SC once again reaffirms reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in Siddaraju Vs. Govt. of Karnataka case [Judgement Included]

Court: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, V. Ramasubramanian
Case Title: Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 14-15 January, 2020
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2017

Date of Judgement: 14-15 Jan 2020

Author: Rohinton Fali Nariman

Brief:

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to our following earlier posts on various attempts of the Union of India to deny reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities citing Indra Sawhney Judgement,

1. Supreme Court says Section 33 entitles reservation for employees with disabilities in promotion in Group A, B, C and D alike [01 Jul 2016]
2. SC dismisses yet another attempt of Centre to sabotage reservation for employees with disabilities in promotion [03 Mar 2015]
3. SC clarifies 3% reservation in appointment for disabled extends to promotions & deputations as well [10 Oct 2014]
4. Physically Challenged Versus Logically Challenged [10 Dec 2013]

On 14 Jan 2020, a three judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian while hearing Civil Appeal  No. 1567 OF 2017 titled Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors and batch of connected matters, once again reiterated its earlier stand on reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities allowing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities in all the groups alike vis. Gp A, B, C or D.

A two judge bench of the SC had earlier clarified the same issue in matter titled Rajeev Gupta Vs. Union of India decided on 30 Jun 2016 had held that the bar against reservation in promotion in the Indra Sawhney judgment did not apply to persons with disabilities. The Court had then held that wherever posts are identified as suitable for persons with disabilities, 3% reservation must be given in direct recruitment as well as in promotion for employees with disabilities in Group A and B as it is given in Group C and D. The Govt. of India decided to however,  challenged it once again when the matter was referred to the present three judge bench to decide the question whether persons with disabilities were entitled to being granted reservation in promotion in view of the bar against reservation in promotion in the Indra Sawhney judgment along with batch of connected matters.

The lead case this time was Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka. In the instant case,  a disabled employee of the Karnataka Government approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking the benefit of reservation in promotion. The High Court dismissed his case in March 2016, before the SC judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s case was pronounced. Siddaraju appealed before the Supreme Court, and on 05 Jan 2017, a two judge bench presided over by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel referred the matter to a larger (i.e. three judge) bench. Justice Goel’s bench felt that the Government’s contention that reservation in promotion was constitutionally impermissible, according to the 1992 SC judgment in Indra Sawhney’s case, deserved further consideration.

The three judge bench has once again reiterated its stand that Indra Sawhney judgement only applied to reservations under Art 16(4) of Constitution of India in favour of backward classes being a vertical reservation. The reservation in favour of persons with disabilities was covered under Article 16(1) and was a horizontal reservation and did not affect the total 50% ceiling of reservation.

Below is the judgement delivered on 14-15 Jan 2020 in the lead case Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka:

Towards Inclusive Education in Delhi: A Landmark Order on Special Educators in Schools by SCPD Delhi in Reshma Parveen Vs. Director of Education NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Court: State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. T. D. Dhariyal
Case No. : Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84
Case Title: Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others
Date of Judgement/Order: 31.12.2019

Brief Introduction

In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director of Education, NCT of Delhi & Others (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.

Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.

Her demands included:

• Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.
• Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.
• Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.
• Quality education access for children with disabilities.

Key Submissions from Respondents

Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:

• North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.
• Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.
• NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.
• EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.
• Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.
• RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.
• NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.

Expert Opinions and Key Observations

Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the Commissioner convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:

• No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.
• Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:
• 1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy
• 1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD
• 1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities
• While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.
• The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.

Directions & Recommendations by the Court

The Commissioner, invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:

1. Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.
2. Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.
3. Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.
4. Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).
5. Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.
6. Curriculum reform:

• NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.
• NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.

7. Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.
8. Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.

On RCI’s concern, the Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.

Reference in Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.

Conclusion and Impact

This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.

The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.

Read the Order 

Religious Places Must Be Accessible: Delhi State Commissioner Directs Time-Bound Action to Ensure the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Worship

Authority: Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, NCT of Delhi
Commissioner: Shri T.D. Dhariyal, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case Nos.: 237/1101/2018/05 and connected cases
Case Title: Suo Motu v. District Magistrates of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Date of Order: 15 October 2019

The Issue

Can a person with disability be denied meaningful access to a place of worship merely because the temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, dargah or other religious place is inaccessible? The Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities answered this question unequivocally: No.

In a significant suo motu order dated 15 October 2019, the State Commissioner examined the accessibility of places of worship across all 11 districts of Delhi and directed the concerned authorities to undertake time-bound measures to make religious places accessible to persons with disabilities.

The order is important because it moves the discourse on accessibility of religious places beyond charity or assistance. It recognises accessibility to worship as a legal right flowing from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The proceedings were initiated against the District Magistrates after an earlier suo motu exercise on inaccessible built environments and transport had failed to obtain information regarding places of worship, hotels, restaurants and entertainment facilities, many of which were managed by private establishments or trusts.

Religious Places Are “Public Buildings” Under the RPwD Act

A significant feature of the order is its reliance on the statutory definition of “public building” under Section 2(w) of the RPwD Act.

The definition expressly includes buildings used or accessed by the public for religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, apart from educational institutions, workplaces, commercial establishments, public utilities, hospitals, courts, railway stations, bus stands, airports and other facilities.

Similarly, the definition of “public facilities and services” under Section 2(x) expressly includes religious and cultural services alongside education, employment, healthcare, banking, communication, transportation and access to justice.

Thus, the statutory scheme leaves little room for treating religious places as being outside the accessibility framework merely because they are managed by private trusts, societies, committees or other organisations.

Accessibility Is a Statutory Obligation, Not an Act of Charity

The Commissioner referred to Section 45 of the RPwD Act, which requires existing public buildings to be made accessible in accordance with the accessibility rules.

The order also referred to Section 46, which requires service providers—whether Government or private—to provide services in accordance with the accessibility rules.

Importantly, Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules, 2017 required the prescribed standards for public buildings to be followed with reference to the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons.

The Commissioner therefore rejected the notion that accessibility could be left to the goodwill of individual religious institutions.

The order specifically states that making existing public buildings—including places of worship such as mandirs, gurudwaras, masjids and churches—accessible is the responsibility of the concerned trusts, committees, establishments or organisations.

The Right to Worship Must Be Exercised on an Equal Basis

The proceedings were not confined to the physical entry of a person with disability into a religious building.

The District Magistrates were asked to ensure that persons with disabilities could enjoy their right to worship on an equal basis with others.

The Commissioner went further and directed that accessibility should extend to the different components of the religious experience, including:

• the main place of worship;
• the sanctum sanctorum;
• points for distribution or sale of prasad;
• facilities for purchasing worship material such as flowers;
• drinking-water facilities;
• toilets; and
• parking facilities, wherever provided.

The direction was not merely to identify inaccessible premises but to ensure that the concerned managements were guided and assisted in making these facilities accessible.

This is a particularly important aspect of the order. Accessibility is not achieved merely by installing a ramp at the entrance if the person with disability cannot independently or meaningfully participate in the religious activity itself.

The Ground Reality: Large-Scale Inaccessibility

The order provides an unusually useful snapshot of the state of accessibility of religious places in Delhi in 2019.

Information obtained from the 11 districts showed considerable variations:

District	Total Places of Worship	Accessible	Inaccessible
South-East	283	126 (44.5%)	157
North-East	101	74 (73%)	27
North	110	72 (65.4%)	38
East	457	28 (6.1%)	429
Shahdara	263	23 (8.74%)	240
New Delhi	85	49 (57.6%)	36
West	202	126 (62.37%)	76
Central	22	1 (4.54%)	21
North-West	326	13 (3.98%)	313
South-West	430	12 (2.79%)	418
South	50	23 (46%)	27

The data revealed particularly serious gaps in districts such as South-West, North-West, Central, East and Shahdara. The Commissioner also noted that many of the figures submitted by District Magistrates were incomplete or inaccurate and, in some instances, had apparently been supplied without physical verification.

The order therefore highlights another important principle: accessibility cannot be assessed merely on the basis of declarations by building owners or administrators. It requires meaningful verification against accessibility requirements.

Physical Verification Revealed Serious Gaps

The Commissioner recorded that some districts had not even identified all places of worship within their jurisdiction.

In several cases, information about accessibility was inaccurate. The officials collecting the information were themselves apparently unfamiliar with the accessibility requirements, despite having been provided with an easy-to-understand checklist. In one instance, an SDM office was even reported as a place of worship.

This led to an important administrative lesson: accessibility monitoring requires both institutional responsibility and technical understanding of accessibility.

A Significant Observation Following Physical Visits

The Commissioner personally visited several prominent religious places in Delhi, including Jama Masjid, Sis Ganj Gurdwara, Gauri Shankar Mandir, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir, Dargah Alia Hazrat, Birla Mandir, Sacred Heart Cathedral, Hanuman Mandir, Gurdwara Bangla Sahib and Sai Mandir.

The observations were revealing.

While some accessibility facilities, including ramps, had been provided at gurudwaras and churches, the Commissioner observed that the temples visited had not similarly provided such facilities. At some inaccessible places, management representatives stated that persons using wheelchairs or having other disabilities would be assisted whenever they came to worship.

The order rightly drew a distinction between assistance and accessibility.

The Commissioner particularly appreciated the chair lift installed at Gurudwara Sis Ganj, despite the extremely congested location, and noted the efforts of Gurdwara Bangla Sahib to facilitate worship by persons with disabilities.

The underlying message is significant: a person with disability should not have to depend upon the physical assistance or goodwill of another person to exercise a basic right that others can exercise independently.

Accessibility Must Extend to the Sanctum Sanctorum

One of the strongest observations in the order concerns participation in religious activities.

The Commissioner noted that even where it might not be possible to make every place of worship fully accessible according to prescribed standards, the concerned trust, society or organisation must make its best efforts to enable persons with disabilities—particularly persons with restricted mobility—to participate in all religious activities according to their choice, including access to the sanctum sanctorum.

This is a valuable interpretation of accessibility.

A person with disability cannot be considered “included” merely because he or she can enter the premises and remain at a designated location while others proceed to the principal place of worship. Meaningful participation is the objective of accessibility.

“We Do Not Have Funds” Is Not an Answer

The Commissioner also dealt expressly with the argument that some religious trusts or committees lacked sufficient funds to create accessibility features such as ramps.

The order clarified that there was, at that time, no Government of India or State Government scheme providing funds for making existing public buildings accessible. Nevertheless, the statutory responsibility to make existing public buildings accessible remained with the concerned trusts, committees, establishments or organisations.

The order further stated that where a person, trust, society, committee or organisation proposes to undertake religious activity at a place open to the public, accessibility to the facility, service and building must be mandatory, and the concerned licensing, regulatory or approving authority should make this requirement explicit.

This has wider implications beyond existing religious buildings: accessibility should form part of regulatory approval and licensing processes for religious establishments open to the public.

Reliance on the “Guidelines for Making the Religious Places Accessible”

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the order for accessibility practitioners is its express reliance on the “Guidelines for Making the Religious Places Accessible.”

The Commissioner recommended that accessibility audits of large and important places of worship be conducted and that such places be made accessible, as far as possible, in accordance with these Guidelines.

The order records that the Guidelines were published by the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities with the help of Svayam, and directed that copies of the Guidelines and the checklist used during the proceedings be disseminated to the functionaries managing places of worship in Delhi.

It is noteworthy that these Guidelines were authored by Subhash Chandra Vashishth while serving at Svayam. Their reference in this order demonstrates the importance of translating the general statutory mandate of accessibility into sector-specific practical guidance for religious places.

From Compliance to Replication: Model Accessible Places of Worship

The Commissioner did not stop at directions for individual religious places.

District Magistrates were encouraged to identify a few places of worship and develop them as model accessible places of worship, which could subsequently be replicated across Delhi and the country.

The order contemplated that successful models could be circulated to State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities for replication across the then 731 districts of the country.

This is an important policy approach: rather than treating accessibility as a collection of isolated retrofitting exercises, the administration could develop demonstrable models covering different faith traditions, building typologies and site constraints.

Awareness and Sensitisation Are Part of the Legal Framework

The Commissioner also invoked Section 39 of the RPwD Act, which requires the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner, to conduct, encourage, support or promote awareness campaigns and sensitisation programmes to protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

The order emphasised that this awareness-building must extend not only to government officials but also to the functionaries of trusts, committees and organisations managing places of worship.

Thus, accessibility requires more than physical modifications. It requires institutional sensitisation, trained personnel, accessible procedures and an understanding of disability rights.

Directions and Recommendations

The State Commissioner ultimately recommended, among other things, that:

1. Every District Magistrate maintain consolidated information concerning all places of worship in the district.
2. Large and important religious places be subjected to accessibility audits wherever necessary.
3. Accessibility be assessed with reference to the prescribed Guidelines for Making Religious Places Accessible.
4. The checklist developed during the proceedings be disseminated among religious institutions.
5. Time-bound action plans be prepared for inaccessible places.
6. The concerned monitoring committee undertake sample physical verification of places of worship.
7. Model accessible places of worship be developed for replication.
8. The concerned authorities report action taken within three months in accordance with Section 81 of the RPwD Act.

The proceedings were thereafter disposed of by the State Commissioner on 15 October 2019.

Why This Order Matters

The order is significant for at least five reasons.

1. Religious freedom and disability rights intersect

The order recognises that the right of persons with disabilities to participate in religious life cannot be separated from accessibility. Religious inclusion is disability inclusion.

2. Private management does not take religious places outside the RPwD Act

The fact that a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church or other place of worship is managed by a trust, society or committee does not by itself exempt it from accessibility obligations when it is a public building or provides services to the public.

3. Assistance is not a substitute for accessibility

Being carried up a staircase, being physically assisted into a place of worship or being offered worship material outside the premises cannot be treated as equivalent to accessible and dignified participation. The objective must be independence, dignity, choice and equal participation.

4. Accessibility must cover the entire user journey

The order's reference to sanctum sanctorum, prasad, worship material, drinking water, toilets and parking is a reminder that accessibility is not synonymous with a ramp. A genuinely accessible religious place must consider the complete experience of the worshipper.

5. Accessibility must be planned, monitored and verified

The experience of the Delhi proceedings demonstrated that merely asking authorities to submit information is insufficient. Physical verification, accessibility audits, technical guidance, timelines and monitoring mechanisms are all necessary.

A Continuing Reminder for Religious Institutions

The Delhi State Commissioner's order was made in 2019, when the statutory deadlines under Sections 45 and 46 were still running. The order specifically recorded that existing public buildings were required to be made accessible within five years of the notification of the relevant Rules, and emphasised that action plans had to be prepared well before the deadline rather than waiting until the last day.

The significance of the order, however, extends beyond those historical deadlines.

Accessibility is now firmly embedded in the legal architecture of the RPwD Act. Religious institutions open to the public must therefore view accessibility not as a favour extended to persons with disabilities but as part of their legal and social responsibility.

The question should no longer be:

“How will we help a person with disability enter our place of worship?”

It should be:

“Can a person with disability enter, worship, participate, access facilities and leave with the same dignity, independence and choice as everyone else?”

That is the real test of an accessible place of worship.

DRI Takeaway

The 15 October 2019 order of the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is an important disability-rights precedent for equal access to religious life.

Its central message remains highly relevant:

"A place of worship open to the public is not outside the accessibility mandate merely because it is a religious institution or is managed by a private trust."

The RPwD Act recognises religious buildings as public buildings and religious services as public facilities and services. Accessibility therefore extends to the building, facilities, services and meaningful participation in religious activities.

For persons with disabilities, the right to worship cannot depend upon being carried, assisted or accommodated as an afterthought.

A ramp may provide entry. Accessibility must provide participation.

Read the Judgement

Suo Motu Case Nos. 237/1101/2018/05 and connected matters, Order dated 15 October 2019 

Supreme Court on Reservation of NEET seats - "when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai

Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 885/2019

Case Title: Vidhi Himmat Katariya and others Vs  The State of Gujarat and others

Date of Judgement: October 04, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1137; SCC Online SC 1318

Brief:

The Petitioners were students appearing for the NEET Exam for admission to MBBS Courses across the country. They sought to be considered persons with disabilities eligible to claim reservation under the PwD Category. The regulations of Graduate Medical Education in MCI were amended in 2019 and whereby Appendix ‘H’ came to be added to the erstwhile Regulations, 2017 – providing for minimum degree of disability to be 40% (Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with specified disability. Appendix ‘H’ further provided that in case of ‘physical disability or locomotor disability’, the applicant may be assessed for “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion” as essential to be considered eligible for medical course”.

Therefore, the medical board denied admission to Petitioners under persons with disabilities category by stating that they are not eligible for reservation under this category under the amended Regulations.

Petitoners claimed that the relevant provisions of Regulations, 2019 – “Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered” has been applied by the State Government to non­suit the petitioners for medical course in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind. 

Petitioners appealed to the Appellate Medical Board, which upheld the previous decision. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 for relief. The Court ruled in favour of the state and declined to grant admission to the petitioners by stating as below:

"Now so far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners that while denying admission to the petitioners the State Government and/or authorities have not considered the relevant parameters and have not considered that the respective petitioners are able to perform well is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case all the expert bodies including the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and even the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi consisting of the experts have opined against the petitioners and their cases are considered in light of the relevant essential eligibility criteria as mentioned in Appendix ‘H’ – ‘Both hands intact, with intact sensation, sufficient strength and range of motion’. Therefore, when the experts in the field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts – in the present case, the Medical Board, Medical Appellate Board and the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi, more particularly when there are no allegations of mala fides."

Judgement:

Court of SCPD expresses displeasure on indifference and arrogant behaviour shown by bureaucrats in implementing RPwD Act 2016 [Judgement Included]

Dear colleagues,

The present case is a classic example of how the siloed approach on the part of the responsible officers at the helm makes it extremely difficult for a statutory authority like the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) to perform their statutory functions.  The Hon'ble Court raises concern in its order in the present case on arrogantly irresponsive, indifference and ineffective approach  which as per the court is indeed a matter of grave concern and can have serious consequences for the persons with disabilities as an extremely proactive approach is needed to facilitate implementation of the socially beneficial Act. 

In the instant case, titled as Case No. 324/1101/2018/06/6061-6064  Dated: 24.09.2019 Suo Motu Vs. Commissioner (T&T), Delhi initiated on the complaint of a decorated Air Force veteran named Group Captain Prabal Malakar (Retd.), who is a wheelchair user and happens to be the Honorary Secretary, Multiple Sclerosis Society of India-Delhi Chapter about the problems of accessibility he faces while visiting hotels and cinema halls in the city. While most respondents took immediate action on the advise of the Hon'ble Court, the respondent  The Commissioner (Trade and Taxes), Govt. of NCT of Delhi who deals with the hotels in the city, did not respond even to several record of proceedings. 

Though the Hon'ble Court of SCPD could have easily enforced the attendance of the respondent under Section 82 of the Act or could have taken punitive provision under section 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, it chose to express its displeasure in its order in the following terms: 

"This reminds me of Dr. Naresh Chandra Saxena, former IAS Officer’s recent Book, “What Ails the IAS and Why It Fails to Deliver” in which he describes how the new reforms that are initiated fail to make any impact because most officers resist change and or are indifferent to the poor and the marginalised ones.  In the context of this case and a few others that I have dealt with as the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities during the last two and a half years, much of the deprivation of the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities happens due to inadequate awareness, sensitivity, indifference to their plight and shying away from their responsibility at almost all the levels.  Its preponderance and pervasiveness at higher echelons has most detrimental effect.   

It further goes on to record,  "I am recording my unpleasant experience and the observations in this order with much reluctance and anguish and I am not relishing having to do so. In fact, I am doing so with a heavy heart and under a painful necessity respecting the call of my bounden duty. I feel that I will be failing in my duty if I let go of the lackadaisical approach, apathy and irresponsiveness for as long a period as five months by Commissioner of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax in November 2018 and eight months by the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes in July 2019 only to say that they cannot and would not do anything in the matter coupled with the arrogance on the part of the public authority especially at the helm of affairs. This manifests abdication of obligation and shying away from the responsibility is a matter of serious concern. No effort should be spared to ensure that the credibility quotient of public/govt. authorities is kept at an all-time high if the RPwD Act is to be implemented in letter and spirit."

The Hon'ble Court of SCPD has passed its order as below:

(i) The respondent Department should send out at least a communication to all the Hotels and Restaurants operating in NCT of Delhi and to the President of the Federation of the Hotels and Restaurants Associations of India to ensure accessibility to their premises (built environment) by 15th June, 2022 and provide accessible public facilities and services to persons with disabilities with immediate effect as the date for the same is already over on 15th June, 2019 as mandated in the RPwD Act, 2016 under intimation to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  I will of course continue taking up with them as well as with the civic authorities and make appropriate recommendations.

(ii)  I reiterate my recommendation to the worthy Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi that a workshop should be organised urgently for officers at all levels in the NCT of Delhi/Corporations etc. and at regular intervals thereafter to make them aware of  the provisions of the RPwD Act and their obligations under it and review the status of implementation of the provisions of the Act.  Need for such workshops has been brought to my notice by various stakeholders, more particularly by the primary stakeholders based on their bitter experiences and the feedback of the participants of the 9 workshops that this court has organised on the provisions of the RPwD Act and reservation for persons with disabilities in collaboration with UTCS since July 2017.

The respondent is duty bound under Section 81 of the RPwD Act 2016 to inform the court of the action taken on the recommendations made by the court within three months.

Read the Court Judgement in the above Case No. 324/1101/2018/06/6061-6064 Dated: 24.09.2019 here (in Word file)  and here (in PDF file)

Delhi High Court Order on recognition of Indian Sign Language as one of the Official Languages

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar

Case No. :WP(C) No. 9546/2018

Case Title: Nipun Malhotra Vs. Union of India

Date of Decision: 09 July 2019

Authored by: Justice DN Patel

 Download:   [PDF 1 MB]

Ensure Equal Opportunity in Sports under RPWD Act : Delhi High Court Reinforces the Rights of Para Athletes

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice A.K. Chawla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12060/2018
Case Title: Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India & Ors.
Decided on: 1 July 2019
Neutral Citation: 2019:DHC:4583

Background

The Delhi High Court, in Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India, addressed a significant issue concerning the recognition, governance, and promotion of para sports in India. The petition was instituted by Sunil Tanwar, an internationally acclaimed para athlete and Arjuna Award recipient, who sought effective implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities in the field of sports.

The petition highlighted systemic deficiencies in the administration of para sports, including disputes over the recognition of National Sports Federations (NSFs), inadequate governmental oversight, lack of institutional support for para athletes, and the consequent impact on India's participation in international para sporting events.

The petitioner argued that despite the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and India's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), persons with disabilities continued to face significant barriers in accessing sporting opportunities on an equal basis with others.

During the proceedings, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports informed the Court about various steps taken to streamline the administration of para sports and to recognize appropriate National Sports Federations for disabled athletes.

Issues Before the Court

The principal issues before the Court were:

• Whether the Union Government had fulfilled its statutory obligations to promote and regulate para sports in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016.
• Whether adequate institutional mechanisms existed for recognition and governance of para sports federations.
• Whether persons with disabilities were receiving equal opportunities in sporting activities as mandated under domestic and international law.
• Whether further judicial directions were required to strengthen the administration of para sports.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court emphasized that sports constitute an important dimension of social inclusion, dignity, rehabilitation, and empowerment for persons with disabilities.

The Court observed that the RPwD Act, particularly Section 30, casts a statutory obligation upon the appropriate Government and sports authorities to ensure effective participation of persons with benchmark disabilities in sporting activities at every level.

The Bench noted that India has also undertaken binding international commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, requiring equal participation of persons with disabilities in recreational, leisure, and sporting activities.

During the hearing, the Union Government placed before the Court various measures undertaken to improve the governance of para sports, including:

• Recognition of appropriate National Sports Federations.
• Development of transparent mechanisms for participation in international competitions.
• Financial assistance and training support for para athletes.
• Institutional reforms intended to improve administration and eliminate disputes affecting athletes.

The Court appreciated the efforts undertaken by the Government and observed that the reforms initiated would significantly strengthen India's para sports ecosystem.

Recognizing that the executive had already initiated corrective measures, the Court considered it unnecessary to issue further mandatory directions.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition after recording the assurances and submissions made by the Union Government. The Court:

• Took note of the policy measures introduced for better governance of para sports.
• Recorded the Government's commitment to ensuring transparent administration of National Sports Federations dealing with disability sports.
• Expected the authorities to continue implementing the reforms in accordance with the RPwD Act and international obligations.
• Disposed of the writ petition while leaving it open to affected parties to seek appropriate remedies if future grievances arose.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is significant because it reaffirmed that promotion of sports for persons with disabilities is not merely a welfare measure but a statutory and constitutional obligation.

First, the Court recognized the importance of Section 30 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which requires Governments and sports authorities to facilitate participation of persons with disabilities in mainstream and disability-specific sporting activities.

Secondly, the judgment underscored India's obligations under the UNCRPD, reinforcing that disability rights extend beyond education and employment to include equal opportunities in sports.

Thirdly, by recording the Government's commitments, the Court encouraged administrative reforms without unnecessarily interfering in policy formulation, thereby respecting the separation of powers.

Finally, the decision contributed to strengthening institutional accountability in the governance of para sports, an area that had long been affected by administrative uncertainty and federation disputes.

Commentary

The judgment in Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India represents an important stage in the evolution of disability rights jurisprudence relating to sports governance in India.

Unlike many disability rights cases focused on accessibility or reservation in public employment, this litigation emphasized the importance of equal sporting opportunities as an essential component of dignity, inclusion, and social participation.

The Court's approach was pragmatic. Rather than issuing extensive mandatory directions, it monitored the Government's response, ensured that reforms were placed on record, and emphasized continued compliance with statutory obligations under the RPwD Act.

The decision also highlights that the success of disability rights depends not only upon legislative guarantees but equally upon robust institutional mechanisms capable of supporting athletes throughout their sporting careers.

Subsequent developments in India's para sports framework—including greater governmental recognition of para athletes, improved financial support, enhanced training infrastructure, and increased participation in international competitions—reflect the broader movement toward inclusive sports governance, of which this litigation formed an important part.

The judgment thus reinforces the principle that persons with disabilities have an equal right to participate, compete, excel, and represent the nation in sports, and that governments bear a continuing responsibility to create an enabling environment where talent is recognized irrespective of disability.

Read the Judgement

W.P.(C) 12060/2018, Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India & Ors. dated 01 July 2019