State Disability Commissioner, Rajasthan fines over 40,000 Private Schools in Rajasthan for Lack of Disabled-Friendly Infrastructure

Dear Colleagues,

In a significant step toward ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities, the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in Rajasthan, Mr. Umashankar Sharma, has taken suo motu cognizance of the absence of disabled-friendly infrastructure in private schools. More than 40,000 private schools across the state are reported to be lacking the necessary facilities to accommodate students with disabilities which is a mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

The Commissioner has directed the Rajasthan School Education Department to impose a fine of ₹25,000 on each non-compliant school. The fines collected will be deposited into the Chief Minister’s Fund, which will be used to install disabled-friendly infrastructure in schools that currently do not meet the required standards. He also added that an audit will be conducted to identify and penalize schools that have failed to meet these essential requirements.

In addition to addressing school infrastructure, the Commissioner has turned attention to higher education institutions. Show-cause notices have been issued to three private universities in Jaipur for failing to reserve 5% of seats for persons with disabilities (PWD) as required by law. Despite receiving government benefits such as land subsidies, these universities have not implemented the mandated quota for PWD students. The Commissioner has directed the Higher Education Department to take immediate action against these institutions.

This decision underscores the importance of inclusive education and holds educational institutions accountable for creating accessible environments for all students. It is a reminder of the ongoing legal and societal efforts to secure the rights of persons with disabilities in India. 

At Disability Rights India, we will continue to monitor the legal developments surrounding accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities in educational settings and keep our patrons informed.

Media coverage:  Times of India 

Supreme Court of India Issues Landmark Guidelines for Portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in Visual Media [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice JB Pardiwala

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5239 of 2024

Case Title: Nipun Malhotra (Appellant) Versus Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors

Date of Judgement: 08 Jul 2024

Brief Introduction:

In a groundbreaking judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at ensuring the dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. This significant ruling emphasizes the importance of respectful and accurate representation, underscoring that negative stereotypes and insensitive portrayals can severely impact the dignity of persons with disabilities and perpetuate social discrimination against them. The Supreme Court said “the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised”. In determining these aspects, the “intention” and “overall message” of the film have to be considered.

The case in question involved the portrayal of disabled persons in the film 'Aankh Mihcoli,' produced by Sony Pictures. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition challenging the film's portrayal of disabled persons. The petitioner sought guidelines for filmmakers regarding the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and recommendations to censor certain parts of the film.

While the Court refused to interfere with the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it took the opportunity to provide a framework for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. The Court's guidelines aim to align such portrayals with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Indian Constitution and the RPwD Act.

Judgment Highlights:

The Court emphasized the prevention of stigmatization and discrimination, recognizing their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the historically oppressive representation of differently-abled persons continues, with persons with disabilities often used to provide comic relief and jokes made at their expense. He noted the historical use of humor to mock disability and how films and visual media tend to perpetuate myths about disabilities, portraying persons with certain disabilities as “super-cripples.”

“This stereotype implies that disabled persons have extraordinary heroic abilities like enhanced spatial sense… this may not apply to everyone. It also may imply that those who do not have such superpowers are less than normal or ideal,” Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked.

The judgment embraced the modern social model of disability, which views disabilities not as personal tragedies but as societal barriers to inclusion. The medical model, which sees disability as a personal tragedy, was deemed obsolete. The Court pointed out that stereotypes and mockery of disabilities arise from a “lack of familiarity” with disabilities, stemming from inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in the dominant discourse.

The Court balanced the issue by stating that not all speech that entrenches stereotypes was against individual dignity. Context, intention, and overall meaning must be considered before determining if remarks made in visual media or films are disparaging.

Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour,’ explaining that disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities while disability humour seeks to better understand and explain a disability.

Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

1. Language Sensitivity: - Avoid words that cultivate institutional discrimination, such as “cripple” and “spastic,” as they contribute to negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. Avoid language that individualizes the impairment and overlooks social barriers (e.g., terms like “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victim”).

2. Accurate Representation:- Strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to avoid perpetuating misinformation and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.

3. Inclusive and Diverse Portrayals:- Reflect the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, capturing their diverse realities and avoiding one-dimensional, ableist characterizations. Showcase the successes, talents, and contributions of persons with disabilities, promoting a more inclusive understanding of disability.

4. Avoiding Harmful Stereotypes:- Do not lampoon persons with disabilities based on myths or present them as “super-cripples” with extraordinary abilities, implying they deserve dignity only if they compensate for their impairments in exceptional ways.

5. Participatory Decision-Making:- Practice the principle of “nothing about us, without us,” involving persons with disabilities in the creation and assessment of visual media content.

6. Collaboration and Consultation:- Collaborate with disability advocacy groups to gain invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.

7. Training and Sensitization:- Implement training programs for writers, directors, producers, and actors to emphasize the impact of portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. These programs should cover the social model of disability, respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation.

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that visual media respects and upholds the dignity of persons with disabilities. By issuing these guidelines, the Supreme Court has paved the way for more inclusive and respectful portrayals, which can help shift societal perceptions and promote equality. The involvement of persons with disabilities in the creative process and collaboration with advocacy groups will ensure that media content reflects their lived experiences accurately and empathetically.

The Court's judgment in this case sets a precedent that can influence future portrayals of persons with disabilities in visual media, fostering a more inclusive and respectful society.

Read the Judgement:

Supreme Court Orders Appointment of 11 Visually Impaired Candidates from CSE 2008 Batch against backlog vacancies within three months

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case: Civil Appeal No. 3303 OF 2015 

Case Title: Union of India (Appellant)  Vs.  Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Respondent(s))

Date of Order: 08 July 2024

Introduction:

In a landmark ruling aimed at ensuring justice and inclusivity, the Supreme Court has directed the government to appoint 11 visually impaired candidates from the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2008 batch against backlog vacancies within three months. This decision comes as a significant victory for the respondents who have been fighting for their rightful place in the civil services for over a decade.

Background of the Case

The primary respondent in this case, referred to as Respondent No.1, is 100% visually impaired. He appeared in the Civil Services Examination in 2008 and opted for the following services in order of preference: Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Revenue Services-Income Tax (IRS (IT)), Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS), and Indian Revenue Service-Customs and Excise (IRS (C&E)). Despite clearing the written test and interview, he was denied an appointment. This led to the filing of Original Application No. 2402 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi, arguing that backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities, as mandated by the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, were not filled.

Tribunal's Directive

On October 8, 2010, the CAT directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to calculate the backlog vacancies within six months and to inform Respondent No.1 about his service allocation. However, on September 9, 2011, UPSC informed him that his name did not feature in the merit list for his disability category (visually impaired). This prompted Respondent No.1 to file another Original Application No. 3493 of 2011 before the CAT.

Further Tribunal Orders and Appeals

On May 30, 2012, the CAT ordered that candidates selected on their own merits should be adjusted in the unreserved/general category as per the Office Memorandum dated December 29, 2005. The Tribunal also directed that candidates belonging to the PH-2 (Visually Impaired) category be selected against the reserved category and be given appointments. However, on August 30, 2012, the UPSC once again denied Respondent No.1 an appointment, stating he was not qualified for the PH-2 quota. In response, Respondent No.1 filed a review application, highlighting that many vacancies for visually impaired candidates remained unfilled.

The Union of India challenged the Tribunal’s judgment dated May 30, 2012, by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition on October 11, 2013, leading to the Union of India filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observations and Directions

The Supreme Court noted the existence of several backlog vacancies for the visually impaired in the IRS (IT) and acknowledged that since CSE-2014, visually impaired candidates have been selected for the IRS (IT). The Court criticized the Union of India for failing to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, effectively, thereby forcing the respondent to seek justice repeatedly.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and issued the following directions:

1. Appointment Consideration: The cases of Respondent No.1 and the other 10 candidates belonging to the visually impaired category, who are above him in the merit list of CSE-2008, shall be considered for appointment against the backlog vacancies of PWD candidates in IRS (IT) or other services/branches.

2. Timely Action:The necessary actions to give appointments must be completed within three months. The appointments will be made prospectively, and the appointees will not be entitled to arrears of salary or seniority benefits.

3. Retirement Benefits: For retirement benefits, their service shall be counted from the date the last candidate of the visually impaired category from CSE-2008 was appointed.

4. One-Time Measure: These directions are issued as a one-time measure and shall not be treated as a precedent.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the importance of implementing disability laws in their true spirit and ensuring that visually impaired candidates receive their rightful opportunities. The Supreme Court’s directive serves as a crucial reminder of the need for inclusivity and fairness in the civil services selection process. This judgment not only provides relief to the 11 candidates but also sets a significant precedent for future cases involving the rights of persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

Calcutta High Court Orders Punjab National Bank to Pay ₹3 Lakh for Discrimination Against Disabled Employee [Judgement included]

Court: Calcutta High Court, India

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha

Case Title: Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others

Case No: WPA 10195 of 2023

Date of Hearing: 20 June 2024

Subject: Inhuman conduct of employer bank with a disabled employee, transfer on promotion 

Brief

In a landmark judgement, the Calcutta High Court has directed Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to a bank official with a 70 percent disability for what the court described as "inhuman" conduct towards him [Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others]. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha emphasized the need for sensitivity and compliance with disability rights laws in the banking sector.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anirban Pal, a Scale-III officer at PNB, was severely injured in a motor accident in 2015, resulting in a 70 percent disability. Despite his condition, Pal was promoted to Scale-IV in 2018. However, PNB insisted on transferring him to Patna, disregarding his repeated requests to remain in Calcutta, where he had access to essential caregiving.

Pal initially avoided the bank's promotion process in 2016, fearing transfer. Observing that two colleagues with physical disabilities were promoted without transfer, he participated in the 2018 promotion process. Although promoted to Scale-IV, his request to stay in Calcutta was denied, forcing him to move to Patna under duress.

Unable to cope with the move, Pal took leave due to severe discomfort and pain. PNB's threats of coercive action further aggravated his situation. Pal then appealed for repatriation to Calcutta, either in his promoted role or by reverting to his previous Scale-III position. Following intervention from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Pal was transferred back to Calcutta in December 2018, albeit demoted to Scale-III.

Court's Findings

The Court condemned PNB’s actions, highlighting their failure to accommodate Pal’s disability needs and their blatant disregard for the directives of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Court mandated disciplinary actions against the responsible officials and ordered the sensitization of all Public Sector Bank officials regarding the "Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016" and the bank's special rules pertaining to disability.

Sensitization and Disciplinary Measures

The High Court's judgement underscores the urgent need for greater awareness and adherence to disability rights within public institutions. The Court's directive to sensitize officials across all Public Sector Banks aims to prevent future instances of discrimination and ensure that employees with disabilities receive the support and accommodations they are entitled to under the law.

This judgement serves as a critical reminder of the legal and ethical obligations of employers to uphold the rights and dignity of employees with disabilities. It is a significant step towards fostering an inclusive and supportive work environment in India's banking sector and beyond.

Read the Judgement

Delhi HC Orders Consideration of Plea Against Exclusion of Several Disabilities from Nursing Reservations

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7634/2024
Case Title: Dr. Satendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2024

The Delhi High Court has directed authorities to examine concerns raised against restrictive disability eligibility criteria in nursing admissions that allegedly exclude several categories of persons with disabilities recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petition challenged the legality of regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council that confined reservation benefits primarily to candidates with locomotor disability affecting the lower extremities. The Court, while refraining from adjudicating the legality of the regulations at that stage, directed the competent authority to treat the writ petition as a formal representation and decide the issues raised in accordance with law.

Background

The public interest petition was filed by disability rights advocate Dr. Satendra Singh challenging Clause 8 of the Indian Nursing Council (Revised) Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc. Nursing Program, 2020.

The impugned provision restricted reservation benefits in nursing admissions to candidates with locomotor disability of 40% to 50% involving the lower extremities. According to the petitioner, the regulation effectively excluded persons with several other benchmark disabilities recognised under the RPwD Act, including muscular dystrophy, dwarfism, acid attack survivors, low vision, hearing impairment, speech and language disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.

The petition argued that such restrictive eligibility standards created systemic barriers at the entry stage itself, preventing persons with disabilities from accessing professional nursing education and, consequently, limiting future employment opportunities in the healthcare sector.

The petitioner also challenged a public notice issued by the National Testing Agency reducing reservation for persons with disabilities from 5% to 3%. It was contended that the reduction violated Section 32 of the RPwD Act as well as the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondents submitted that the impugned public notice and eligibility conditions had been issued in accordance with the prevailing policy framework and applicable guidelines.

Observations of the Court

The High Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted multiple representations before the concerned authorities raising objections to the restrictive disability criteria and reduction in reservation.

The Court observed that despite the serious issues raised regarding implementation of the RPwD Act, the competent authority had not taken a decision on those representations.

Without examining the substantive legality of the regulations or reservation policy at that stage, the Court considered it appropriate to direct administrative consideration of the grievances raised by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the writ petition itself be treated as a representation before the concerned authority for appropriate decision-making in accordance with law.

Directions Issued

• The writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation before the competent authority.
• The authority was directed to decide the representation preferably within four weeks.
• The rights and contentions of all parties were kept open.

Commentary

Although the order is procedurally limited, the case raises important questions about exclusionary disability standards in professional education. The petition directly challenges the practice of narrowing statutory reservation benefits through sector-specific eligibility conditions that recognise only selected forms of disability while excluding others expressly protected under the RPwD Act.

The matter is particularly significant because it links educational exclusion with long-term denial of equal opportunity in employment. Restricting access to professional courses such as nursing can effectively shut persons with disabilities out of entire sectors of public and private employment despite the statutory mandate of inclusion.

The petition also exposes an ongoing tension between the rights-based framework of the RPwD Act and professional regulatory regimes that continue to rely on outdated medicalised assumptions regarding disability and functional capability.

While the High Court adopted a cautious approach by directing administrative consideration instead of immediately ruling on the legality of the regulations, the proceedings nevertheless bring judicial attention to the broader issue of structural exclusion in higher and professional education.

The case therefore remains important in the continuing debate over whether professional admission standards in India genuinely reflect the principles of reasonable accommodation, non-discrimination and substantive equality embodied in the RPwD Act.

Read the Judgement 

Ensuring Fair Trials for Defendants with Hearing and Speech Disabilities: Supreme Court’s Call for Guidelines

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan

Case Title: Ramnarayan Manhar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh

Case No.: SLP (Crl)............ Diary No(s).15153/2024

Date of Hearing: 16 April 2024

Subject: Lack of Guidelines for Fair Trials for Deaf Accused 

Brief

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has brought attention to a critical issue concerning the fair trial rights of individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. The court noted the absence of established guidelines for conducting trials against such accused/ defendants and has taken steps to address this gap in the legal framework by issuing notice to Union of India through the Attorney General to examine this question of law and posted the matter on 26 July 2024.

“However, it is brought to our notice that this Court has not laid down so far the parameters and guidelines for conducting trial against a deaf-and-dumb accused, who is otherwise of sound mind and medically fit to commit a heinous offence like rape.” said the bench.

Background of the case

The case in question, Ramnarayan Manhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, revolves around the conviction of the accused for the heinous crime of raping two minor girls. 

The trial court convicted the perpetrator, the matter was forwarded to the High Court as the accused, being deaf, was not able to understand the proceedings. The same was done in light of Section 318 of the CrPC which provides as under:

"318. Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings.

If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial, and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit."

The High Court, after going through the testimonies of the witnesses, evidence including the medical evidence which corroborated the heinous act, convicted the accused person for attempting to commit rape. Against this conviction, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

After perusing the material on record, the Bench concluded that it was “prima facie satisfied” with the findings of the Trial and the High Court. That being so, the conviction and consequential sentence awarded to the petitioner seems to be justified, the Court expressed.

This move underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equality for all, including those with disabilities.

Read the copy of the order 

Ramnarayan Manhar v. State of Chhattisgarh:

Karnataka HC: Husband with 75% disability can not be directed to pay maintenance to estranged wife [Judgement included]

Court: Karnataka High Court, India

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Case No.: WP No. 48615 of 2013 (GM - FC)

Case Title: Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar 

Date of Judgement: 05 April 2024

Brief:

In a recent judgment by the Karnataka High Court, presided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, a significant ruling was made regarding the obligation of a husband to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. The case, titled Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar, addressed the dispute between a husband and wife, where the husband, suffering from a 75% disability, was contested by the wife for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Background:

Mr. Pankaj Singh Sengar and Mrs. Priyanka Singh were married in 2011 and had a daughter together. However, marital discord ensued, leading to the husband filing for annulment of the marriage, alleging the wife's voluntary departure from their matrimonial home. Amidst legal proceedings, the wife filed for interim maintenance, initially granted at Rs. 15,000 monthly, which became a subject of dispute over unpaid arrears. The husband, acquiring a 75% disability due to a stroke, resigned from work, leading to the wife's pursuit of maintenance through execution petitions, resulting in arrest warrants against him.

Court's Decision:

The court, after careful consideration, ruled in favor of the husband, stating that his 75% disability rendered him incapable of securing employment and thus exempted him from paying maintenance. Citing legal precedents and emphasizing the husband's inability to function as an able-bodied individual, the court held that maintenance cannot be expected from someone incapacitated to such a degree.

Key Points of the Judgment:

• The husband's 75% disability incapacitated him from earning and maintaining the wife and child.
• The court recalled the maintenance order, restricting it to the date of the husband's disability, to avoid exacerbating his dire situation.
• Maintenance cannot be granted without considering the spouse's ability to provide it.
• The responsibility for the grandchild's necessities was placed on the husband's father.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Priyanka Singh v Pankaj Singh Sengar sets a significant precedent regarding the obligation of spouses, particularly those with disabilities, to provide maintenance. The ruling reflects a nuanced understanding of familial responsibilities amidst challenging circumstances, ensuring fairness and equity in matrimonial disputes.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the importance of considering spouses' abilities and circumstances in maintenance disputes, particularly in cases involving disabilities. It highlights the need for empathy and pragmatism in legal proceedings concerning family matters, ensuring just outcomes for all parties involved.

Kerala HC takes Suo Motu notice of Accessibility Challenges in Places of Worship in Kerala [Judgement Included]

Court: Kerala High Court, India

Bench: Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Harisankar V Menon

Case No: DBP No. 25 of 2024

Case Title:  Suo motu v. State of Kerala

Date of Hearing: 27 March 2024

Next Date of Hearing: 20 May 2024

Brief:

In a landmark move highlighting the significance of inclusivity within religious spaces, the Kerala High Court has taken a proactive stance by addressing the accessibility concerns of physically disabled individuals in temples. The court's recent suo motu cognizance of a devotee's plea underscores the imperative of ensuring that all worshippers have equal opportunities to participate fully in religious practices, regardless of physical ability.

Background

The suo motu notice, initiated on March 27, 2024, stems from a heartfelt complaint by a woman devotee who faced barriers in accessing the 'Naalambalam' (sanctum sanctorum) of temple due to her physical disability. She sought permission for wheelchair access within temple premises to enable herself and others like her to engage in darshan, a sacred visual communion with the deities.

The bench, led by Justices Anil K Narendran and Harisankar V Menon, appointed Advocate V Ramkumar Nambiar as an amicus curiae, highlighting the court's commitment to a thorough examination of the issue. This proactive approach signifies a broader effort to reconcile religious customs with the principles of equality and inclusivity enshrined in international human rights instruments particularly the UN Conventionon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Constitution of India and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 among others.

At the core of this case lies the fundamental right to practice one's religion, a right that should be accessible to all without discrimination. The denial of wheelchair access not only impedes individuals' freedom to worship but also raises pertinent questions about societal treatment towards the disabled community.

The petitioner's poignant experience of being carried by relatives to partake in darshan underscores the significant challenges faced by many in accessing religious services. Moreover, the difficulty in viewing the deities from a seated position on the ground further accentuates the sense of exclusion felt by disabled devotees.

As the case progresses, it presents a unique opportunity to strike a balance between respecting religious traditions and ensuring equal access for all worshippers. The outcome of this legal deliberation could set a precedent for how religious institutions accommodate the needs of disabled individuals, fostering a more inclusive approach to spiritual practice.

The next hearing scheduled for May 20, 2024, holds great anticipation for advocates of disability rights and religious organizations alike. It marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing discourse and implementation of legal mandate surrounding inclusivity in religious spaces and underscores the pivotal role of the judiciary in upholding the dignity and rights of every individual.

Importantly, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act of 2016 defines public buildings, and public services including places of worship like temples, within its scope. The Act mandates accessibility standards to be implemented within a specified timeframe with the accessibility standards issued under the Act. Incidently, the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of India, a nodal authority under section 40 of the RPWD Act 2016 had also issued sectoral guidelines titled,"Guidelines for Making Religious Places Accessible" in 2019. These guidelines outline measures to make religious places accessible, emphasizing the importance of compliance with disability rights legislation.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy to mention the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities' order in Case No. 247/1101/2018/05/6629-6644  dated 15.10.2019 , which directed the all the district magistrates to ensure compliance of the provisions of the RPWD Act 2016 and accessibility standards/ guidelines issued thereunder in religious places in Delhi. This order sets a precedent for other states, highlighting the imperative for religious institutions to ensure equal access for all individuals, regardless of their physical abilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's proactive intervention in addressing accessibility issues in places of worship exemplifies a commitment to upholding the principles of equality and inclusivity. By recognizing and addressing the barriers faced by disabled individuals, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in fostering a society where all members can participate fully in religious practices, regardless of physical ability. It is equally important to address the attitudinal barriers towards persons with disabilities in the places of worship in particular and in the larger society in general.

Read the Order

Below is the copy of the Order dated 27 March 2024 in Suo motu v. State of Kerala

Punjab & Haryana HC seeks report from three Govts on accessibility of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities [Interim order included]

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Bench: Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji

Case No.: CWP-PIL-56-2024

Case Title: Court on its Own Motion vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Date of Hearing & Interim Order: 21 March 2024

NDOH: 16 April 2024

Subject: Accessibility of courts and judicial complexes

Brief:

The present petition was listed before the division bench on account of a reference made by the learned Single Judge Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, to provide appropriate infrastructure to make judicial complexes across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh accessible to persons with disabilities, in public interest, keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Taking a suo motu cognizane of the lack of infrastructure in judicial complexes which may be inaccessible to persons with disabilities in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh the division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji on 21 Mar 2024 sought a status report from the Governments of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh on the accessibility status of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities. 

The division bench asked the Governments whether there is compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the infrastructure of Judicial complexes in various court complexes of districts and High Court.

The matter was referred to the bench on a plea was filed by a 60-year-old disabled lady who sought transfer of her case at District Court Punjab's Malerkotla, from the first floor to the ground floor as the judicial complex did not have any provision for a ramp or an elevator to facilitate a disabled person to attend the Court proceedings.

The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term. Absence of appropriate facilities in public buildings, especially judicial complexes, equates to a denial of access to justice and amounts to discrimination against persons with disabilities.

The State has been reminded of its obligation to create a level playing field and provide all necessary facilities to realize the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens by the Constitution, including the right to move freely across the territory of India. The next date of hearing is scheduled for 16 April 2024, where the State is expected to file a special affidavit concerning the District Court of Malerkotla.

This case is a testament to the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding the rights of the disabled and ensuring that justice is accessible to all, regardless of physical limitations. It serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be inclusive and accommodating to the needs of every citizen.

The order though restricts to seeking status on provisions of lifts and ramps, thus leaving out a huge gamut under the accessibility domain that includes, parking, signage and orientation, tactile maps, TGSIs, colour contrasts, floor surface, accesssible toilets, emergency evacuation for people with disabilities, sign language interpretation for deaf litigants and lawyers, braille and ICT Access for persons with vision impairments among others. 

The court should ideally call for a proper access audit of all the district courts in the two states and the UT of Chandigarh from empanelled access auditors of Govt. of India and follow up until the access recommendations  are implemented in toto. We have already delayed the accessibility mandate as the law provided for 5 year time frame for buildings that expired in 2022.

Read the interim order 

Hostel Accommodation is Part of Inclusive Education: Delhi High Court Upholds Rights of Visually Impaired JNU Student

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 75/2024
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2024

Background

In an important judgment concerning accessibility and inclusive education, the Delhi High Court held that hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be treated merely as a discretionary facility and forms an integral part of ensuring equal access to higher education under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”).

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, a student with 100% visual disability, approached the Court seeking hostel accommodation from Jawaharlal Nehru University during his M.A. Sociology programme.

The petitioner had earlier pursued multiple academic programmes within the University. Initially admitted in 2017 to a five-year B.A.-M.A. programme in German, he had been provided hostel accommodation during the course. Thereafter, he enrolled in another Master’s programme in Political Science with specialisation in International Studies and continued to reside in university accommodation, including a room in Sabarmati Hostel designated for students with disabilities.

However, after securing admission to a third programme — M.A. Sociology — the petitioner was denied hostel accommodation despite repeated requests.

Aggrieved by the denial, the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities alleging violation of Section 16 of the RPwD Act, which mandates inclusive education and non-discrimination against students with disabilities.

The University resisted the claim by relying upon provisions of the JNU Hostel Manual. According to the University, students pursuing a second Master’s degree were not entitled to hostel accommodation under the prevailing rules and priority criteria.

JNU also attempted to rely upon allegations concerning the petitioner’s conduct and previous disputes with hostel authorities. However, these allegations bore no connection with the legal issue regarding accessibility and entitlement under disability rights law.

The legal question

The case therefore raised a broader and significant question — whether residential accommodation for students with disabilities is merely an administrative privilege or an essential component of accessible and inclusive higher education.

Key Observations of the Court

The bench delivered a significant ruling affirming that accessibility within higher education extends beyond classroom participation and includes residential and institutional support systems necessary for meaningful educational access.

At the outset, the Court rejected the University’s attempt to rely upon allegations regarding the petitioner’s conduct. The Bench observed that such allegations were wholly irrelevant to the issue of entitlement under disability rights law. The Court clarified that if disciplinary proceedings were warranted, the University remained free to proceed in accordance with law, but such allegations could not justify denial of statutory rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.

A particularly important aspect of the judgment lies in the Court’s recognition that hostel accommodation for a visually impaired student directly impacts accessibility, mobility, participation, and safety within the educational environment.

The Court examined Section 16 of the RPwD Act and emphasised that educational institutions are under a statutory obligation to ensure inclusive education for students with disabilities. Importantly, the Court adopted a purposive and rights-based interpretation of the provision rather than a narrow administrative approach.

The judgment recognised that denial of hostel accommodation to a student with 100% visual disability could substantially impair the student’s ability to effectively pursue higher education. Residential accommodation within the university campus facilitates access to academic resources, mobility support, peer interaction, and participation in campus life.

The Court also examined the relationship between institutional regulations and statutory disability rights obligations. It held that internal hostel policies cannot be interpreted or enforced in a manner that defeats the objectives of the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the Bench recognised that substantive equality may require differential accommodation and affirmative institutional support. Applying hostel rules mechanically without considering the impact upon disabled students would amount to formal equality devoid of fairness and inclusion.

The Court thereby reaffirmed that disability rights law imposes positive obligations upon educational institutions requiring active institutional adaptation rather than passive non-discrimination.

The judgment also acknowledged the importance of dignity and equal participation, recognising that exclusion from hostel accommodation may lead to isolation, logistical hardship, and reduced participation in university life for students with disabilities.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court granted relief in favour of the petitioner and directed Jawaharlal Nehru University to provide hostel accommodation to him.

The Court effectively held that:

• Hostel accommodation for students with disabilities cannot be denied through rigid or mechanical application of hostel eligibility criteria.
• Institutional rules must yield where necessary to fulfil obligations under the RPwD Act.
• Inclusive education under Section 16 of the RPwD Act includes ancillary and supportive facilities necessary for meaningful participation in higher education.
• Students with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation and equal participation within university environments.

The judgment thereby reinforced that educational inclusion extends beyond admission to classrooms and encompasses the broader ecosystem necessary for participation, accessibility, and dignity.

Commentary

The decision in Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors. is an important contribution to disability rights jurisprudence because it expands the understanding of inclusive education from a purely academic concept to a holistic institutional obligation encompassing residential accessibility and campus integration.

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is its recognition that barriers within higher education are not confined to classrooms alone. For students with disabilities — particularly students with visual impairments — access to residential accommodation within campus premises may fundamentally determine their ability to participate in educational life on equal terms.

The judgment meaningfully advances the constitutional principle of substantive equality. Formal equality would simply apply hostel rules identically to all students irrespective of disability. The Court instead recognised that identical treatment in unequal circumstances can itself produce discrimination.

Another important aspect of the ruling is its affirmation that internal institutional regulations cannot override statutory rights under the RPwD Act. Universities frequently rely upon administrative rules, hostel manuals, or infrastructural limitations to deny accommodations to disabled students. The present judgment correctly places disability rights obligations above rigid administrative formalism.

The Court’s reasoning also aligns with evolving international disability jurisprudence under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which conceptualises accessibility and inclusion as encompassing the entire educational environment rather than mere admission into educational institutions.

Importantly, the judgment rejects attempts to indirectly stigmatise disabled students through unrelated allegations or administrative objections. By refusing to allow the petitioner’s alleged conduct to influence adjudication of accessibility rights, the Court reaffirmed that disability rights cannot be made contingent upon institutional convenience.

The ruling also highlights broader structural shortcomings within Indian universities, where hostel accessibility, mobility support, assistive technologies, and inclusive campus infrastructure continue to remain inadequately addressed despite statutory obligations.

At a broader constitutional level, the judgment reinforces that education under the RPwD Act must be understood as a participatory and dignitarian right. Inclusion requires not merely permitting disabled students to enrol in universities, but ensuring that they can genuinely live, study, interact, and participate within institutional spaces on equal terms with others.

The decision therefore stands as an important precedent affirming that accessibility in higher education necessarily includes residential inclusion, institutional accommodation, and removal of barriers that impede full and effective participation of students with disabilities within university life.

Read the judgement