National Consumer Court directs LIC Chief to inculcate systemic improvements in future for “apt logical decision-making" for claims of persons with disabilities

New Delhi 11 July 2020

Court: NCDRC Delhi, Case No. RP/1849/2019   

Parties: Life Insurance Corporation of INdia Versus Anil Laxman Matade

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), has imposed a cost of  Rs 2.5 lakh on Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), and has directed it to pay the amount over and above the insured sum of Rs 1 lakh with 9% annual interest to a father and his daughter with intellectual disabilities. The Commission has come down heavily on the LIC for its adamant “mechanical decision-making without application of mind” while refusing to pay the assured amount.

Showing a mirror to LIC, the order said, "the name of the policy is very attractive “Jeevan Adhaar” i.e. “Life Support”, but, at times, this policy makes the consumer, in certain cases, as in the instant case, helpless, i.e. “Niradhar”, “life without support”- “crippled”. Thus, the insured is thrown in vacua..! after 20 years payment of all premiums." 

Background of the case

Mr. Anil Laxman Matade of Sangli in Maharashtra had taken Jeevan Aadhaar policy of LIC for his daughter with Down syndrome. The LIC had refused to pay the assured amount to Matade even years after he made full payment of premiums while citing conditions, which specified that only 20% of the amount would be released after his death and the rest in installments in 15 years.

Both the district consumer forum and Maharashtra State Consumer Commission had ordered in favour of Mr. Matade, but the LIC challenged the order in the NCDRC. The age of Mr. Matade's daughter is 34 and she has 75% mental disability.

Court's Order

The order passed by NCDRC on 10 July 2020  while holding the public sector insurance company responsible for “intransigent mechanical decision-making” and for going for litigation as a matter of routine, a two-member bench comprising Dr S M Kantikar and Dinesh Singh advised its chief executive to inculcate systemic improvements in future for “apt logical decision-making” in such cases of congenital mental disabilities in which the dependent cannot think and act for herself or himself.

The bench observed it was not amending the general terms and conditions of the policy, which specified that the sum assured is to be paid to the handicapped dependents/ nominees on the death of the insured. “However, the policy and its terms and conditions cannot be implemented in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without application of mind and without having regard to the facts and specificities of a particular case,” the order said.

It said the plight of a child and of her father and mother, and especially in the case of a girl-child having Down’s Syndrome, had to be understood and kept in view by the LIC with the due application of mind at the competent level while deciding Matade’s request to release sum assured immediately so that he may make adequate arrangements for his daughter while he is still alive.

“The LIC failed to appreciate that the daughter, a person with Down’s Syndrome would be in no position to apply her brain and to act for herself so as to make appropriate arrangements for her well-being on her own, when her father is no more, and that she would be in no position to pursue her claim with the LIC, far less agitate it in the consumer protection fora/ civil courts,” the order said.

The Court further warned the LIC saying, “Needless to add, in case of failure or omission in timely compliance, the District Forum shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ under section 25(3) and for ‘penalties’ under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

It is pertinent to mention that in January 2009, Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission had fined LIC for rejecting the claim of a Police Constable who suffered 69% disability due to amputation in hand on the ground that he was capable of earning wages, since he was allowed to continue working with Delhi Police for compassionate reasons under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

Judgement dated 10 July 2020 

Download PDF Here or read below

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2019

(Against the Order dated 03/04/2019 in Appeal No. 605/2018 of the State Commission Maharashtra)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY(LEGAL) 

CENTRAL OFFICE H-39, FIRST FLOOR, 

NEW ASIATIC BUILDING CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI-110001                                                                     ...........Petitioner(s)

Versus  

ANIL LAXMAN MATADE

R/O. RAHUL COMPLEX, FLAT NO. 2, GUEST HOUSE,
SANGLI-416416
MAHARASHTRA                                                                        ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:  
  HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
  HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER

Dated : 10 Jul 2020

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 10th JULY 2020

ORDER PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The present Revision Petition is against the Order dated 03.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. A/18/605.

2.       In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Petitioner LIC, to decide the case on merit, the self-admitted delay of 15 days in filing the petition is condoned.

3.       Briefly, the case of the Complainant is that the Petitioner LIC issued a policy under its ‘Jeevan Adhaar Plan– without profits - with accident benefits’ to the Complainant Anil Laxman Matade w.e.f. 25.07.1996 for sum assured Rs. 1,00,000/-. The half yearly premium was Rs. 2,257/-. The Complainant’s wife was the nominee. The policy was for the benefit / welfare of the Complainant’s daughter who was mentally challenged with congenital Down’s Syndrome. The Complainant paid all premiums regularly till the maturity of the policy on 25.01.2015. After the policy matured, the Complainant claimed the sum assured from the Petitioner LIC, but the Petitioner LIC refused. Further, as averred by the Complainant, he was surprised and taken aback to be told that 20% of the sum assured would be paid to his dependent mentally challenged girl-child only after his death and the remaining 80% would be paid to her over a further period of 15 years thence.

4.       Being aggrieved by the refusal of the LIC to pay the sum assured, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Sangli alleging deficiency in service.  

5.       The LIC filed its written version and argued that the policy was for the benefit of only the dependant and would become effective only after the demise of the insured Complainant. The insured Complainant was not entitled for any payment during his lifetime. As per the terms and conditions of the policy only 20% of the sum assured was payable to the mentally challenged dependent daughter after the death of the insured Complainant and the remaining 80% was payable to her over the next 15 years.

6.       The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the LIC to pay the sum assured, Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 25.01.2016 to the insured Complainant and also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

7.       The LIC preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

8.       Both the fora below, the District Forum and the State Commission, have returned concurrent findings in favour of the Complainant.

9.       We find the State Commission’s impugned Order to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. No jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is evident, as may require interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

10.     We may but add that, admittedly, the Complainant had paid all premiums for 20 years without any default, the last premium was paid on 25.01.2015, after the period of 20 years was over, he did not receive the sum assured from the LIC despite several requests, he waited for one year and thereafter served a legal notice on the LIC on 26.06.2016, the LIC has not shown any logical application of mind to the peculiarities of this case, but has intransigently adhered to a mechanical straightjacketed application of its terms and conditions by rote.

11.     From the record it is evident that the present age of the Complainant’s daughter is about 34 years, she is having 75% mental disability. No doubt the old parents have to struggle for the welfare and care of their Down’s - adult girl.  They are also concerned for her safety from unforeseen sexual exploitation. She needs to undergo hysterectomy. The Complainant has this only girl, he has no relatives who can look after his such handicapped daughter. 

12.     The LIC has brought this product to the consumers under the clothing of uberrima fide. The name of the policy is very attractive “Jeevan Adhaar” i.e. “Life Support”, but, at times, this policy makes the consumer, in certain cases, as in the instant case, helpless, i.e. “Niradhar”, “life without support”- “crippled”. Thus, the insured is thrown in vacua..! after 20 years payment of all premiums.  

13.     The Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements from time to time, and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers. Given the facts in the present case at hand, the interests of the consumer can be protected only if he is provided a remedy from all angles for the care of his Down’s adult girl. It is a fight between two unequal. The intention of LIC is not to pay a single penny till the death of insured, which makes the father helpless (the whole matter cannot even be understood by the mentally – challenged dependent daughter for whose benefit the father took the policy and paid premiums for 20 years).  It is obvious that to secure the future of his daughter, the father, with good intention, took such policy, but he has been put to trouble and prejudice and made to struggle and face the intransigent arbitrariness of the LIC.  The approach of the LIC in the instant case is contrary to the principle of uberrima fide.

14.     To know about the agony & gravity of “Down’s syndrome and its social effects” we have gone through voluminous medical literature on the subject. Down’s syndrome is caused by triplicate chromosome 21 (Trisomy 21). The syndrome has a variable physical expression, sometimes it is associated with congenital cardiac defects, transient myelodysplasia (acute leukaemias) and duodenal atresia of the new-born. The care of the infant or young child with Down syndrome can be complicated and may involve a myriad of immediate and long-term medical problems, psychomotor and psychosexual development connected with mental retardation and endocrine disorders. Generalized tonic clonic seizures are the most common. IQs range from low normal to profoundly retarded.

15.     When the parents first learn that their baby has Down syndrome, they may feel disappointment, grief, anger, frustration, fear, and anxiety about her future.  The parents may react with shock, denial, anger, grief, fear, acceptance or any combination of these emotions. The Parents often have strong fears about the future of their child with Down’s disabilities. Dealing with the idea of someone else taking care of their child is never easy. As parents, their worry is that child will not be adequately prepared for the world. It is difficult for many to plan for such child. They face and realise their own mortality. There is a feeling always that no one will ever love, care for, and support their child. Thus the parents having Down’s daughter suffer agony and apathy throughout their life. Many parents think that if their child has money, he’ll be safe. Obviously, the financial resources, money, can help to make the child’s life more secure after the death of her parents.

16.     Privacy is important. The sexuality is an intrinsic aspect of human development. Individuals with Down’s syndrome need individualized instruction and education to develop appropriate socio-sexual behaviours. They still require routine and preventive reproductive health services including urological care for men and gynaecological care for women. They also need education and counselling to prevent unplanned pregnancy, abuse, and sexually transmitted disease. The mentally disabled individual is particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and maltreatment for several reasons: isolation; communication deficits; etc. Other contributing factors include multiple living situations and transient caregivers, some of whom may be paedophiles. [Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children] 

17.     The essential crux of the matter is that the Complainant took LIC’s Jeevan Adhaar policy for his daughter, who is mentally challenged with Down’s Syndrome. That all premiums were paid and that the policy had matured is not disputed. The only dispute is that the LIC is intransigent that the benefit will accrue to the beneficiary i.e. the daughter of the Complainant only after his death, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant on the other hand, pointing out that his daughter is mentally challenged, wishes to immediately obtain the sum assured and to make adequate arrangements for his daughter in his lifetime, for her future (when he is no longer alive and there is no one else to make the requisite arrangements for his daughter).

18.     We make it clear that we are not amending or adding to or subtracting from the general terms and conditions of the LIC’s subject Jeevan Adhaar policy. It is meant for the benefit of the handicapped dependents / nominees of the insured, the sum assured is to be paid to the handicapped dependents / nominees on the death of the insured. However, the policy and its terms and conditions cannot be implemented in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without application of mind and without having regard to the facts and specificities of a particular case. Making of adequate arrangements during his life time by the father of a mentally handicapped dependent (who would not be able to herself make arrangements or be able to agitate her case after the demise of her father) is nowhere precluded in the terms and conditions, that is to say, payment in such cases, in such facts and specificities, is nowhere precluded. The terms and conditions cannot be implemented in a straightjacketed mechanical arbitrary manner, with total disregard to the facts and specificities.

In this particular case, the handicapped dependent of the insured is an adult girl with Down’s Syndrome, she is not physically challenged, but is mentally challenged, and as such she cannot think and act for herself. The plight of a child and of her father and mother, and especially in the case of a girl-child having Down’s Syndrome, had to be understood and kept in view by the LIC with the due application of mind at the competent level (whichever it may be) while deciding the insured i.e. the girl-child’s father request that after the payment of all the premiums the sum assured may be immediately given so that he may make adequate arrangements for his mentally challenged daughter while he is still alive. The LIC failed to appreciate that a victim of Down’s Syndrome would be in no position to apply her brain and to act for herself so as to make appropriate arrangements for her well-being on her own, when her father is no more, and that she would be in no position to pursue her claim with the LIC, far less agitate it in the consumer protection fora / civil courts. The afore, which is the crux of the case, has been evaded and ignored by the LIC in its decision-making and in its litigation, both.

19.     The intransigent, arbitrary, mechanical decision-making and the intransigent, protracted litigation, in an issue in which straightjacketed mechanical adoption of the terms and conditions by rote was deemed to be inviolable, and understanding the nature of the handicap, that it is mental (repeat mental) challenge caused by Down’s Syndrome, was kept in opacity, overlooked and ignored, is well and truly evident.

20.     We have no hesitation in upholding the impugned Order dated 03.04.2019 of the State Commission and in affirming the award made therein. The award made by the State Commission shall, now, be complied with most immediately, without further delay. In addition, to compensate for the intransigent mechanical decision-making without application of mind and the intransigent protracted litigation by rote and the delay and trouble and prejudice caused to the Complainant and to his mentally challenged daughter, a cost of Rs. 2.50 lakh shall also be paid by the LIC to the Complainant, for the benefit / welfare of his mentally handicapped adult girl within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order, without fail. The Chief Executive of the LIC shall ensure timely compliance.

Further, the Chief Executive of the LIC is advised to inculcate systemic improvements in future for apt logical decision-making in such cases of congenital mental (repeat mental) disabilities in which the dependent cannot think and act for herself / himself.

21.   Needless to add, in case of failure or omission in timely compliance, the District Forum shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ under section 25(3) and for ‘penalties’ under section 27 of the Act 1986.

22.   A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Complainant, the Chief Executive of the LIC, the State Commission and the District Forum within three days of its pronouncement.

......................

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

DINESH SINGH

MEMBER

Supreme Court says Reservation not a Fundamental Right on pleas for OBC Quota in TN Medical Colleges

Dear Colleagues,

Hon'ble Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L Nageshwara Rao today expressed that the reservation of seats to certain communities was not a Fundamental Right and refused to act on a petition filed by all political parties from Tamil Nadu seeking 50% OBC reservation in the all-India NEET seats surrendered by states.

It was argued that the Union Ministry for HRD and the Tamil Nadu State government were not following the state policy on reservations in filling up seats surrendered by states in NEET, including admissions for undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, dental and diploma courses in medicine in private and government colleges.

Justice LN Rao lauded the sentiment behind the move, which had parties of all shades from the state on the same page, as “unusual” for Tamil Nadu  and said “We appreciate the concern of all political parties for the welfare of Backward Classes. But reservation is not a Fundamental Right.”

"Right to reservation is not a fundamental right. That's the law today," remarked Justice Rao, as the bench took up petitions claiming violation of fundamental rights by not keeping seats reserved in the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu for its OBC students.

Petitioners argued that  OBC reservations had been introduced after a long political fight but was being denied to the affected sections in the state and insisted that non-implementation of such reservations in the state amounted to violation of Fundamental Rights of its residents.

However the Hon'ble Supreme Court  remained unimpressed with such submissions, and questioned how a petition under Article 32 could be maintainable when there is no fundamental right to have reservation benefits.

"Whose fundamental rights are being violated? Article 32 is available only for violation of fundamental rights." expressed the Bench.

When argued that the premise of the cases are violation of the law on reservation by the Tamil Nadu government,  Hon'ble Court asked the petitioners to approach the Madras High Court saying “You should withdraw it and go to the high court. You are only interested in 50% reservation in Tamil Nadu.”

It is pertinent to mention that in February 2020, the apex court had held there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in public jobs and no court can order a state government to provide for reservation to SC/STs.

Allahabad High Court issues notice to waive fees of students with disabilities as online classes not accessible

Parents of a child with autism have filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court against the school asking for fees in spite of the student not attending online classes during lockdown. The court issued a notice asking all CBSE affiliated schools to waive-off fee for children for benchmark disabilities in terms of  RPWD Act, 2016.

For many students with disabilities, the lockdown resulting from the COVID19 pandemic has definitely been difficult. Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are clueless on how to pursue their education through online classes which are not easy for many of them. 

In the instant case, the child with autism is studying in class third at Amit International School in Lucknow. He has been unable to attend online classes due to his developmental disability. He is also undergoing therapies for the same. He has not attended most of his ongoing online classes as he finds them difficult to follow. But since last March, his school authorities have been regularly sending messages to his parents asking them to deposit the school fee at the earliest.

As per the petition filed before the court, there are thousands of children with different disabilities across Lucknow. Many are unable to attend online classes due to their disabling conditions. Demanding fees from such children is an act that must be punishable. Moreover, this system does not provide inclusive education either for students with disabilities.

The matter was heard by the bench of Justice Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal & Justice Saurabh Lavania through video-conferencing. The bench was pleased to issue Notices to the school authorities through e-mail, WhatsApp and messages.

This notice from the high court comes as a big relief to the parents. The schools have not been providing inclusive education nor have sufficient trained teachers. Many parents have formed or joined many support groups for helping each other and sharing of information etc.

Sad reality
This is a sad reality for all stakeholders that despite the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and Right to Education Act (RTE) making provisions for free and compulsory education to students with disabilities from 6 to 18 years of age, most of these parents end up bearing so many expenses and receive no quality education for their children. They have to pay for the child’s therapies & related medical conditions. Apart from the exorbitant school fee being forced upon them, there are expenses of transporting children by school buses. On top of it, many schools insist the parents to hire shadow teachers at their own cost as a pre-condition to allow admission to a child with disability. This is double whammy for parents of intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) children. 

Way ahead
The education sector, particularly private schools need to wake up to make appropriate adaptations in the syllabus and teaching methodologies to be more sensitive and inclusive towards the needs of students with disabilities. The notice of the court is the first step is right direction. However, we hope that parents get relief even after the impact of COVID19 lockdown the something positive comes out of this litigation in larger interest of similarly placed parents & students with IDD.

Watch this space for more updates or follow the blog.

Create separate fund to aid disabled persons: Telangana High Court

Hyderabad, 23 May 2020

The High Court Division bench heard a plea filed by Ganesh Karnati seeking a direction to the State government to alleviate the problems faced by the physically disabled during this lockdown period. 

It further sought a direction to the Telangana Police to issue passes to the caretakers of the disabled, specially challenged persons so as to enable them to get groceries, medicines and other help.

Expressing utter dismay and surprise over the insufficient allocation of Rs. 10,000 to each District Welfare Officer to enable him to take care of the physically disabled and physically challenged persons, the Division Bench asked the Advocate General, B.S. Prasad, the rationale behind such meagre allocation. 

For 40,000 Advocates, the State government has created a corpus of Rs. 25 crore, whereas for a population of more than 7,81,317 lakh physically disabled persons, an allocation of Rs one crore is a pittance and the State has literally let these poor, needy and the weakest section of the society to survive at the mercy of the donors, opined the bench. 

It is a sorry state of affairs, where the state is totally ignoring these physically disabled persons, their rights and interest cannot be ignored by the State Government, that too during the pandemic Covid-19 period.

About 21,565 physically disabled persons live in Warangal and 26,717 persons with disabilities  live in Warangal rural and going by the scanty allocation of Rs. 10,000 to each district, how do you think the concerned Welfare officer will provide them with essential commodities when most essential commodities prices have spiralled in the last couple of days, where dal is sold at Rs. 200 per kg and tamarind at Rs. 180 per kg.

Therefore, the State has to rush to their rescue by allocating sufficient funds for them immediately. They have the Right To Life enshrined in the Constitution and the State has to protect them in its capacity. "Ask the Government to immediately release more money to these persons with disabilities", the Bench added. 

Further, Chief Justice Chauhan asked Advocate General B.S.Prasad to find out the whereabouts of the letter addressed by the Director, Department of Disabled Welfare and Senior citizens to the Special Chief Secretary, Telangana Govt., requesting for creation of a separate fund with the department of disabled welfare and senior citizens so that such fund can be spent to extend various facilities to the disabled during this lockdown. 

It seems the Govt., has not given any response to such a letter, observed Chief Justice Chauhan.  Advocate General B.S. Prasad while putting a firm stand on behalf of the Government informed the Bench that the allocation of Rs. One crore is to ameliorate the distress conditions of the physically disabled persons in the State during this extreme period and is a specially allocated fund by the TS govt. 

Apart from this, the State Government is providing 12 Kg rice, Rs.1500 per family to 87.50 lakh white ration cardholders. Any complaint on non-receipt of ration or money, they can approach concerned District Welfare officers, who will attend to their needs, AG said. The matter was been adjourned to May 29.

Delhi High Court Breaks the Stigma: Landmark Verdict Opens Judiciary to Persons with Mental Illness

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 5948/2019

Case Title: Bhavya Nain v. High Court of Delhi

Date of Judgment: 08 May 2020

Citation: 2020:DHC:1881-DB

Cases Referred: Ex. Gnr. Naresh Kumar v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 3828/2010); Harneet Kaur v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (CWP No. 19074/2017); Jadhav Vishwas Haridas v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (LPA 222/2013); Pankaj Mahajan v. Kajal ((2011) 12 SCC 1); Jeevan Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2015 Cri LJ 4619); LIC of India v. Chief Commissioner for Disabilities & Anr. ((2002) 101 DLT 434); Babita Pathak & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors. (2013 (135) DRJ 382); Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (156 (2009) DLT 446 (DB)).

Case Focus 

For decades, institutional barriers and deeply entrenched social stigmas have systematically locked out individuals with psychosocial disabilities from high-profile professional realms. Nowhere has this exclusion been more disheartening than within institutions tasked with upholding justice. However, a historic judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court has fundamentally transformed the legal landscape for disability rights in India.

In the case of Bhavya Nain v. High Court of Delhi, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sanjeev Narula decisively tore down institutional paternalism, delivering a masterclass on the progressive interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court unequivocally ruled that employers cannot weaponize a candidate's mental illness—or the unpredictable nature of its symptoms—to deny them their lawful right to employment.

The Fight to Enter the Judiciary

The petitioner, Bhavya Nain, a brilliant law graduate, aspired to serve as a judicial officer. He applied for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Examination 2018 under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category. Out of the advertised vacancies, seats were specifically reserved for persons experiencing autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, and mental illness, in strict compliance with Section 34(1)(d) of the RPwD Act.

Nain proved his merit at every stage. He cleared the rigorous Preliminary Examination and subsequent Written Main Examinations, scoring an impressive 420 out of 850 marks. Having cleared the written hurdles, he submitted his valid Disability Certificate issued by the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The certificate diagnosed him with Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD), evaluating his mental disability at 45%—well above the statutory 40% benchmark required for reservations. Crucially, the certificate noted that his condition was "currently in remission" and "likely to improve," making it valid for a period of five years.

Nain was subsequently called for a Viva-Voce/Interview. However, when the final results were published, he received a devastating blow: the Registrar General published a notice rejecting his candidature on the grounds that his mental disability was "not found to be permanent in nature".

The Paradox of Institutional Prejudice

The High Court administration's decision to reject Nain's candidature revealed an alarming double standard often faced by individuals with psychosocial conditions. The Selection Committee argued that because Nain’s condition was "in remission" and "likely to improve," his disability was temporary, which supposedly disqualified him from long-term statutory reservation.

Yet, in the very same breath, the respondent flipped the argument, asserting that the post of a Judge carries immense responsibilities and a severely stressful work environment. They argued that BPAD causes an "inability to think clearly, lack of attention and focus, memory problems etc.," and claimed that judicial stress would exaggerate his condition, creating an unacceptable risk to the service.

This is a classic institutional trap: You are either too healthy to deserve reservation, or too sick to do the job. The Bench recognized it for what it was—unfounded apprehension and unlawful discrimination.

Demystifying Mental Illness: What the Court Got Right

The Bench took a deep dive into medical literature and judicial precedents to demystifying Bipolar Affective Disorder. The Court established that BPAD is a chronic, lifelong, and incurable mental illness characterized by swinging moods and episodic occurrences. Medication and medical advancements allow individuals to keep manifestations at bay, leading perfectly normal, highly productive lives during periods of remission.

The Court brilliantly pointed out that under Rule 18(3) of the Central RPwD Rules and Rule 26 of the Delhi RPwD Rules, the law explicitly foresees two types of disability certificates: permanent ones (where there is no chance of variation) and time-limited valid certificates (where there is a chance of variation or improvement over time). A certificate with a 5-year validity period is an absolutely valid legal instrument to claim benchmark reservation under Section 34. To claim that "remission" implies an illness is temporary or fully curable flies in the face of medical science.

Pertinent Observations from the Judgment

The judgment, authored by Justice Vipin Sanghi, features deeply moving and highly progressive jurisprudence. On the true purpose of providing reservations for mental illnesses, the Court beautifully noted:

"It appears that the Parliament granted reservation, inter alia, to PwD - who suffer from mental illness... so that such persons get an opportunity to lead a normal life with encouragement and dignity. Merely because they may need medication and treatment throughout their lives, or may suffer setbacks from time to time, cannot be a reason to deny them equal opportunity to assimilate in the society, make their contribution and have a life of dignity."

Addressing the administration's defensive stance that Nain's future health might deteriorate under stress, the Court invoked a profound principle from established disability jurisprudence:

"What may happen in future cannot be a ground to deny employment today."

Furthermore, the Bench emphasized that once the legislature has consciously mandated reservations for individuals with specified mental illnesses, employers cannot overrule the sovereign will of the Parliament based on their subjective fears:

"Once the posts are advertised - and seats are reserved for, inter alia, persons with mental illness, it is not open to the respondent to deny the petitioner reservation under the RPwD Act, merely on the basis of an opinion or belief entertained by it - that the petitioner would not be able to discharge his duties as a Judicial Officer due to his mental illness. This is a call that the Parliament has taken."

Dismantling Practical Barriers

The Court heavily leaned on the landmark case of Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, reiterating that the exclusion of disabled people from the workforce rarely stems from their internal functional limitations. Instead, "it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce". By shutting the door on Bhavya Nain, the Delhi High Court administration had directly enacted those very practical barriers.

The judgment further observed that the High Court administration had no legal authority to unilaterally exempt judicial posts from the anti-discrimination mandates of Section 20(1). The power to exempt an establishment based on the nature of work lies strictly within the domain of the "appropriate Government" via official notification, which had never been issued for the judicial services. Consequently, the denial of Nain's lawful right was held to be a flagrant breach of Sections 20 and 34 of the RPwD Act.

The Final Verdict: A New Dawn

Vindicating Bhavya Nain’s long legal battle and finding the administration's actions to be in direct violation of the anti-discrimination protections under Section 20 and Section 34 of the RPwD Act, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the discriminatory notice rejecting the petitioner's candidate status. The Court directed the respondent to declare Nain as selected to the Delhi Judicial Service without further delay, securing his notional seniority alongside his original batchmates.

This judgment is a monumental step forward for psychosocial disability advocacy in India. It sends a resonant message to all public and private establishments: a diagnosis is not a disqualification. Remission is a triumph of treatment, not a loophole to strip away constitutional protections. This was indeed a brave and compassionate verdict that brings us closer to a truly inclusive India.

Legal Disclaimer: The summaries provided on this platform are for informational and academic purposes, aimed at increasing awareness of disability legislation and rights across Indian jurisprudence.

Read the Judgement in Bhavya Nain V. High Court of Delhi