Supreme Court says people above 50% of hearing and visual disability can not perform as judge! [Judgement included]

Dear Colleauges,

Please recall my earlier posts "Can a blind person work as a judge?" and subsequently  "Want to become a judge?" and "A step further to ensure that Blind can function effectively in Courts" on this subject. 

However, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph on 22 Jan 2019 in the case titled V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, shattered all my progressive writings and efforts to see more blind judges in India. The bench upheld the Tamil Nadu State’s policy of restricting the eligibility of blind and deaf candidates for the reserved posts of 'civil judge' to those with 40-50% of their respective disabilities. The SC Bench held,   "A judicial officer in a state has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable  and that it does not contravene any of the provisions of the Disabilities Act 1995 or any other statutory provision."

I have seen judges's inherent biases and pre-conceived notions about disabling conditions often reflected in their judgements referring to persons with disabilities as unfortunate, crippled, wheelchair bound. This shows their lack of knowledge on disabling conditions and disability rights, however, this judgement has left me totally shaken. A common man's ignorance is pardonable, but for MyLords, whose pen has the ability to impact fate of millions of Indians with disabilities, it can be devastating for the hopes of many of them. The judges need to be well read and aware about the evolving capabilities of persons with disabilities with the advent of technology and science and the concept of reasonable accommodation that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provide. It is easier to label some one as 'incompetent' than set your own house in order. That is what the judiciary has done through this judgement despite the post of a judge identified as suitable to be held by a blind person by the Expert Committee constituted  by govt. of India, a bench renders them unsuitable!. Technically the bench should have refrained from stepping in to the shoes of the Expert Committee.

In the instant case, a person with seventy (70) percent blindness was denied appointment as a judge because he was more than fifty (50) percent threshold, the specified outer limit set by the Tamil Nadu State. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion in the case that persons with more than the specified range of blindness are not eligible because they cannot perform functions of a judge!

In the background that several blind lawyers and judges are functioning well and the post is also identified as suitable for persons with disabilities by an Expert Committee under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and that the Act makes no restrictions of degree of  percentage of disabilities for providing job reservations and other benefits etc which are equally available to all persons above 40% disabilities, this judgement looks absurd.  Instead of holding that differentiation based on extent of blindness is invalid and working towards facilitating accessibility of ICT, processes and reasonable accommodations for judges with blindness, the Court decided to justify the decision of the Government and the Madras High Court, which took a stand that completely blind persons cannot perform the so called strenuous tasks of reading, writing, communicating, examining witnesses, following procedures, advising advocates, etc.

Background of the case

In 2012, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission received a requisition from the State Government for filling up the vacancy posts of Civil Judge. The Commission wrote a letter to both the State Government as well as the High Court proposing to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for selection. The High Court communicated its approval to the aforesaid proposal which was also consented to, by the State of Tamil Nadu. The TNPC subsequently went on to publish the notification.

V. Surendra Mohan applied for the role of civil judge, however, his application was rejected on the ground that he was 70% blind (instead of below 50%). He challenged this decision in the Madras High Court upon which he was permitted to sit for the interview. Following his interview, Mohan’s application was again rejected. As a result, V. Surendra Mohan filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. In 2015, the High Court held that the TNPC’s decision was lawful as it was in line with the State’s policy.

In 2019, Mohan appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of his application as well as the policy on the basis of which his application was rejected, alleging it as arbitrary and unjustified.

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph rejected this submission. It remarked that “a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction”.

The Supreme Court’s view that a totally blind person cannot function as a judge is trashed by live examples of  several successful blind judges in India and beyond. Accessible work place, computers with screen reading softwares, pleadings and documents in accessible format and reasonable accommodations is what is needed for their inclusion and this makes so many lawyers and judges do wonderfully well in their workplace.

Surprisingly, neither the State government or the High Court nor the Supreme Court have given any reasons as to justification of  50% disability cut-off when Persons with Disabilities Act makes so such distinction. No empirical evidence or research has been put forward to support that beyond the 50% threshold, a person would not be able to effectively perform his duties as a judge.  Supreme Court blindly relies on the government wisdom on this 50% cut-off, without questioning its scientific basis. It is also unclear as to how an advertisement by TNPSC pursuant to a “letter” from the government attained the status of an overriding legal norm. This matter wasn't referred to by the State to the Experts Committee. Decision was taken by babus based on their own whims and fancies and since it affected judiciary, the court also felt safe as they had not to change any infrastructure to accommodate a blind judge in their system. It is almost another level of apartheid visible in the present order. 

The present judgement also literally backtracks its own judgement dated 22 January 2019 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set deadlines to make public places accessible to persons with visual impairment. It had expressed that “it becomes imperative to provide such facilities so that these persons also are ensured level playing field and not only they are able to enjoy life meaningfully, they contribute to the progress of the nation as well.”  Instead of providing level playing field, this judgement deprives blind candidates from their established legal right  arbitrarily. This order is a black spot on the image of Indian Supreme Court which has otherwise been very proactive for the rights of marginalised communities and has always batted for their inclusion in constitutional spirit. Therefore, this needs to be remedied soon in coming days.

Read the judgement in PDF below in V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. of 83 of 2019:

Insurance Company denies health insurance on the basis of disability - Court of Chief Commissioner approached

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier posts "IRDA proposes life insurance cover for persons with disabilities" and "Extra premium or reduced insurance cover, both discriminatory against disabled". 

A Bengaluru based banker with visual disability has preferred a complaint in the Court of Chief commissioner for Persons with Disabilities against Religare for denying him health insurance policy on the grounds of his blindness. The 63 year-old banker Mr. TR Raghu Kumar has optic nerve atrophy (ONA), a condition of permanent vision loss caused due to damaged optic nerve, in March 1991. 

“I suddenly lost my eyesight; I woke up one morning to know that my vision has been affected. This can happen to anybody,” he said. He bought a health insurance policy from Religare for Rs 5 lakh and paid one-year premium of Rs 16,597 on October 26, 2018. “I had declared my condition in the insurance proposal and submitted a copy of the medical certificate,” he added.

A month later, Raghu received a call from the company stating that his insurance was rejected as he was totally blind and the premium was refunded. Alleging discrimination, Kumar wrote to the commissioner for persons with disabilities on November 29.

Responding to an email query, Religare said Kumar’s insurance proposal was declined due to ONA. “ONA can be caused by multiple reasons and not limited to trauma (including stroke), tumour, decrease in oxygen or blood supply, infections, disorders or hereditary reasons. There was no ascertainment with regard to the cause in his proposal. We cover persons with any kind of disability (physical/visual/hearing), provided there’s no co-existing health condition that’s in contravention with our medical underwriting guidelines,” Religare said.

However, Kumar said the company never asked him anything pertaining to the cause of ONA. “I’ve submitted the disability certificate which is self-explanatory. The company collected money for the premium and rejected my proposal without raising any question. This is nothing but discrimination against a disabled person,” he added.

Source: Times of India 

Delhi HC - JNU should work out the 5% reservation mandate of the RPWD Act, so that every person with disability, who qualifies get admission. [Judgement Included]

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench:  Hon'ble The Chief Justice  and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3817/2018
Case Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Union of India
Date of Judgement: 12 Nov 2018

Cases refered:

• Sambhavana v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 3919/2014 decided on March 4, 2015;
• Students Federation of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P(C) 3032/2017 decided on October 1, 2018 
• and the Supreme Court in the cases of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2017)14 SCC 1; Union of India and Ors. v. National Federation of Blind and Ors. 2013 10 SCC 772,

Background

The Delhi High Court examined an important issue concerning implementation of the mandatory 5% reservation for persons with disabilities in higher educational institutions under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The petition was filed by the National Federation of the Blind challenging the admission policy adopted by Jawaharlal Nehru University for admission to M.Phil./Ph.D. and Ph.D. programmes for the academic session 2018–19.

The main grievance was that JNU had failed to provide the full 5% reservation mandated under the RPwD Act.

According to the petitioner, against a total intake of 723 seats, the University reserved only 32 seats for persons with disabilities instead of approximately 36 seats required under the law.

The petitioner argued that the shortfall arose because the University calculated reservation separately for each School and Centre rather than calculating reservation on the basis of the total seats across the University.

Under this system, departments with fewer than nine seats effectively provided no reservation for persons with disabilities at all. The petitioner contended that such compartmentalised calculation diluted the statutory guarantee under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

The case also involved denial of admission to candidates with disabilities in courses where reservation was allegedly not implemented due to low departmental seat intake.

JNU defended its methodology by relying upon the reservation framework followed under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 and its School-wise and Centre-wise reservation calculations.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court examined whether disability reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act could be calculated separately for each School or Centre even if such calculation reduced the overall reservation below the mandatory 5%.

The Court recognised that Section 32 creates a binding obligation requiring higher educational institutions receiving government aid to reserve “not less than 5%” seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.

Importantly, the Bench observed that this statutory mandate cannot be diluted through administrative formulas or internal institutional calculation methods.

The Court noted that the methodology adopted by JNU resulted in departments with small seat intake effectively excluding persons with disabilities from reservation benefits. As a consequence, the actual reservation available across the University fell below the statutory minimum.

The Bench made it clear that disability reservation cannot be treated as a fragmented or discretionary exercise dependent on departmental seat distribution.

The Court also observed that the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the mandate of the RPwD Act.

Another important aspect of the proceedings was the recognition that rigid departmental allocation systems can indirectly exclude students with disabilities from higher education despite formal reservation policies existing on paper.

During the hearing, JNU acknowledged the issue raised by the petitioner and agreed to grant admission to additional candidates with disabilities in compliance with the RPwD Act.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court effectively held that reservation for persons with disabilities must be implemented in a manner that fully ensures the mandatory 5% reservation under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

The Court:

• Recognised that School-wise or Centre-wise reservation calculations resulting in reservation below 5% are inconsistent with the RPwD Act;
• Took on record JNU’s decision to grant admission to additional PwD candidates;
• Addressed grievances relating to denial of admission arising from departmental seat allocation structures; and
• Reinforced that institutions cannot reduce statutory disability reservation through administrative calculation mechanisms.

Commentary

The judgment in National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India & Ors. is a significant ruling on disability reservation in higher education because it directly addresses one of the most common methods used to dilute reservation for persons with disabilities.

Educational institutions often adopt programme-wise or departmental seat calculations which appear compliant on paper but substantially reduce the actual number of seats available to students with disabilities. The Delhi High Court recognised that such practices undermine both the purpose and the guarantee of the RPwD Act.

A key strength of the judgment is its emphasis that the requirement of “not less than 5%” reservation must be implemented in substance and not merely in form.

The ruling also reinforces that disability reservation is not a matter of administrative convenience. Universities cannot rely on internal departmental structures or technical formulas to reduce opportunities available to persons with disabilities.

Importantly, the judgment situates disability reservation within the broader constitutional framework of equality, dignity and inclusion. Reservation under the RPwD Act is not simply a welfare measure but an enforceable right intended to address historical exclusion from educational spaces.

The case additionally highlights a continuing implementation gap in higher education institutions where statutory reservation exists formally but is weakened in practice through restrictive admission systems and fragmented seat allocation methods.

Overall, the decision remains an important precedent affirming that the full 5% disability reservation mandated under the RPwD Act must be meaningfully implemented and cannot be diluted through administrative practices.

Read the judgement below:

LPG dealership not a poverty alleviation scheme so as to come under Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, opines Bangalore HC

Poverty alleviation is for consumers- says Karnataka High Court, rejecting plea that questioned oil companies reserving only 3 per cent of LPG dealerships for people with physical challenges.

The High Court has refused a plea by an organisation working for the welfare of physically challenged persons to reserve five per cent of LPG dealerships to such people. The HC said that it cannot apply Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as the LPG dealership given by State-owned oil companies are not government welfare schemes where this rule needs to be applied.

Karnataka Rajya Vikalchetanara Rakshana Samiti approached the HC against Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum and the Union Government challenging a notification by these companies that wanted to select 238 LPG distributors.

As per the RPD Act, the reservation for physically challenged persons is five per cent. But the notification had reserved only 6 distributorships for the physically challenged instead of 11, it was argued. This was less than 3 per cent.

The HC however said that the distributorship is not a welfare measure. It said, “In the overall comprehension of the matter, we are satisfied that even if the award of LPG distributorships, essentially a matter of commercial contract, is a welfare measure and leads to manifold empowerment and all-round development of society, it cannot be termed as a notified scheme for poverty alleviation and development.”

The court also said that poverty alleviation in LPG is directed at consumers and not distributors. So, reservation for distributors under the Act was not possible. It said, “Needless to reiterate that the availability of LPG to the persons below poverty line may be correlated with the poverty alleviation, but that relates to the consumers and not to the distributors.”

The division bench of Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav refused to consider the distributorship licencing as a poverty alleviation scheme. It said, “The award of LPG distributorships is taken up essentially by the three State-owned oil companies and is not any notified scheme of the appropriate Government or local authorities, which could be classified as a poverty alleviation and development scheme.”

Noting that three per cent of the distribution agencies are already reserved for physically challenged persons, the HC said, “The provision for reservation by the respondent Oil Companies, who are the agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, prima facie indicates their attention to the requirements of the persons belonging to different classes and categories. However, for that matter, we find no reason to issue a mandamus to provide for extra reservation for persons with disabilities by operating Section 37” of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

However, the HC said that claims of other concessions in application fee and financial assistance can be sought by making appropriate representation to the concerned authorities.

Supreme Court: MCI Expert Committee's opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee

Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) No. 669 OF 2018

Case title: Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Through Dr. Kamlesh Virumal Purswani Vs Union of India & Ors

Date of Judgement: 28 Aug 2018

Brief:

The Petitioner, who appeared for the NEET UG Examination for the 2018-19 session was denied benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities, despite having low vision impairment and being eligible for 5% reservation for specific benchmark disability under the RPwD Act, 2016 and MCI's Medical Education Regulation 4(3). 

An MCI expert committee determined that individuals with a visual impairment below 40% would not be admitted to the MBBS course.  Aggrieved by this he approached the Court.

The question which arises in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is, whether a person with benchmark disability of low vision, within the meaning of Section 2(r), read with Clause 1B of the Schedule, of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 can be denied the benefit of reservation for admission to the MBBS Medical Course.

The court said that the argument of MCI that Section 32 is not attracted since it only provides for reservation to higher educational institutions and not to technical institutions imparting technical education, appears to be fallacious since higher educational institution is a generic term which would include institutions imparting all kinds of higher education, including technical education, whereas technical institution is a specific term for those institutions which only impart technical education.

The court, rejecting the opinion of the committee, held that its opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision (Medical Regulations) mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities. It held that the RPwD Act, 2016 as well as Medical Regulations by MCI was binding on the institution and thus no expert committee's opinion could be given primacy over the same. Thus, it held that the petitioner cannot be denied admission if he qualifies as per his merit in the category of persons with disabilities.

Judgement:

Hearing-Impaired Candidates Cannot Be Excluded from MBBS Admissions: Delhi HC

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Siddharth Mridul
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7820/2018
Case Title: Tina Sharma (Minor) Through Her Father Bhagwati Prasad Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order: 31 July 2018

Background

The present writ petition before the Delhi High Court raised important questions concerning the rights of hearing-impaired candidates seeking admission to MBBS courses under the reservation framework created by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”).

The petition was filed on behalf of Tina Sharma, a hearing-impaired student aspiring to pursue medical education under the category of persons with benchmark disabilities.

The petitioner had successfully completed her Class XII examination conducted by the CBSE and had also appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2018 for admission to medical colleges.

The NEET information bulletin specifically provided that 5% of seats in medical institutions would be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in accordance with the RPwD Act.

The petitioner fell within the statutory definition of “person with benchmark disability” under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act. Hearing impairment was recognised under the statute as a specified disability where an individual suffers hearing loss of 70 decibels or more in speech frequencies in both ears.

However, the controversy arose because the Expert Committee constituted by the Medical Council of India (“MCI”) had recommended exclusionary standards concerning hearing-impaired candidates seeking admission to MBBS courses.

The case therefore raised a broader constitutional issue — whether candidates with hearing disabilities could be denied access to medical education despite statutory guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and inclusive education under the RPwD Act.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Siddharth Mridul adopted a purposive and rights-oriented interpretation of the RPwD Act while examining the issue.

At the outset, the Court recognised the RPwD Act as a transformative legislation intended to mainstream persons with disabilities within educational institutions and professional spaces.

The Court emphasised that the statute embodies the principles of:

• equality of opportunity;
• respect for inherent dignity;
• individual autonomy;
• freedom of choice;
• non-discrimination; and
• full and effective participation in society.

The Bench observed that persons with benchmark disabilities possess enforceable statutory and constitutional rights to access educational institutions recognised or funded by the Government.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the RPwD Act is not merely a welfare-oriented concessionary framework but a rights-based legislation intended to secure substantive equality and dismantle systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities.

A particularly important aspect of the order lies in the Court’s recognition that exclusionary educational standards affecting disabled candidates must be subjected to strict scrutiny and cannot be justified on the basis of stereotypical assumptions regarding capability or competence.

The Court underscored that the RPwD Act had been enacted in consonance with constitutional guarantees as well as Directive Principles of State Policy and was intended to ensure equal participation of persons with disabilities within higher education.

The Bench further recognised that the legislation reflects India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which obligates States to ensure accessibility, inclusion, and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities across all sectors, including education.

Importantly, the Court acknowledged the larger social importance of enabling persons with disabilities to enter professional domains that have historically remained inaccessible because of institutional prejudice, inflexible eligibility standards, and medically deterministic assumptions.

The order implicitly rejected the assumption that disability necessarily equates to incapacity and recognised that persons with disabilities possess equal aspirations, dignity, and entitlement to participate in professional education systems.

Interpretation of the RPwD Act

One of the most significant aspects of the order is the Court’s interpretation of the RPwD Act as a progressive social legislation intended to promote inclusion rather than perpetuate exclusion.

The Court recognised that:

• benchmark disability status creates enforceable legal rights;
• educational inclusion forms part of substantive equality; and
• institutional policies must conform to constitutional morality and disability rights jurisprudence.

The Bench treated the RPwD Act as a transformative legal framework intended to shift Indian disability jurisprudence away from paternalistic and medicalised approaches toward a human-rights-based model centred upon dignity, participation, autonomy, and equal opportunity.

The Court thereby reaffirmed that professional educational institutions cannot adopt exclusionary standards inconsistent with statutory guarantees under the RPwD Act.

Commentary

The decision in Tina Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. represents an important judicial affirmation of inclusive professional education and disability rights in India.

One of the most significant contributions of the ruling lies in its recognition that disability rights are integral to constitutional equality and cannot be treated merely as welfare concerns.

Historically, persons with disabilities — especially candidates with sensory disabilities such as hearing impairment — have faced structural barriers in accessing professional education due to rigid eligibility standards and stereotypical assumptions regarding competence.

The present case reflects the judiciary’s growing recognition that exclusion from educational institutions often arises not because of disability itself, but because of inaccessible institutional structures and discriminatory policies.

A transformative aspect of the Court’s reasoning is its movement away from the traditional medical model of disability toward a rights-based approach. Instead of reducing disabled individuals to impairment percentages or medical conditions, the judgment recognised persons with disabilities as rights-bearing individuals entitled to dignity, autonomy, and equal participation.

The ruling also strengthens the constitutional principle of substantive equality. Formal equality merely permits disabled candidates to compete; substantive equality requires active dismantling of institutional barriers that prevent meaningful participation.

Another important aspect of the decision is the Court’s insistence that statutory protections under the RPwD Act must receive liberal and purposive interpretation consistent with constitutional values.

The judgment additionally contributes to the evolving disability rights jurisprudence in India recognising accessibility and educational inclusion as indispensable components of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Importantly, the case carries wider implications for representation of persons with disabilities within medicine and allied professions. Professional spaces have historically remained inaccessible because of infrastructural barriers, rigid institutional norms, and assumptions regarding bodily ability. Judicial interventions such as the present one challenge these exclusionary structures and promote democratisation of access to professional education.

At a broader constitutional level, the decision reinforces the vision of an inclusive society where educational and professional opportunities are not conditioned upon conformity with narrow notions of bodily normalcy.

The order therefore stands as an important reaffirmation that disability rights jurisprudence in India must continue evolving in favour of dignity, inclusion, autonomy, and substantive equality rather than exclusion rooted in stereotypes or restrictive institutional assumptions.

Read the Judgement

Delhi HC directs IIT Delhi to re-admit and coach student with disability expelled for failing [Judgement Included]

Dear Colleagues,

In the instant case, Manif Alam, a student with 50% locomotor disability had secured admission in MSc (mathematics) at IIT-Delhi under the reserved category for persons with disabilities in the academic year 2017-18. However, on January 9, 2018, his name was suddenly struck off the rolls without even giving him a chance to explain why he had not been able to secure the minimum score of 4.00 SGPA in the first semester.

The petition filed before the Delhi High Court citing various provisions of the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 & case laws prayed for setting aside the arbitrary decision of expelling the student without giving him an opportunity to even improve his performance. Reliance was placed on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Singh Baghri & Ors. v. Registrar IIT Delhi & Anr. in WP(C) 535 of 2008. 

Hon'ble Justice Rekha Palli, also referred to para 26 of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Singh Baghri vs. Registrar, IIT, Delhi in W.P.(C) 535/2008, wherein in the context of students belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories, it was held as under:- 

“26. It is not in dispute that SC and ST are separate class by themselves and the creamy layer principle is not applicable to them. Article 46 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. These socially and economically backward categories are to be taken care of at every stage even in the specialized institutions like IITs. They must take all endeavour by providing additional coaching and bring them up at par with general category students. All these principles have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 6 SCC 1.”

The writ petition was vehemently opposed by IIT Delhi while the other respondents including the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, Ministry of Human Resources and Development as also Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment supported the petition strongly in favour of the rights of the student with disability.

The judge expressed, "In my view the respondent Institute cannot, by placing reliance on its Rules, defeat the very purpose of the the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. I cannot lose sight of the fact that both these aforesaid Acts are special legislations dealing with persons with disability ensuring equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation and therefore it is the duty of every Educational Institution to make an endeavour to ensure that the special objects of these Acts are achieved. Respondent No.1-Institute having admittedly failed to provide special facilities by way of extra coaching and guidance to the petitioner has failed in its duty and for this reason alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The petitioner surely deserves a chance to improve his performance and make an attempt to clear his backlog for which purpose the respondent Institute ought to give him extra coaching and guidance.

Directing the premier institute to immediately re-admit Manif Alam, the court said, “If this is the state of affairs of the IITs in India, one can only imagine what goes on in the institutions which get lesser funds and guidance from the Union government.”

Underlining that Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 mandates it to be the duty of all educational institutions to “provide necessary support to maximise academic and social development consistent with the goal of full inclusion”, Justice Rekha Palli said the institute must be “more sensitive towards the needs of persons with disabilities”. This mandate can never be achieved if such students are expelled without giving them another opportunity to attain the necessary level, she said.

Allowing the plea of the student, HC stressed that “the core issue...is as to whether a student like the petitioner who is able to join a premier Institute like IIT-Delhi only because of the 5% reservation provided for ‘persons with disability’ can be expelled after the very first semester on account of his inability to meet the criteria fixed for general students who had admittedly joined the institute with much better academic backgrounds in terms of marks”.

The objective of the Act is to give the disabled people an opportunity to join the mainstream, the court said. To achieve this, the educational institutes should give them extra coaching and guidance if needed, it stressed. “A mere reservation at the time of entry into the institutes would become meaningless if the institutes like IIT-Delhi don’t do their bit and extend a helping hand to such students.”

Rejecting IIT-Delhi’s stand that it is not bound to follow these norms as it is not affiliated to UGC and is autonomous, the court made it clear that the disability act is fully applicable in this case. By not providing special facilities through extra coaching and guidance, IIT-Delhi “has failed in its duty and for this reason alone, the order is liable to be set aside. The petitioner surely deserves a chance... to make an attempt to clear his backlog”, the court said. The institute ought to give him extra coaching and guidance, it added.

Setting aside the impugned order of the IIT Delhi dated 09.01.2018, the Court directed the respondent IIT Delhi to immediately re-admit the petitioner and also provide him extra coaching, if the need be. 

Click on the hyperlink to download the judgement:

Manif Alam Vs. IIT Delhi & Others in WP(C) No.1158/2018

Supreme Court directs Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) to comply with RPWD Act and provide Accessibility to students with disabilities in infrastructure and pedagogy

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan

Case No. :Writ Petition (Civil) No. 292 OF 2006

Case Title: Disabled Rights Group Vs. Union Of India 

Date of Judgement/ Order:  15 December, 2017    

Brief:

A writ petition was filed by the Disabled Rights Group (DRG), a non-profit organisation working for the rights of persons with disabilities. Three issues were raised by the Petitioners which pertained to education of persons with disabilities. 

The first contention of the Petitioners was reservation not being provided despite the requirement of reservation of 3% seats in educational institutions under Section 39 of the PwD Act, 1995 (now 5% reservation under Section 32, RPwD Act, 2016). 

The Petitioners further contended that despite there being a legal obligation under Section 16(ii), 25(1)(b) and Section 40 of RPwD Act, 2016 to secure access to persons with orthopaedic disability in educational institutions, the provisions were not being implemented. 

The third contention was for pedagogical changes-adequate provisions and facilities for teaching persons with disability depending on their special needs. 

The court ruled that institutions obligated to provide 3% reservation for persons with disabilities must comply and report the list to the relevant authorities. Non-compliant institutions may face legal consequences under RPwD Act, 2016. The court further held that denying proper educational facilities to differently-abled individuals amounts to discrimination. It endorsed a right-based and inclusive approach, promoting the participation of all groups for inclusive development. 

The UGC was instructed to review the set of suggestions in form of guidelines submitted by the Petitioners to make infrastructure and pedagogy adequate and submit an action-taken report. The court mandated higher educational institutions covered by Section 32 of the RPwD Act, 2016 to adhere to its provisions when admitting students annually.

Judgement

                                                                                  

                                                                                                                           REPORTABLE

                                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 292 OF 2006

DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR.                          .....PETITIONER(S)

                                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          .....RESPONDENT(S)

                                                        WITH

          WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 997 OF 2013 (GEORGE PHILIPS vs. U.O.I .

Parties in Main Petition - WP (Civil) No. 292 of 2006

Petitioners

1     DISABLED RIGHT GROUP
       THROUGH ITS CONVENOR MR. JAVED ABIDI, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D-31, 

        GROUND FLOOR, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI 

  

2      POOJA SHARMA S/D/W/Thru:- MR. R.K. SHARMA
        H.NO. 22, TYPE IV, HYDEL COLONY, FIELD HOSTEL COMPOUND, 

        VICTORIA PARK, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

Respondent(s)

1     UNION OF INDIA 

       THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
       MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SHASTRI BHAWAN, 

       DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, , DISTRICT: NEW DELHI 

2     THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
       SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI 

3     CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
       SAROJINI HOUSE, 6, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, NEW DELHI 

4     THE DIRECTOR, SYMBIOSIS (A DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
       DR. S.B. MUJUMDAR, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD,

       PUNE , MAHARASHTRA

5     THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
       SECRETARIAT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI ,  MAHARASHTRA

6     THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
       NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, IP ESTATE,  NEW DELHI 
  

7     THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF RAJASTHAN
       GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN , 

8     THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA
       VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
  

9     THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
       SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD,  ANDHRA PRADESH
  

10   THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION
       BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI ,  
  

11   DR. A.JAY AGOVIND, THE VICE CHANCELLOR
       NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA, NAGARBHAVI, 

       BANGALORE , KARNATAKA
 

12   PROF. RANBIR SINGH THE VICE CHANCELLOR
       NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, JUSTICE CITY, 

       SHAMEERPET, RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA
  

13   JUSTICE N.N. MATHUR, THE VICE CHANCELLOR
       NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR,NH-65, NAGOUR ROAD, 

       MANDORE, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN
  

14   THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
       21, ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, 

       DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY MARG , NEW DELHI 

Parties in Tagged Petition - WP (Civil) No. 997 of 2013

Petitioner

1     GEORGE PHILIPS S/D/W/Thru:- JOSEPH PHILIPS
       R/O D-2/199, KAKA NAGAR, NEW DELHI 

Respondent(s)
  

1     UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, 

       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,

       MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, 

       SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
  

2     MINISTRY OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THROUGH THE SECRETARY
       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, DELHI SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 
  

3     CENTRAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THE CHAIRMAN
       DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, 

       SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
  

4     THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

       SAROJINI HOUSE, 6 BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, NEW DELHI 

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Three issues are raised in this petition which is filed in public interest, for the benefit of persons suffering from ‘disabililty’ as per the definition contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 1995’) which now stands repealed and is replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’). The first issue related to the non-implementation of 3% reservation of seats in educational institutions as provided in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016. Second equally important issue raised in this petition, which is intimately connected with the first issue, is to provide proper access to orthopaedic disabled persons so that they are able to freely move in the educational institution and access the facilities. Third issue pertains to pedagogy i.e. making adequate provisions and facilities of teaching for disabled persons, depending upon the nature of their disability, to enable them to undertake their studies effectively.

We may state at the outset that though the petition as originally filed had confined these issues only to law colleges. In view of the fact that these issues are of seminal importance, this Court decided to extend the coverage by encompassing all educational institutions.

2) As can be discerned from the number assigned to this writ petition, it was filed in the year 2006 and, thus, is pending for eleven years. The reason was that this Court has been calling for the status report(s) from the respondents/Government Authorities from time to time about the implementation of the Disabilities Act insofar as provisions relating to the aforesaid aspects are concerned. Since the matter was ripe for passing final orders and directions, we deemed it proper to hear the counsel for the parties at length so that the writ petition is disposed of by giving final directions in this behalf.

(I) Re: 3% Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions

3) Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 reads as under:

“Section 39 : All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seat for persons with disabilities.”

4) As per this provision, all Government educational institutions as well as other educational institutions which are receiving aid from the Government are supposed to reserve seats for the benefit of persons with disabilities, which reservation shall not be less than 3%. Thus, 3% of the seats is the minimum reservation and it can be even more than 3%. This provision had come up for discussion before this Court in All Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of Kerala1 and the Court issued following directions therein:

“We...hold that Section 39 deals with the reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in government educational institutions as well as educational institutions receiving aid from the government, and necessarily therefore the provison thereof must be complied with.”

5) Disabilities Act, 2016 makes more exhaustive provisions insofar as providing of educational facilities to the persons with disabilities is concerned. Section 31 confers right to free education upon children with benchmark disabilities who are between the age of 6 to 18 years. This provision is made notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of 1 2002 (7) Scale 198 Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 32 makes provisions for reservation in higher educational institutions.

Section 34 provides for reservation in employment. Since, we are concerned with reservation of seats in educational institutions and as Section 32 directly deals with the same, we reproduce that provision hereunder:

“32. (1) All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.

(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.”

6) The educational institutions covered by this provision are not only the Government institutions of higher education but all those higher education institutions which are receiving aid from the Government.

Other pertinent aspect is that the extent of reservation is increased from 3% under Disabilities Act, 1995 to 5% under this Disabilities Act, 2016. One more important improvement made in Disabilities Act, 2016 over the earlier Act is that such provisions are made for ‘persons with bench mark disabilities’. This expression is defined in Section 2(r) which reads as under:

“Section 2(r) “person with benchmark disability” means a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority.”

7) It, thus, hardly needs to be emphasised that such educational institutions are bound to reserve seats from persons suffering from disability. Notwithstanding the same, grievance of the petitioner is that the educational institutions have not been adhering thereto.

8) No doubt, some progress is made in this behalf after the filing of this present petition and monitoring of the case by this Court, there is a need for complying with this provision to full extent. Accordingly, we direct that all those institutions which are covered by the obligations provided under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the provisions of Section 32 while making admission of students in educational courses of higher education each year. To this end, they shall submit list of the number of disabled persons admitted in each course every year to the Chief Commissioner and/or the State Commissioner (as the case may be). It will also be the duty of the Chief Commissioner as well as the State Commissioner to enquire as to whether these educational institutions have fulfilled the aforesaid obligation. Needless to mention, appropriate consequential action against those educational institutions, as provided under Section 89 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as other provisions, shall be initiated against defaulting institutions.

(II) & (III) Re: Provision for accessibility as well as facilities

9) In another judgment pronounced today itself in the case of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2005 with Anr.), this very Bench has given detailed directions for making appropriate provisions for accessibility of handicapped persons, though the scope of that petition was confined to persons suffering from visual impairment. However, various aspects discussed and directions given for making suitable provisions in this behalf would benefit persons suffering from other disabilities as well. Therefore, the position of law discussed in detail in the said judgment and the directions issued therein need not be repeated for the sake of brevity. We would, however, recapitulate following provisions contained in Disabilities Act, 2016: 

Section 2(i) - ‘establishment includes a Government establishment and private establishment” Section 2(k) - ‘Government establishment’ means a corporation established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local authority or a Government company as defined in section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes a Department of the Government.

Section 2(v) - “private establishment” means a company, firm, cooperative or other society, associations, trust, agency, institution, organisation, union, factory or such other establishment as the appropriate Government may, by notification, specify; (w) “public building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways; Section 2(w) - “public building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways;

Section 2(zd) - “transportation systems” includes road transport, rail transport, air transport, water transport, para transit systems for the last mile connectivity, road and street infrastructure, etc; Section 2(ze) - “universal design” means the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design and shall apply to assistive devices including advanced technologies for particular group of persons with disabilities. Section 2(b) - “appropriate Government” means,—

(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the Central Government;

(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.

Section 16 mandates the appropriate Government and the local authorities to endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities and towards that end shall make buildings, campus and various facilities accessible.

Section 25(1)(b) mandates the appropriate Government and local authority to take necessary measures for the persons with disabilities to provide barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private hospitals and other health care institutions and centres. Section 40 mandates the Central Government to frame Rules and laying down the standards of accessibility for physical environment, transportation system, information & communication system and other facilities & services to be provided to the public in urban and rural areas. Rule 15 deals with accessibility standards for public buildings, passenger bus transport and information and communication technology. As regards public buildings, the accessibility standards prescribed under the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development have been adopted. This implies that all the public buildings are now required to conform to these standards.

10) It hardly needs to be emphasised that Disabilities Act is premised on the fundamental idea that society creates the barriers and oppressive structures which impede the capacities of person with disabilities. Capability theorists like Martha Nussbaum are of the opinion that there cannot be a different set of capacities or a different threshold of capabilities for persons with disabilities. This raises the critical issue of creating a level playing field whereby all citizens to have equality of fair opportunities to enable them to realise their full potential and experience well-being. To ensure the level playing field, it is not only essential to give necessary education to the persons suffering from the disability, it is also imperative to see that such education is imparted to them in a fruitful manner. That can be achieved only if there is proper accessibility to the buildings where the educational institution is housed as well as to other facilities in the said building, namely, class rooms, library, bathrooms etc. Without that physically handicapped persons would not be able to avail and utilise the educational opportunity in full measure.

11) Various theories on different models of disability have emerged, namely, the Social Model of Disability, the Medical Model of Disability, the Rights Base Model of Disability, the Model of Ethical and Philosophical Status, the Economic Model of Disability etc 2. It is not necessary to delve into these different models of disabilities. However, for the purpose of the present case, some comments are required on the Social Model of Disability. The Social Model of Disability locates disability as being socially constructed through the creation of artificial attitudinal, organisational and environmental barriers. Impairment is regarded as being a normal part of the human condition, with everyone experiencing impairment differently and having different access needs. Life is accepted as including negative experiences, and impairment may 2 For detailed discussion, see Theoretizing the Models of Disability Philosophical Social and Medical Concepts-An Empirical Research based on existing Literature by Shanimon. S. and Rateesh. K. Nair be - but is not necessarily - one of them. Disabled people are defined as being people who experience the unnecessary barriers created by society within their daily life. Social Model of disability has gained ground in the international debate. This views disability as a social construct and emphasizes society's shortcomings, stigmatization and discrimination in its reaction to persons with disability. It distinguishes between functional impairments (disability) both of a physical and psychological nature, and the loss of equal participation in social processes that only arises through interaction with the social setting (handicap). These developments have contributed to a new (WHO) model, which bears in mind social as well as functional and individual factors in its classification of health and health-related areas. Keeping in view the above, proper facilities are need to be provided to differently-abled persons while having higher education.

12) Insofar as the rights base approach is concerned, that has been narrated in detail in Rajive Raturi’s judgment. We may add that a basic underline assumption, which is well recognised, is that everyone can learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable; and that, accordingly, all disabled persons (from whatever disability they are suffering) have right to get not only minimum education but higher education as well. Not making adequate provisions to facilitate proper education to such persons, therefore, would amount to discrimination. Such requirement is to ensure that even a student with disability, after proper education, will be able to lead an independent, economically self sufficient, productive and fully participatory life. This rights-based approach is an inclusive approach which class for the participation of all groups of the population, including disadvantaged persons, in the development process. Inclusive development builds on the idea of ‘Society for All’ in which all people are equally free to develop their potential, contribute their skills and abilities for the common good and to take up their entitlements to social services. It emphasises strengthening the rights of the people with disabilities, and foster their participation in all aspects of life. A disability is only actually a disability when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do. A lawyer can be just as effective in a wheelchair, as long as she has access to the courtroom and the legal library, as well as to whatever other places and material or equipment that are necessary for her to do her job well. A person who can’t hear can be a master carpenter or the head of a chemistry lab, if he can communicate with clients and assistants. A person with mental illness can nonetheless be a brilliant scholar or theorist3. The aforesaid discussion amply justifies right of access to students with disabilities to educational institutions in which they are admitted.

3 We have a celebrated examples of John Nash, a noted mathematician who earned laurels by getting noble prize and Stephen Hawkins.

13) It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that in the guidelines for development grant to colleges framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the UGC has specifically made provisions concerning ‘schemes for persons with disabilities’. There is a specific scheme in respect of Higher Education for Persons with Special Needs (HEPSN). This HEPSN scheme has three components, namely,

(i) Establishment of Enabling Units for differently-abled persons. The function of this unit as enumerated therein includes creating awareness about the needs of differently-abled persons, and other general issues concerning their learning. This special unit is to be guaranteed by a faculty member to be nominated by the Head of the Institution.

(ii) Component 2 of the scheme deals with providing access to differently-abled persons. For this purpose, UGC agreed to make a one-time grant of up to Rs.5 lakhs per college during the Plan period. To enable these institutions to make special arrangements in the environment for their mobility and independent functioning and to ensure that all existing structures as well as future construction projects in their campuses are made disabled friendly.

(iii) Third component deals with providing special equipment to augment educational services for differently-abled persons. It recognises that differently-abled persons require special aids and appliances for their daily functioning and that the higher educational institutes may need special learning and assessment devices in this behalf. In addition, visually challenged students need Readers. Thus, colleges are encourage to procure such devices such as computers with screen reading software, low-vision aids, scanners, mobility devices etc.

14) The petitioner had filed a compilation on February 22, 2016 containing suggestions, in the form of Guidelines, insofar as making adequate infrastructure for providing proper access and also teaching facilities (Pedagogy) for differently-abled persons are concerned: 

(I) INFRASTRUCTURE

(a) University/College Campus 

Barrier-free campus environment according to the provisions of Section 45 and Section 46 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 and further according to 2001 guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Planning a Barrier Free Environment”. Some specific examples – where a building is of more than 2 storeys, mandatory provision for lifts. Straight and barrier-free paths, removal of obstacles such as plants, furniture or bicycles adjacent to doors, entrances, on the steps or in corridors. Unnecessary interior decoration of areas should be avoided where the same leads to impairment of the mobility of disabled persons.

(b) On Campus Accommodation 

Priority assignment of on-campus/college hostel accommodation. Rooms assigned preferably on the ground floor. Suitable room and bathroom modifications in hostel such as provision of ramps and special fittings/adjustable furniture to facilitate mobility and comfort. Availability of attendant/helper/ assistant, as required, to help the disabled student with mobility and orientation in hostel. Special on-campus transportation on as-needed basis. Where no on-campus accommodation is provided, scheme for financial assistance to the disabled student for expenses for off-campus accommodation and related requirements such as helper/attendant, transport to/from campus, etc.

(c) Classroom 

For visually impaired – Braille symbols at appropriate places in classroom buildings to assist with orientation. Auditory signals in elevators and lifts leading to classrooms. For students with low vision, adequate lighting in the classroom via natural light or adequate provision of bulbs, tube lights, etc. Provision for recording of lectures. Power plug points for visually impaired students to fit in their aids and appliances such as audio recorder, laptop, computer etc. Classroom acoustics to be designed so that all audio communication is clearly audible.

For orthopaedic impaired – Classrooms in locations accessible to wheelchair users. Ramps in classroom buildings and adaptations in toilets for wheelchair users and orthopaedic disabled persons. Seating priority in classrooms with adequate space for wheelchair users to move around. Avoidance of teaching platforms as being difficult to access for orthopaedic impaired persons.

For hearing impaired – Clear and prominent signs indicating locations of courses and classrooms to assist with orientation. Seating for the hearing impaired student as well as a note-taker, located such that lip movement of instructor and sign language interpreter can easily be seen.

(d) Science Laboratories 

Structure and layout modifications of the laboratories for safety and comfort of the visually impaired and orthopaedic impaired/wheelchair users. Use of Braille instruction sheets and tactile visual material. Availability of assistants for help with laboratory activities, particularly where some risk is involved, such as handling of chemicals. Sigh language interpreters for hearing impaired.

(e) Libraries 

For visually impaired students, Braille section and fully accessible computer systems with scanning facilities, JAWS software and Braille embossers for printing. For low vision students, large print books and computers equipped with text enlarging software. Digital libraries. Library cataloguing on computer with JAWS. Sign language interpreters as required for hearing impaired.

(f) Pedagogy (Teaching) 

For visually impaired – Course material in accessible formats such as Braille, audio books and electronic formats such as e-files in ‘daisy’ format. Availability of readers, note takers, scribes. Suitable curriculum modification and assistance esp. for scientific/pictorial/graphical material and science laboratories. Computers with screen reading software, accessible library and reference materials. Availability of tape recorders/ digital voice recorders.

For orthopaedic impaired – Note takers and scribes, as required, especially for persons with upper limb impairment. Suitable curriculum modification and assistance, especially in science laboratories.

For hearing impaired – Note takers for classroom and provision of laptop/computer for note taking. Sign language interpreters for communication support in seminars, meetings, discussions and at all university/college functions. Suitable curriculum modification and assistance for science laboratories. Sub-titling of classroom video material. Technological support for any other necessary and appropriate technology, including computer technology, to assist the hearing impaired student with learning.

(g) Examination and Testing 

Modifications Extension of time, use of reader/scribe, use of computer/laptop. Availability of question papers in accessible formats, including large print, Braille, audio, daisy format. Option of writing exams on computer with screen reading software. Modification of pictorial and graphical material for visually impaired.

(h) University/College Administration 

Scribes, helpers and sign language interpreters for disabled students in interactions with university/college administration, especially for the admission process, meetings with staff/principal, on-campus company recruitment interviews and communication with college officials such as career counsellors, student counsellors, psychologists and any other person attached to the university/college who provides services of any type to the students. Special admissions window for disabled students. Sensitivity training on disability to administrative and pedagogic staff.

(i) Sports, Culture, Recreation and Leisure Facilities 

Universities/colleges to ensure that cultural/recreational programs take into account need of students with disabilities to provide for their full participation in such programs. Some specific examples in sports: running courses/tracks to be straight where visually impaired and orthopaedic impaired students are participating. Special sporting events to be conducted such as cricket for visually impaired and special events according to para-olympic norms for orthopaedic impaired. International norms to be modified where necessary to suit the needs of the disabled students. Trainers to be sensitized towards disability and inclusion and respective societies/associations to ensure that the information about events/contests reaches the disabled students also. Similarly, cultural activities with adequate modifications to be made available. For example, disabled students to be enabled to take part in theatre, literary, dance and music activities with the help of assistants. Hearing impaired students to be provided with an interpreter for sports and cultural activities of various types.

15) Based on the aforesaid suggestions, the petitioner made written submissions on February 22, 2016, seeking following directions:

“(a) For an order directing the UGC to carry out an inspection of the 3% reservation record of respondent Nos. 11, 12 and 13 to ensure that 3% reservation for persons with disabilities are complied with, including the backlog.

(b) For an order directing the UGC to inspect all institutions of higher education to ensure that these institutions are made disabled friendly and make a report to the Central Executive Committee and the State Executive Committees who will, in turn, ensure that the institutions are made disabled friendly.

(c) For an order directing the UGC to consider the “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated December 09, 2010 and after making such changes as deemed fit, to issue directions to all institutions of higher education, including law colleges, for compliance within a specified period.”

16) After coming into force the Disabilities Act, 2016, further directions are sought in tune with the provisions contained in the said Act, in the following manner:

“(d) For an order directing the Central Government under Section 40 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 to frame the rules for persons with disabilities laying down the standards of accessibility for colleges, universities and other higher educational institutions, including pedagogical measures such as reasonable accommodation, modifications and aids and appliances for lectures, curricula, teaching materials, laboratories, libraries, examinations, classrooms and hostels etc. within six months from today; and for a direction to the appropriate Governments to implement the said rules within two years from the notification of the said Rules in accordance with Section 46.

(e) For an order directing the Central Government to take into consideration the Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges, as submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with this Court’s order dated January 20, 2011, while framing the Rules under Section 40 of the Act.

(f) For an order directing the Central Government to create an audit template in conformity with the Rules for accessibility in higher educational institutions referred to in (m) above, and for a direction to the appropriate Governments (Central and State Governments, UGC, BCI) to conduct an audit of all higher educational institutions within six months from today and to put all the audit reports on a website.

(g) For an order directing the UGC, the Central and the State Governments to invite applications from higher educational institutions for funding under the various schemes for accessibility and to release funds in accordance thereof to facilitate accessibility measures in the educational institutions.

(h) For an order directing all higher educational institutions to make their institutions accessible in accordance with the Act and the Rules within two years of the notification of the rules; and for mandatory formation in each institution of the Enabling Unit for disabled students as per UGC scheme ‘HEPSN’ to ensure monitoring and implementation of the standards and guidelines contained in the Rules.

(i) For an order directing the Central and State Advisory Boards to monitor the implementation of the Act and Rules and the orders of this Court to ensure compliance.”

17) There cannot be any dispute that the suggestions given by the petitioner, which are reproduced above, appear to be reasonable and are worthy of implementation. However, at the same time, it would be appropriate to consider the feasibility thereof particularly with regard to the manner in which these can be implemented. This task can be undertaken by the UGC. Likewise, the directions which are sought by the petitioners are in consonance with the provisions contained in the Disabilities Act, 2016. In these circumstances, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:

(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in the educational institutions, we have already given directions in para 8 above that the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall be complied with by all concerned educational institutions. In addition to the directions mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are complied with or not.

(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the form of “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC shall consider the feasibility thereof by constituting a Committee in this behalf. In this Committee, the UGC would be free to include persons from amongst Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc. The Committee shall also lay down the time limits within which such suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee may also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert Committee. This exercise shall be completed by June 30, 2018.

(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On receipt of the report, the matter shall be placed before the Court.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) 

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) 

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 15, 2017

ITEM NO.1502                   COURT NO.6                       SECTION X

(FOR JUDGMENT)

                  S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F  I N D I A

                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil)      No(s).    292/2006

DISABLED RIGHT GROUP & ANR.                                 Petitioner(s)

                                      VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                       Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY : HON. A.K. SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]) WITH W.P.(C) No. 997/2013 (X) Date : 15-12-2017 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)     Mr.   Baijnath Patatel, Adv.

                      Ms.   Sweta, Adv.

                      Ms.   Romila, Adv.

                      Ms.   Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR

                     Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR

For Respondent(s)

                      Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR

                      Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR

                      Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR

                      Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR

                      Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR

                      Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

The writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in the educational institutions, we have already given directions in para 8 above that the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall be complied with by all concerned educational institutions. In addition to the directions mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are complied with or not.

(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the form of “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC shall consider the feasibility thereof by constituting a Committee in this behalf. In this Committee, the UGC would be free to include persons from amongst Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc. The Committee shall also lay down the time limits within which such suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee may also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert Committee. This exercise shall be completed by June 30, 2018.

(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On receipt of the report, the matter shall be placed before the Court.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         (Ashwani Thakur)                 (Mala Kumari Sharma)

         COURT MASTER                 COURT MASTER

Supreme Court of India: Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India (15 Dec 2017) [Judgement included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Case Number & Title: WP Civil 243 of 2005  |  Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India 

Date of Order: 15 Dec 2017

Cases Referred/ quoted:  Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. Union of India & Anr. ;