolous litigation which were nipped in the bud each time by the Hon'ble Court. 

Judgement Copy 

Download the Judgement dated 30 June 2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 521/2008 titled Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others Versus Union of India and Others (PDF 326BKB) or read the judgement below:

Updates as on 04 Sep 2017 

The issue of whether persons with disabilities deserve reservation in promotions as well, apart from the reservation that exists in appointment, has been escalated by the Supreme Court to a five-judge bench since it requires interpretation by the Constitution bench.

On Monday (September 4, 2017) the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud heard deposition by Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar and counsels  requested a larger bench to hear the issue. The three judge bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice Dipak Misra agreed to refer the matter to a five-judge bench.

The question that has arisen in this case is whether persons, governed under “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995”, can be given reservation in promotion. A view had been taken by this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others vs Union of India & Others in the affirmative. The Solicitor General had pointed out that the prohibition against reservation in promotion laid down by the majority in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India and Others – (1992) case applies not only to Article 16(4) but also to 16 (1) of the Constitution of India and inference to the contrary is not justified. Persons with disabilities certainly require preferential treatment and such preferential treatment may also cover reservation in appointment but not reservation in promotion. Section 33 of the 1995 Act is required to be read and construed in that background. “We find merit in the contention that the matter needs to be considered by the larger bench,” he said.

Kerala HC: Tax Exemption on Vehicle for disabled is financial privilege different from a Right [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

A double bench of the Kerala High Court has ruled that a cap on tax exemption on purchase value of vehicles by persons with disabilities can not be termed as discriminatory. The division bench comprising of Justice Antony Dominic and Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu opined  that the exemption made by the Government in the instant case, was in the nature of concession to persons with disabilities. And this exemption being a part of financial incentive, the Government was well within its powers to impose suitable conditions.

Brief Brackground  of the case

The Government, had by a notification, G.O. (MS) No. 16/98/Tran., dated 31.03.1998, granted a tax exemption for certain motor vehicles, including the luxury cars, being purchased by differently abled persons. However by a subsequent amendment, the Government had imposed a limit to the cap of Rs.5,00,000/- ,on the value of such vehicles entitled to such tax exemption.

Appellant, a person with 100% disability and a wheel chair user purchased a car of a value exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/. He argued that his son was also disabled being mentally retarded, a bigger car of a value more than 5,00,000/- cap was required to manage the daily activities of the family. He contended that limiting the cap on value of vehicles entitled to tax exemption for use by disabled, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 

His writ petition in this regard, before the single bench was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the division bench in an appeal.  Dismissing the writ appeal, the division bench observed:- “Be it a classification of discrimination in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution, it applies vis-a-vis the right that has been constitutionally consecrated. In that context, legion are the precedents that the classification or discrimination shall pass the judicial muster as regards the reasonableness or non-arbitrariness.” 

Judgement

The bench opined, “In the present instance, it is only a concession the Government has conferred on physically challenged persons. It being a financial incentive, the Government is well within its powers to impose suitable conditions. In other words, a privilege being entirely different from a right, a Fundamental Right at that, we are of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel as regards discrimination or unreasonableness does not apply.” 

Click here to read the judgement  WA.No. 1071 of 2016 IN WP(C).17895/2016 titled  Dr. C.H. Moideen Kunhi Versus Govt. of Kerala [PDF 72 KB]

Deaf witness is a competent & credible witness- High Court [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

A single bench of Hon'be Delhi High Court presided by Justice Mukta Gupta while disposing off an appeal has held that when a deaf witness is under cross-examination the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language. This disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not  affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness.

In the instant appeal filed by the Accused who was convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, for sexually assaulting a 12 yr old deaf and dumb girl, twin arguments were raised by the counsel for appellant i.e.  firstly since the prosecutrix could not be cross-examined her testimony cannot be read in evidence  and secondly even if the offence is proved against the appellant, the same would fall under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and not under Section 9(k) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides: “119. Dumb witnesses.- A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs, but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence.”

While dealing with the mode of recording, non-administration of oath to a deaf and dumb witness and involving an interpreter for understanding the evidence of such a witness, the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2012) 5 SCC 789 State of Rajasthan Vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal held: “26. The object of enacting the provisions of Section 119 of the Evidence Act reveals that deaf and dumb persons were earlier contemplated in law as idiots. However, such a view has subsequently been changed for the reason that modern science revealed that persons affected with such calamities are generally found more intelligent, and to be susceptible to far higher culture than one was once supposed. When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also with the assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law requires that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.

On Questioning the Testimony as no cross examination held

In reply to the first argument of questioning the testimony, Justice Mukta Gupta held as follows;

“The purpose of cross-examination is to ascertain the truth in relation to the acquisition levelled against an accused person and a discretion is vested in the Court to control the cross-examination. A party cross-examining a deaf and dumb witness like any other witness is required to act within the bounds of law and cannot be permitted to cross-examine the witness all and sundry on irrelevant questions. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act itself provides that the examination and cross-examination of a witness must relate to relevant facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination-in-chief. The purpose is that in cross-examination besides relevant facts, facts which impeach the credibility of the witness and shake his creditworthiness can also be asked. However still the first portion of Section 138 of the Evidence Act qualifies this right confining the cross-examination to relevant facts though it may not have been so deposed in the examination-in-chief. It is the duty of a Judge to control the cross-examination to prevent any abuse and to protect a witness from being unfairly dealt with. Sections 149 to 152 of the Evidence Act prohibit asking questions without reasonable grounds, which are indecent and scandalous in nature, or which are intended to insult or annoy the witness”.

“When a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language. This disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness. The Court is required to exercise control over the cross-examination keeping in view the ability of the witness to answer the questions.

From the examination of the witness which was in question-answer form and the response to the cross-examination wherein the witness drew and explained the distance where the incident took place, it can safely be held that there was sufficient compliance of the right to cross-examination provided to an accused and the testimony of this witness is not required to be effaced”

On punishment under section 8 Sexual Assault or Section 9 Aggravated Sexual Assault 

The Court then examined the question whether appellant can be convicted for offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act or defined under Section 9(k) and punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. The appellant was charged for offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act i.e. “sexual assault”.

Section 7 POCSO Act defines the term sexual assault as physical contact without penetration. The punishment for the same is provided in Section 8 wherein the minimum sentence is 3 years which may extend to 5 years with fine.

Section 9 of POCSO Act defines “aggravated sexual assault” which is punishable under Section 10 POCSO Act. Section 9 POCSO Act defines different types of sexual assault which would be termed as aggravated sexual assault. Sub-clause (k) of Section 9 POCSO Act provides that whoever, taking advantage of a child’s mental or physical disability, commits sexual assault on the child would be punished for aggravated sexual assault as per Section 10 of POCSO Act wherein the minimum punishment is of 5 years imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine.”

Though charged with a major offence an accused can be convicted for a minor offence, the vice-versa is impermissible.

Court altered the Punishment

Accepting the contention of the Accused, the bench held that in the facts of the case Court is not required to go into whether aggravated sexual assault is made out or not from the evidence on record, for the reason there was no charge for aggravated sexual assault framed against the appellant. “ It is trite law that though charged with a major offence an accused can be convicted for a minor offence, however the vice-versa is impermissible which has been done by the learned Trial Court.”

Consequently, the Court altered the conviction of Accused to one for offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

The earlier sentence dt. 17 Dec 2013  of "Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months" has not been modified as "Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month".

Click here for the Judgement dated 03 Jun 2016, bearing No. CRL.A. 751/2014 titled Chander Singh Vs. State

Language used by Judiciary referring to persons with disability

An important takeaway from this judgement is also the issue of improper and disability unfriendly language used by the Hon'ble Judges despite their best intentions. The terminology "deaf and dumb", "suffering from disability" etc has been repeatedly used by the prosecution, courts below and the high court in the pleadings, orders and judgement. And this is not one odd case. Its high time that the judicial officers  and prosecution officers too are trained in the use of correct language / terminology while referring to persons with disabilities. While the words, "suffering from" and "handicapped" are one extreme, the term "Divyang" suggested by Hon'ble Prime Minister of India is on the other extreme of the disability etiquette. People with disabilities are persons first and therefore a simple reference to them as "a person with disability" or "a person with hearing impairment", speech impairment, etc... in line with the UNCRPD accepted worldwide is appropriate and proper. The Hon'ble High Court must consider addressing this as a priority.  

SC slaps Rs.10 lakhs fine on SpiceJet for discriminating with a flier with disability [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice A K Sikri and Justice R K Agrawal

Case No.:  WP(C) No. 98 of 2012 

Case Title: Jeeja Ghosh and Anr Versus Union of India and Others 

Date of Judgement: 12 May 2016

Brief:

This is in continuation to our  earlier two posts titled Jeeja Ghosh, a prominent Indian disability right activist discriminated by Spicejet Pilot dated 19 Feb 2012 and Supreme Court of India issues notice to SpiceJet for deplaning disabled woman dated 05 April 2012.

In a remarkable judgement in a clear case of disability discrimination, a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal of Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the budget airline Spicejet to pay a sum of Rs 10 Lakh (One Million Indian Rupees) as damages to a flyer living with cerebral palsy, who was forcibly offloaded in 2012, saying the manner in which she was de-boarded depicts "total lack of sensitivity".

The apex court noted that the flier with disability Ms. Jeeja Ghosh was not given "appropriate, fair and caring treatment" which she required with "due sensitivity" and the decision to de-board her was "uncalled for".

"On our finding that SpiceJet acted in a callous manner, and in the process violated Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), 2008 guidelines resulting in mental and physical suffering experienced by Ghosh and also unreasonable discrimination against her, we award a sum of Rs 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to her," observed the Bench.

Ms. Ghosh was offloaded from a SpiceJet flight on February 19, 2012 from Kolkata when she was going to attend a conference in Goa hosted by NGO ADAPT (Able Disable All People Together), the second petitioner in the case.

The bench said the decision to offload Ghosh was taken by the airlines without any medical advise or consideration and her condition was not such which required any assistive devices or aids.

"Even if we assume that there was some blood or froth that was noticed to be oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she was seated in the aircraft (though vehemently denied by petitioner), nobody even cared to interact with her and asked her the reason for the same. No doctor was summoned to examine her condition. Abruptly and without any justification, a decision was taken to de-board her without ascertaining as to whether her condition was such which prevented her from flying. This clearly amounts to violation of Rule 133-A of Rules, 1937 and the CAR, 2008 guidelines," the bench said.

Download the Judgement

• WP(C) No. 98/2012 Titled Jeeja Ghosh and Anr Versus Union of India and Others 
• Or Read the embedded Judgement in PDF below:

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Disability-Based Exclusion insisting 70% Disability Cap for MBBS Admissions in MBBS Admissions despite clearing NEET [Judgement Included]

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice V. Kameswar Rao

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6041/2013

Case Title: Sanjana Sinha v. University of Delhi & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 31 May 2016

Background

The present writ petition before the Delhi High Court raised significant questions concerning disability discrimination in medical education and the exclusionary eligibility standards imposed upon persons with disabilities seeking admission to MBBS courses.

The petitioner, Sanjana Sinha, had suffered amputation of her left leg in 2012 following severe medical complications during treatment procedures intended to stabilise her blood pressure. At the age of seventeen, she underwent a life-altering medical crisis which ultimately resulted in permanent locomotor disability. She was subsequently fitted with a prosthetic limb and was able to independently walk and perform daily activities without external assistance.

Despite these circumstances, the petitioner successfully completed her schooling and qualified the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the academic session 2013–14.

Having qualified NEET, the petitioner applied for admission under the category reserved for persons with disabilities. Her disability certificate recorded 80% locomotor disability. The Medical Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital also certified her disability at 80%.

However, her candidature was rejected on the basis of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 framed by the Medical Council of India and the admission bulletin issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. The impugned framework restricted eligibility under the disability quota only to candidates with locomotor disability of lower limbs between 50% and 70%, thereby excluding candidates with disability exceeding 70%.

Aggrieved by this exclusionary criterion, the petitioner approached the Court challenging:

• the amendment dated 25 March 2009 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997;
• the Medical Council of India communication dated 21 April 2009; and
• the relevant clause in the admission bulletin issued by the Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi.

The petitioner also sought directions for admission to the MBBS course under the disability quota.

Key Observations of the Court

The Division Bench undertook a detailed constitutional examination of disability-based exclusion within professional education and questioned the legality of rigid percentage-based barriers imposed upon persons with disabilities.

At the outset, the Court recognised that welfare legislation concerning persons with disabilities must receive a purposive and beneficial interpretation to ensure that disabled persons are not denied equal opportunity merely because they do not conform to narrow physical standards.

The Bench observed:

“A welfare legislation needs to be given a purposive interpretation, inasmuch as to give benefit to a person with disability so that he/she does not feel less privileged than a normal person.”

A central issue before the Court was whether exclusion of candidates with locomotor disability exceeding 70% from MBBS admissions could withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The Court carefully examined the rationale underlying the impugned Medical Council of India regulations and found the exclusionary framework arbitrary and discriminatory. It observed that disability percentage alone cannot determine an individual’s capability to pursue medical education.

Importantly, the Court recognised that disability cannot be mechanically equated with incapacity. The Bench noted that the petitioner, despite her disability, had independently functioned with the assistance of a prosthetic limb, completed her education successfully, and qualified a highly competitive national examination.

The Court further emphasised that functional capability and individual competence must prevail over rigid medical categorisation detached from actual ability.

Rejecting stereotypical assumptions regarding disability, the Bench observed that exclusionary standards based solely on numerical disability percentages undermine constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

The Court also recognised the broader implications of denying persons with disabilities access to professional education. Such exclusion, the Court observed, perpetuates systemic marginalisation and reinforces barriers preventing persons with disabilities from entering professions traditionally viewed as inaccessible.

Importantly, the judgment reflected a transition away from purely medicalised understandings of disability toward a rights-based approach grounded in inclusion, capability, and substantive equality.

Relief Granted and Limitations

The Delhi High Court granted relief in favour of the petitioner and held that exclusion of candidates with disability above 70% was legally unsustainable.

The Court effectively invalidated the restrictive framework limiting eligibility solely to candidates with locomotor disability between 50% and 70%. It also directed that the petitioner’s candidature should not be rejected in future merely because her disability was assessed at 80%.

However, despite succeeding on the legal issue, the petitioner did not receive immediate admission to the MBBS course because the academic session for which she had appeared had already concluded.

The Court observed:

“At this point of time, no direction can be issued to give admission to the petitioner on the basis of the said examination. The only direction that can be given is… the respondent shall not deny admission to the petitioner if she is successful in a future NEET examination on the ground that she has a disability of 80%.”

As a consequence, the petitioner lost a crucial academic year and was required to reappear in the NEET examination despite having already qualified earlier.

The case therefore highlights a recurring concern in disability rights litigation — delayed judicial relief may ultimately deprive successful litigants of meaningful practical justice even where constitutional violations are recognised.

Commentary

The decision in Sanjana Sinha v. University of Delhi & Anr. remains an important judgment against structural ableism within professional educational institutions and significantly contributed to the evolution of disability rights jurisprudence in India.

One of the most important aspects of the ruling lies in its rejection of the assumption that higher degrees of physical disability necessarily translate into professional incompetence. By rejecting rigid percentage-based exclusions, the Court affirmed that capability must be assessed through actual functional ability rather than abstract medical classifications.

The judgment also advanced the principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would merely permit disabled candidates to apply for admission; substantive equality requires dismantling institutional barriers that prevent disabled persons from genuinely accessing educational opportunities.

Another important contribution of the ruling is its movement away from paternalistic and medically deterministic approaches toward a rights-based understanding of disability. The Court recognised that persons with disabilities are entitled to equal participation in professional education and cannot be excluded through arbitrary eligibility standards unsupported by rational justification.

At the same time, the case exposes the limitations of delayed judicial intervention - many a time not because petitioner came late but the justice was delayed. Although the petitioner ultimately succeeded in establishing that the exclusionary framework was discriminatory, she still lost an irreplaceable academic year and had to undergo the uncertainty of appearing in the entrance examination again. The larger message is that MBBS admission cannot be denied solely due to high disability percentage.

The judgment therefore serves both as a significant constitutional affirmation of disability rights and as a reminder that delayed remedies in educational matters can substantially dilute the practical value of judicial relief.

The ruling remains an important precedent affirming that disability rights jurisprudence must be guided by dignity, capability, inclusion, and substantive equality rather than by restrictive medicalised notions of limitation and incapacity.

Read the judgement