Delhi HC holds KVS recruitment advertisement as unsustainable for denying reservation to blind persons

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Hon'ble Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula

Caste No: W.P.(C) 9520/2018 

Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others

Date of Judgement: 16 October 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7551-DB

Brief:

The Delhi high court termed a recruitment advertisement issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as unsustainable as it excluded reservation for blind persons from the post of principal in a judgement dated 16 Oct 2023.

The court said that every act of exclusion that has the effect of compelling a person with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment without their fault is an assault on their dignity . 

A bench opined that the advertisement issued by the KVS in August 2018 for the posts of principal, vice-principal, PGTs, TGTs, librarian distinguished PwDs and had the effect of excluding them from the race of recruitment as the distinction was purely on the basis of disability.

“The impugned advertisement distinguishes the persons with disabilities from others and puts a restriction on their potential to participate in the recruitment process to their full ability. The distinction is purely on the basis of disability. The advertisement has the effect of excluding the persons with disabilities from the race of recruitment, in complete violation of the mandatory reservation provision. It may be noted that an act of discrimination is not only a denial of the promise of equal protection before the law. Rather, every act of exclusion is an assault on the dignity of a person. More so, when the exclusion has the effect of compelling the persons with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment, without any fault of theirs. Instead of providing an equal space to grow, we have been compelling the persons with disabilities to prove, time and again, that they are capable of a lot more than we think,” said the bench in its verdict.

The court also said, “We may usefully note that the power of identification of posts is bound by a procedure, which, amongst other things, involves consultation with experts including persons with disabilities. The persons with disabilities are the direct stakeholders in this exercise and the legislature has aptly carved out a provision for a consultative exercise with such persons. It is a manifestation of the principles of natural justice and there can be no deviation from the statutory procedure. Exclusion of a post, without engaging in a consultative exercise, shall also be violative of the principles of natural justice.”

The bench also opined that the Sangathan at the stage of recruitment and advertisement of vacancies was duty bound to reserve 4 % of the total number of vacancies, inclusive of vacancies against identified as well as unidentified posts.

The court cautioned that it was impermissible to exclude subjects which cannot be taught by PwDs at the time of reservation of vacancies.

“Once recruited, appointments can be made against the posts identified as suitable for respective categories of persons with disabilities. There is no power with the respondent or its committee to revisit and cut short the list notified by the government. The process of identification or its review is to be carried out by the appropriate government only. Further, the said exercise is to be carried out after constitution of an expert committee with due representation of persons with benchmark disabilities,” said the court directing the KVS to reserve the post of principal for blind persons, conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies in the establishment and prepare a vacancy based roster for recruitment of PwDs within three months.

“The rights belonging to the persons with disabilities are meant to secure inclusivity and human dignity. Such rights, although statutorily enacted, find their roots in the fundamental rights of life, equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Constitution. The guarantee of equal opportunity to all equally extends to the persons with disabilities and while interpreting the benevolent provisions of the statutes in this regard, the court must be mindful of the same,” the court also said.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 9520/2018 below:

Bombay HC directs Police Cop to compensate an NDA Professor for a false probe against him for alleged fake disabilty certificate

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Nitin W. Sambre & Hon'ble Justice R.N. Laddha

Case No. – Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2018 

Case Title – Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Date of Judgement: 04 Aug 2023

Cited as: 2023:BHC-AS:29209-DB

Case brief:

Slamming a police officer for falsely implicating a disabled professsor of the National Defence Academy (NDA) by carrying out a false investigation for a genuine disability certificate, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the FIR and consequential proceedings against the staffer and ordered compensation of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to one Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari, an Assistant Professor at the National Defence Academy, Pune falsely prosecuted for producing fake disability certificates.

The court ordered a compensation of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the employee, to be recovered from the salary of the investigation officer. The officer had ignored communication from the hospital verifying the employee's disability certificate. The employee's advocate stated that the officer's actions were vindictive.

“Such an act of the investigating officer (IO)... can be termed as causing mental agony, lowering down dignity and ill-treating the petitioner, an academician (sic),” said Justices Nitin Sambre and R N Laddha in the August 4 order released on Thursday.

They awarded compensation of Rs 25,000 to Kamal Tiwari and directed it to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within six months. The state will recover the amount from the salary of the IO, Anand Pagare, who is currently posted as inspector at Police Training Centre, Daund.

The NDA had sent Tiwari’s 41% disability certificate issued by Sassoon Hospital, Pune, on December 1, 2012, to the facility for verification. The hospital said it couldn’t trace the original record, prompting the NDA to lodge a police complaint in May 2016 that Tiwari, who had joined as assistant professor (sociology), had produced a forged certificate. Tiwari was booked under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC.

In September 2016, the hospital wrote to the IO Pagare that the original record had been traced.  The investigating officer Pagare intentionally and deliberately overlooked the same and purely with an intention to initiate malafide prosecution has charge-sheeted the petitioner in July 2017. 

In June, the judges issued a contempt notice to IO Pagare after he “intentionally” ignored their query on whether he had looked into the record. In his reply, Pagare said he had recorded the statements of two doctors who denied signing the certificate. He said it was his first posting. The judges said he was expected to verify the certificate’s genuineness.

Tiwari’s advocate Jagdish Reddy said he suffered because of Pagare’s vindictive attitude. Pagare’s advocate Satyavrat Joshi said he regrets the bonafide mistake and tenders his unconditional apology to the court and to Tiwari.

"Such act of the Investigating Officer, in our opinion, can be termed as causing mental agony, lowering down dignity and ill-treating the petitioner, an academician. The prosecution initiated by the said officer can be termed as malicious which has not only caused harassment to the petitioner but also immeasurable anguish. The fact that the petitioner, a handicap person is an academician having good repute an employee of National Defence Academy, Pune and the acts done with clandestine manner by the Investigating Officer, in our opinion, warrant award of compensation as has been prayed by him. Counsel for the petitioner magnanimously stated that he is not interested in the amount of compensation which can be made over to the Legal Services Authority, however, the Investigating Officer should realize his mistake which should be pinching for bias and malafide criminal prosecution against the petitioner. In the backdrop of aforesaid observations, we deem it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- by Mr.Anand Pagare, Investigating Officer to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within period of six months from today." observed the bench.

The bench discharged the contempt notice with the following obervations:

"As far as contempt notice is concerned, we hereby warn the investigating officer Mr Anand Pagare, Police Inspector presently attached to Police Training Centre, Nanvij Daud, Pune to be more diligent in carrying out his duty as a police officer. With above warning, we discharge the contempt notice."

Read the Order:

Supreme Court seeks Centre's resonse to a plea which sougth quanum of assistance to PwDs 25% higher than those given to others as per section 24(1)

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a plea which sought that quantum of assistance to persons with disabilities should be 25 per cent higher than those given to others under similar social welfare schemes.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the apex court in the matter.

The top court noted the petitioner has relied on the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Section 24 of the 2016 Act deals with social security and section 24 (1) says, "The appropriate government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community: provided that the quantum of assistance to the persons with disabilities under such schemes and programmes shall be at least 25 per cent higher than the similar schemes applicable to others." Jayant Singh Raghav, president of the organisation, told the bench that proviso to section 24 (1) of the Act provides that quantum to be provided to the persons with disabilities needs to be 25 per cent additional to the others under similar social welfare schemes.

"Which are the schemes in respect of which you are claiming a 25 per cent enhancement," the bench asked.

Raghav referred to the disability pension given by different states.

"Presently, instead of issuing notice to all the states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what the Union Government has to say," the bench said.

Source: Unedited stroy from syndicate feeds

Accessibility in residential societies remains a matter of concern; petitioner, a blind person litigates to seek justice.

Court: Delhi High Court 

Bench: Hon'ble Justice V. KAMESWAR RAO,  Hon'ble Justice ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Case No.: WP (Civil) No. 7642/2022

Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, & Ors.

Next Date of Hearing: 06/10/2023

Case Brief:

The petitioner Jayant Singh Raghav, is a person with a disability has raised this litigation alleging rights infringement of individuals with disabilities in accessing suitable facilities within residential communities against the Chandanwari Society (a residential housing society) with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as the resondents. 

The petitioner emphasizes what he perceives as a violation of the rights of persons with disabilities to access appropriate facilities within residential communities. He contends that the environment lacks provisions tailored to his specific needs, obstructs equal opportunities, and disrupts harmonious communal living.

In response, the Chandanwari Society, represented by the respondents, counters these claims by asserting their consistent efforts to ensure unimpeded accessibility for the petitioner. The Society argues that it has taken substantial measures to establish a barrier-free environment within the apartment complex.

Before approaching the high court, petitioner had lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of NCT of Delhi, citing the society's perceived inaction. The complaint pointed out a violation of Rule-15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule, 2017. A subsequent directive highlighted shortcomings and mandated rectifications. However, the complaint was closed without comprehensive justification by passing an order.

Unsatisfied with the complaint's closure, the petitioner turned to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds for the petition include alleged breaches of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about non-compliance with the "Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons" 2016.

Differing viewpoints emerged regarding the application of the Unified Bye-Laws where the petitioner contends that the society's layout and infrastructure do not conform to the Unified Bye-Laws, 2016. However, the respondents assert that the apartment complex was constructed under the Unified Bye-Laws, 1983, making substantial reconstruction impractical after 33 years. Despite this, the respondents assert their ongoing commitment to enhance accessibility within existing structural constraints.

Mr. Raghav is critical of the changes implemented by the society, suggesting that they are cosmetic and, in some cases, potentially hazardous to disabled individuals. He expresses concerns over the safety and effectiveness of the alterations, arguing that hurried modifications might inadvertently lead to harm.

Throughout the legal process, the petitioner filed various ancillary applications alongside the primary writ petition, including inter-locutary application, early hearing application, and urgent application.

The petitioner further claims that the modifications initiated by the respondents are confined to Tower-3 of the society, where he resides. However, he contends that the issue extends beyond his personal access to encompass the entire society. He emphasizes that the concern is not solely about Common area accessibility of the block where the petitioner resides but pertains to the community's overall inclusion.

In conclusion, the case underscores the intricate interplay between an individual with disabilities striving for equitable access and a residential society working within practical limitations to achieve accessibility standards. The legal journey encompasses a range of stages, from pre-court complaints to constitutional writ petitions, highlighting the petitioner's pursuit of enforcing rights. Consequently, the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before The Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking an expedited grant of the interim relief as prayed for.

Forced to climb staircase at the theatre, disabled man files complaint in consumer forum citing lack of accessibility, theatre directed to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation

Dear colleagues,

An inaccessible cinema theatre, which had neither elevators nor ramps despite the provisions of RPWD Act 2016 mandating accessibility in public spaces, and made a person with a disability climb the staircase to watch actor Udhayanidhi's 'Nenjukku Neethi' movie, has been asked to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the aggrieved person. 

The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed the order based on a complaint from S Sureshkumar of Kundrathur. He complained that he went to Gokulam Cinemas in Poonamallee to watch 'Nenjukku Neethi' in May 2022, but realised on entering the premises that the screen was on the second floor, and yet it had no lifts or ramps. 

The theatre employees told Suresh that he had to climb the staircase due to which he suffered severe leg pain the same day, said Suresh, who has locomotor disability of 60%. He alleged that Gokulam Cinemas had violated Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by not providing lifts or ramps in the newly built complex and the district collector too was at fault for having issued licence to the theatre hall without proper inspection as required under section 44 of the Act of 2016.

In response, Gokulam Cinemas said Suresh was not on their premises on the said date to watch the movie and he was trying to mislead the court with a ticket borrowed from another person. Counsel for the theatre argued that work to install lifts could not be completed due to Covid-19 pandemic. 

The forum rejected the management's argument, saying: "The contention could not be entertained as Covid-19 effects came to an end two years ago." It directed the theatre to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused, and another ₹10,000 towards Suresh's litigation expenses. The Thiruvallur district collector has been directed to take necessary action against the theatre within four weeks.

More such cases are on the anvil as the timelines for implementing mandatory accessibility is over. Those who have been sleeping over the accessibiltiy mandate are waking up to such music.  Its high time that the establishments must get their buildings and services access audited and take remedial action. Its better late than never!

Supreme Court Restores Full Pension Benefits to Army Veteran: Refusal to Undergo High-Risk Surgery Cannot Curtail Disability Pension

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Case Title: Ex L/Nk Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 420 of 2020
Decided on: 12 September 2023

Background

In an important judgment strengthening disability pension jurisprudence for armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court held that a soldier cannot be denied or deprived of disability pension merely because he declined to undergo a life-threatening surgical procedure.

The appellant, an Ex-Lance Naik of the Indian Army, rendered 15 years of exemplary service before being discharged in 1987 after developing a serious cardiac condition diagnosed as Complete Heart Block (4–6). The Medical Board assessed his disability at 100% and placed him in a permanent low medical category. Subsequently, a pacemaker was implanted, and he sought reassessment of his disability pension. While the Armed Forces Tribunal held that he was entitled to disability pension, it restricted the benefit to one year. Aggrieved by this limitation, he approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered:

• Whether disability pension could be restricted to one year despite the Medical Board recording a permanent disability.
• Whether refusal to undergo a risky surgical procedure could justify limiting disability pension.
• Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal had correctly applied Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

Key Findings

1) Refusal of Surgery Is Not Misconduct

The Court noted that the Medical Board itself had recorded that the appellant's disability was not attributable to any misconduct or negligence on his part and that his military record was exemplary.

The only circumstance that appeared to have weighed against him was his unwillingness to undergo surgery, which, at the relevant time, carried life-threatening risks. The Supreme Court found no justification for treating this refusal as a ground to curtail his pensionary entitlement.

2) Permanent Disability Cannot Attract Temporary Pension Without Reasons

The Bench observed that the appellant had been discharged because of permanent disablement. In such circumstances, the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to confine disability pension to one year was found to be illogical and unsupported by reasons.

3) Rule 185 Must Be Followed

The Court relied on Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, which provides that where a disability is certified as incapable of improvement, disability pension should ordinarily be sanctioned for ten years in the first instance, followed by reassessment. Only in specified permanent conditions is life-long disability pension granted immediately.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had either overlooked or failed to apply this statutory scheme while limiting the benefit to one year.

Directions

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:

• set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal's direction restricting disability pension to one year;
• directed that disability pension be granted in accordance with Rule 185 for ten years, subject to reassessment thereafter;
• directed payment of arrears restricted to three years prior to the filing of proceedings before the Tribunal, together with future disability pension in accordance with the Rules.

Why This Judgment Matters

a) Protects Bodily Autonomy

The decision reinforces the principle that a service member cannot be compelled—directly or indirectly—to undergo hazardous medical treatment in order to preserve pensionary rights. A refusal to undertake risky surgery cannot by itself become a basis for reducing disability benefits.

b) Ensures Faithful Application of Pension Regulations

The judgment reiterates that adjudicating authorities must apply the Pension Regulations as they stand. Departure from the statutory scheme requires cogent reasons, particularly where the disability has been assessed as permanent.

c) Strengthens Disability Pension Jurisprudence

The ruling adds to the growing body of Supreme Court decisions adopting a liberal and rights-based interpretation of disability pension provisions for armed forces personnel.

DRI Commentary

Although brief, the judgment underscores two important principles in disability rights and military pension law.

First, medical autonomy is an integral component of dignity. An individual cannot be penalised for declining a surgical intervention, particularly where the procedure carries significant risks. Pension entitlements cannot be made contingent upon acceptance of invasive medical treatment.

Secondly, the judgment reinforces the rule of law in disability pension adjudication. Once the Medical Board records permanent disability and there is no finding of misconduct or negligence, adjudicatory bodies cannot arbitrarily restrict pensionary benefits contrary to the governing Pension Regulations.

While the Supreme Court did not direct life-long disability pension, it ensured that the appellant received the benefit contemplated under Rule 185 and prevented an unjustified curtailment of his statutory entitlement.

The decision serves as another reminder that disability pension is a legal right flowing from service and sacrifice—not a discretionary concession dependent upon medical choices made by the disabled veteran.

Read the Judgement

Delhi HC passes important directions to make Court system accessible and to realise Access to Justice for persons with disabilities under Section 12 of RPwD Act 2016 and emphasizes "Active Judicial Conduct" to ensure PwD's actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: W.P.(CRL.) 2500/2022
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Kalra Deaf Divyang v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi
Date of Judgment: 24 August 2023
Citation: 2023:DHC:6132 ; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5261

Background

In a significant judgment expanding disability rights jurisprudence into the domain of criminal justice, the Delhi High Court examined whether persons with disabilities accused in criminal cases are able to meaningfully participate in judicial proceedings and receive a fair trial on equal terms with others.

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Kalra, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking directions for constitution of a Special Court under Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”) and for provision of appropriate accommodations and assistive support during the criminal trial faced by him.

The petitioner had been deaf since childhood and was also suffering from additional medical conditions including visual impairment and jaw stiffness arising out of post-traumatic complications. He contended that the existing criminal justice process did not adequately accommodate his disabilities, thereby preventing him from effectively understanding and participating in the proceedings against him.

The matter raised an important but largely neglected issue within Indian disability law — the rights of accused persons with disabilities within the criminal justice system. While Indian courts have increasingly addressed accessibility for students, employees, victims, and witnesses, there has been very limited judicial attention on accessibility barriers faced by persons with disabilities who themselves stand accused before courts.

Recognising the constitutional importance of the issue, the Court appointed N. Hariharan as Amicus Curiae to assist on questions relating to access to justice, infrastructural barriers, procedural fairness, and implementation of disability rights within criminal courts.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered a far-reaching judgment emphasising that the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Articles 14 and 21 extends equally to accused persons with disabilities and that access to justice cannot remain merely formal or symbolic.

The Court observed that equal access to courts loses meaning when judicial institutions themselves remain inaccessible due to communication barriers, inaccessible infrastructure, lack of assistive technologies, or absence of procedural accommodations.

Importantly, the Court posed a broader constitutional question:

“Whether the judicial system itself has complied with the requirement of equality apropos a person with disability who is an accused or petitioner before the court of law, while it administers justice.”

The judgment recognised that criminal procedures are often designed around assumptions of normative hearing, speech, vision, mobility, and comprehension capacities, without accounting for the needs of persons with disabilities. In such situations, the absence of accommodations may directly impair an accused person’s ability to understand proceedings, consult counsel, participate in defence strategy, or exercise procedural rights effectively.

The Court undertook an extensive examination of Section 12 of the RPwD Act dealing with access to justice and noted that despite statutory recognition of this right, the existing criminal justice framework remains inadequate in addressing the requirements of accused persons with disabilities.

The Court further observed that while mechanisms such as vulnerable witness deposition complexes have evolved for witnesses and victims, there remains little structured guidance or institutional support for accused persons with disabilities facing prosecution.

Referring to the constitutional importance of fair trials, the Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374, and reiterated that fairness in criminal adjudication necessarily includes meaningful participation.

The Court also referred to State of Maharashtra v. Bandu, (2018) 11 SCC 163, and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 78, while discussing the need for judicial sensitivity, procedural safeguards, and disability-inclusive approaches within the justice delivery system.

In addition, the Court highlighted the importance of implementing the Standard Operating Procedure on Accessible Court Documents prepared by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India to ensure accessibility of court records and judicial documentation.

The Court also highlighted the need for alternative and accessible communication systems including sign language interpretation, braille support, accessible documents, and assistive technologies to ensure effective participation of persons with disabilities in court proceedings.

Directions and Recommendations

The Delhi High Court issued extensive observations and directions aimed at strengthening accessibility within the criminal justice system. The Court:

• Examined the requirement of constituting Special Courts under Section 84 of the RPwD Act.
• Directed attention towards implementation of Section 12 of the RPwD Act relating to access to justice.
• Emphasised the need for communication accommodations and assistive technologies for accused persons with disabilities.
• Recommended accessible documentation and interpretation services tailored to individual disabilities.
• Suggested creation of specialised courtroom facilities for persons with disabilities similar to vulnerable witness complexes.
• Highlighted the necessity of infrastructural improvements including ramps, elevators, wheelchairs, assistive devices, and accessible court facilities.
• Called for sensitisation and training programmes for judges, lawyers, court staff, and police personnel through the Delhi Judicial Academy.
• Directed authorities to formulate schemes and mechanisms to support accused persons with disabilities during criminal proceedings.
• Stressed the need for greater public awareness regarding accessibility rights and available support systems within courts.
• Directed effective compliance with Section 12(4)(c) of the RPwD Act, including provision of electronic and assistive devices required for participation in judicial proceedings.

Judgments Relied Upon

The Court referred to and relied upon the following important judgments and legal materials while evolving principles relating to fair trial and disability-inclusive access to justice:

• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 — concerning the importance of fair trial as an essential component of criminal justice.
• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu, (2018) 11 SCC 163 — relating to sensitivity and procedural safeguards in judicial proceedings involving vulnerable persons.
• Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 78 — emphasising victim-sensitive and dignity-oriented judicial processes.
• Standard Operating Procedure on Preparation of Accessible Court Documents issued by the E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

Commentary

The judgment in Rakesh Kumar Kalra Deaf Divyang v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi marks an important development in Indian disability jurisprudence because it expands the discourse on accessibility beyond public infrastructure and into the core functioning of judicial institutions themselves.

A particularly significant contribution of the ruling lies in its recognition that criminal procedure can become exclusionary when courts fail to accommodate disabilities. The judgment correctly acknowledges that equal justice cannot be achieved merely by applying identical procedures to all accused persons irrespective of disability-related barriers.

The decision also aligns Indian constitutional jurisprudence with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which emphasises autonomy, participation, dignity, and equal recognition before law.

Equally important is the Court’s recognition that accessibility within the justice system requires institutional redesign rather than ad hoc accommodations. By drawing parallels with vulnerable witness courts, the judgment opens the possibility for specialised courtroom models and procedural frameworks for persons with disabilities.

The ruling is also notable for addressing legislative and procedural silences. Instead of treating absence of detailed statutory mechanisms as a barrier, the Court invoked constitutional principles of equality and dignity to evolve broader normative guidance.

At a wider level, the judgment represents a shift away from paternalistic understandings of disability toward a rights-based constitutional framework grounded in substantive equality and meaningful participation.

The decision therefore stands as a landmark precedent affirming that access to justice under the Constitution and the RPwD Act requires courts themselves to become accessible institutionally, technologically, and procedurally so that persons with disabilities can participate in criminal proceedings on genuinely equal terms.

Read the judgement here:

Delhi High Court disposes of petition on Equal Health Insurance for persons with disabilities, after IRDAI and 29 Insurance companies bring out health policies for PwDs [Judgement included]

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh

Case No:  W.P.(C) 6074/2019

Case Title: Saurabh Shukla Vs. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Date of  Judgement : 18 August 2023

Brief of the Case: 

Please refer to our earlier post updating on the hearing dated 13 December 2022 in the present case titled "Delhi HC: Right to Life includes Right to Health, Referring to persons with disabilities as 'sub-standard lives' is 'unacceptable terminology', directs IRDAI to act."

The matter was further listed before the Court on 17th March, 2023. On the said date, in compliance with the directions dated 13 Dec 22, IRDAI placed on record a status report, giving details of the tasks undertaken by IRDAI. As per the said report, IRDAI had called a meeting of all general and health insurance companies on 18th January, 2023, where the relevant issues were discussed and a committee consisting of six senior officials from the various insurance companies was constituted. The Committee was entrusted with the following tasks: 

“i. Design and develop specific product/s for the following: 

     a. Persons with Disabilities (PWD) 
     b. Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS 
     c. Persons having mental illnesses

ii. The design and development of the products shall be comprehensive enough to meet the insurance needs of the respective groups. 

iii. The complete documentation shall be developed -- Proposal form, Schedule, the Policy wordings including the various terms and conditions etc., apart from a Customer Information Sheet (Key Features Document).”

Thereafter, a model policy was drafted by IRDAI and a circular dated 27th February, 2023 was issued to all general and health insurance providers, directing them to launch products for persons with disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS, and those with Mental Illness, with immediate effect. IRDAI also complied with the third direction as contained in paragraph 26 of order dated 13th December, 2022 and the previously used expression ‘sub-standard lives’ in Regulation 8(b) of the IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016 was deleted.

The Petitioner was also offered a health insurance policy by Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company and expressed his willingness to avail of the policy, vide his email dated 1st March, 2023. However, the Petitioner had certain contentions against the specific details of the policy offered. Vide order dated 17th March, 2023, this Court directed the Petitioner to avail the health insurance offered by Niva Bupa, while allowing the Petitioner to make a representation to IRDAI on the issues of Amount of premium being charged, Loading charges, Amount of coverage and Period of Exclusion for Pre-Existing Diseases.

In terms of order dated 17th March, 2023, the following compliances were to be undertaken by IRDAI:

 i. IRDAI was to take a decision on the representation by the Petitioner and issue directions by 15th April, 2023; 

ii. IRDAI was to convey the decision on the representation of the Petitioner by 30 th April, 2023; 

iii. IRDAI was to notify all the insurance companies to submit their products in terms of circular dated 27th February, 2023 along with model policy and file a status report. 

Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy General Manager of the Health Department of IRDAI wherein the deponent states as under: 

“2 That after the issuance of circular dated 27.02.2023, all the general and standalone health insurance companies have filed their products for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness with Answering Respondent/IRDAI under the “Use and File” procedure dated 01.06.2022. It is respectfully submitted that as per Use and File circular insurers are not required to obtain any prior approval for launching and marketing their insurance product. Copy of the Use and File circular dated 01.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure A. 

3 That in compliance of the Circular dated 27.02.2023, all general and standalone health insurance companies have also launched their products for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness a list containing the details of products launched in accordance to Circular dated 27.02.2023 is annexed as Annexure B.”

In terms of the above averments made in the affidavit, the various general and health insurance companies including the four Government insurance companies namely New India Assurance Company, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and National Insurance Company Ltd. have launched products for persons with disabilities. The complete list of 29 companies who are stated to have launched their insurance products for persons with disabilities, has been reproduced in a table in the below judgement.

From the said table, it is clear that several insurance companies have launched products for PwDs. However, in respect of the products which have been launched, the Petitioner raises some objection qua the high insurance premium and the loading charges, that is being charged. The said consideration of the amount of premium of any company’s specific product would be beyond the scope of this writ petition. It is, however, observed that if any person insured is having a grievance on the amount of premium being charged, remedies in accordance with law are available to such persons. The Petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned authority if he so desires. This Court however, would reiterate the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 84, which has also been considered by this Court in Akshat Baldwa & Ors. v. Yash Raj Films & Ors., 2023:DHC:345 wherein the principle of reasonable accommodation has been highlighted to ensure that society and indeed the state, can provide additional support and facilities that are necessary for persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal worth and dignity.

The court furhter made clear that the merits of each and every product launched and whether the charges are reasonable or not has not been considered by the Court and the same was left open for consideration by any appropriate forum, which may adjudicate a challenge to the same. 

The IRDAI, being the sector regulator would also have an obligation to ensure that PwDs are not unduly prejudiced and give suitable directions to insurance companies, after reviewing the products launched. 21. Insofar as the decision of the IRDAI qua the Petitioner is concerned, the decision is stated to have been taken by the IRDAI on 19th April, 2023. The said decision of the IRDAI has been placed on record. The challenge to the decision is on the following aspects: 

i. Amount of premium being charged and loading charges imposed on the Petitioner etc. 

ii. Amount of Coverage iii. Period of exclusion for pre-existing diseases 

"The IRDAI’s decision is detailed and reasoned. The Petitioner has already availed of the policy in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2023. The Petitioner is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law in for any outstanding grievances qua this decision of the IRDAI dated 17th April, 2023." observed the court.

This Court appreciated the assistance given by the parties and their Counsels, in ensuring that insurance products for persons with disabilities have been launched in India. The court admitted that the while the said products may not be the most ideal for persons with disabilities, this would merely be a first step in the process of achieving Equality for PwDs, which is the solemn intent of legislations including the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 24.  And the court thus disposed of the petition accordingly.

Here is the detailed judgement:  

Karnataka HC issues notice to Centre on a PIL challenging exclusion of disabilities as a variable from National Family Health Survey

Court: Karnataka High Court, Bangaluru

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Prasanna B. Varale and Hon'ble Justice M.G.S. Kamal 

Case No.:  WP (C) 14180 of 2023

Case Title: Javed Abidi Foundation Vs. Union of India (Min. of Health & Family Welfare)

Date of Order: 04.08.2023

Brief of the case 

The petitioner Javed Abidi Foundation has sought a direction to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016 as a variable in the household survey questionnaire of the NFHS-6 while pointing out that disabilities was a variable in the NFHS-5.

Quoting various media reports, the petition claimed that the disabilities were excluded from NFHS-6 on the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee citing two reasons - enumerators were not trained nor qualified to ask about and evaluate disability; and enumerating disability as a variable was a time-consuming and laborious process.

The petitioner has argued that the reasons cited to exclude disabilities are unjustifiable in the light of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which states that it the right of persons with disabilities to be part of any data collection exercise and all data about disability should be disaggregated so that persons with disabilities can get the maximum advantage of any schemes and other programmes meant for their welfare. The exclusion also violative of the provisions of the RPwD Act, the petition has complained.

The PIL also disputes the claim of the Union Health Ministry that the disabilities has been already enumerated during the 76th round of the National Sample Survey of 2018 and there would be no change in those figures. The Ministry’s response to petitioner stating that the NFHS-5 contained questions in  the questionnaire on disabilities on the advise of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health and other questions with a very shorter version of the question will not be advisable.

The court passed the following order:

"The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure-P1 and submits that though it is stated by respondent No.5 that it will not be able to collect accurate data on disability in its concurrent form and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health, there are no grounds or reasons forthcoming as to why respondent No.5 is not in a position to collect the data on disability when such an exercise was undertaken by the very respondent in the year 2019.

Issue notice returnable within four weeks.

Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, the learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1."

The PIL has made following prayers in the writ and interim relief:

Writ prayers

a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the memorandum dated 14/06/2023 bearing reference number no.y.12011/3/2020-stats at Annexure-M is issued by the 2nd respondent stating unsustainable grounds for exclusion of disability from NFHS 6.

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as a variable in the household questionnaire for the national family health survey 6 as per the petitioners and several other representations to the respondents.

c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner at annexures-d, e, f, k and l and to expeditiously consider his appeal at annexure-q.

d) pass such orders (s) or issue such other writ (s). 

Interim prayer

issue orders to the respondents in the nature of directions to introduce a questionnaire on disabilities by way of addendum that is similar the questionnaire on disabilities introduced in NFHS 5 so as to include all the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016 as a variable in the household questionnaire for the national family health survey 6.

Delhi HC summons Health Secretary, says it is unfortunate that permanent State Mental Health Authority not constituted till date.

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula 

Case No: W.P.(C) 6952/2019 & tagged case: W.P.(C) 4468/2021

Case Title:  Amit Sahni Vs. Govt of NCT of Dellhi & Ors  and tagged case- Shreyus Sukhija Vs. Govt. of NCT of Dlehi & Ors.

Act: Mental Healthcare Act 2017

Date of Order: 02 Aug 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 15.09.2023

Brief:

Observing that it is unfortunate that the permanent State Mental Health Authority under Mental Health Act, 2017, has not been constituted till date in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has asked Delhi Government’s Health Secretary to remain present before it on September 15, 2023.

“It is made clear that in case the permanent State Mental Health Authority is constituted as per the requirement of Sections 45 & 46 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the personal appearance of the Secretary (Health), GNCTD, shall be dispensed with without further reference to the Court,” the division bench said in its order dated 02 Aug 2023.

The bench also directed the Delhi Government to comply with the statutory provisions under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018, including constitution of district mental health authorities.

In November 2022, the court was informed by Delhi government’s counsel that the process for reconstitution of State Mental Health Authority is underway and shall be finalised soon. However, since the same was not done, the court made the above observations.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking effective implementation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It is his case that the lack of mental health authorities is adversely affecting the treatment of mentally ill persons.

Another plea tagged with the PIL has been moved by man seeking reconstitution of the State Mental Health Authority and also for setting up of Mental Health Review Boards as provided under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

Read the Order below: