Supreme Court Allows Candidate with Muscular Dystrophy to Participate in NEET-UG 2024 Counselling

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Case Title: OM Rathod Versus The Director General of Health Services and Others 

Case No: SLP(C) No. 21942/2024

Date of Judgement: 25 Oct 2024

Summary

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India on October 25, 2024, allowed a candidate with muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing NEET-UG 2024 counselling. The candidate, who has an 88% disability due to muscular dystrophy, had previously been disqualified from pursuing an MBBS degree under the National Medical Council (NMC) guidelines. These guidelines stipulate that individuals with muscular dystrophy must have a disability level below 80% to qualify for the MBBS course.

The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, took into consideration an expert report suggesting that the candidate could successfully undertake the MBBS program with the help of assistive devices. The Court’s judgment is a significant moment in recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities in medical education.

Background of the Case

Muscular dystrophy is a progressive disease causing weakening and breakdown of muscles, which restricts physical activity. The petitioner, a NEET-UG 2024 candidate, achieved an impressive score of 601/720 despite the challenges posed by his condition. However, his 88% disability exceeded the threshold set by NMC guidelines, leading to his initial disqualification. The Bombay High Court previously upheld this decision, denying relief to the candidate.

Role of Expert Testimony

In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court invited Dr. Satendra Singh, himself a person with disability, Founder of Infinite Ability and an advocate for medical professionals with disabilities, to provide expert insights. Dr. Singh’s report concluded that, with assistive devices, the candidate could meet the requirements of the MBBS program. While the National Medical Council expressed some concerns over Dr. Singh’s expertise in muscular dystrophy specifically, it did not object to the candidate’s admission.

Justice JB Pardiwala, addressing the NMC’s concerns, advocated for a compassionate view, stating, “There are two reports now, give him a chance!”

Supreme Court's Decision and Observations

The Court’s decision allows the candidate to proceed with NEET-UG 2024 counselling but notes that the order is case-specific and should not be treated as a legal precedent. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified, "This order is passed in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and shall not be construed as a concluding express opinion by this Court on the issues of law that may arise in an appropriate case."

The Court further pointed out a gap in the assessment of disability with assistive devices, referencing the Government of India’s Gazette notification (March 2024), which lacks guidelines for disability evaluation in such contexts. This observation may potentially lead to regulatory improvements in assessing persons with disabilities seeking admission to educational and professional courses.

Advocacy for Inclusive Medical Education

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s evolving stance on inclusivity in medical education. Recently, the Court had ruled that a benchmark disability should not be a sole disqualification for MBBS admission. This order reinforces the principle that capable students with disabilities deserve equitable opportunities, provided that their needs for assistive support can be reasonably accommodated.

Moving Forward

The Supreme Court’s directive in  highlights the pressing need for inclusive education policies, especially in fields like medicine, where physical challenges often lead to discrimination. This case marks another step towards a more inclusive educational system that acknowledges the potential of individuals with disabilities to contribute meaningfully to society.

This decision resonates with advocates for disability rights, as it reflects the Court’s willingness to adapt legal interpretations in response to technological and social advancements, especially in assistive devices. The judgment has set a powerful example, encouraging policymakers to create more inclusive opportunities for individuals with disabilities in medical and other professional fields. 

This case serves as a reminder that the pursuit of equality is ongoing, with each judgment adding strength to the movement for inclusivity in Indian education and beyond.

Judgement: OM Rathod Versus The Director General of Health Services and Others [SLP(C) No. 21942/2024]

Supreme Court - Benchmark disability no ground to render a candidate ineligible to pursue MBBS

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:  Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan 
Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.:  Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 15 October 2024
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 775

Cases Referred:

• Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 383
• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 2 SCC 209
• Lieutenant Colonel Nitisha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
• Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 761
• Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency, (NTA) and others (2023) 2 SCC 286

Synopsis: 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the eligibility of a candidate with a benchmark disability for admission to the MBBS program under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) reservation. The case revolved around the appellant, who qualified NEET (UG) 2024 and sought admission under the PwD and OBC categories. The Disability Certification Centre initially deemed the appellant ineligible, citing that his speech and language disability (44-45%) would hinder his ability to pursue the course under National Medical Commission (NMC) norms.

When the Bombay High Court declined interim relief, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court issued an interim order directing that the appellant’s seat be reserved and constituted a specialized Medical Board to evaluate whether the appellant’s disability genuinely impeded his ability to pursue medical education. Following a favorable report, the Court upheld the appellant's admission.

Key directives of the judgment included:

1. Disability as a Criterion: Quantified disability alone cannot disqualify a candidate. Eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board's opinion on whether the disability prevents course completion.
2. Reasoned Decisions: Boards must explicitly state if and why a disability would impede the candidate’s ability to pursue the course.
3. Judicial Review: Negative opinions by Disability Boards can be challenged in courts, which may refer the case to premier medical institutes for independent review.
4. Policy Reforms: Pending reforms by the NMC, the Boards must consider guidelines from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

This landmark decision emphasizes a nuanced, case-by-case assessment of disabilities in educational settings, reinforcing the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgement 

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 

Statutes Over Contract- Delhi HC Rules on Transfer of Disabled Employees in CPSEs in IRCON International Ltd v. Bhavneet Singh

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Case No.: LPA 133/2024 and C.M. No. 9793/2024

Case Title: IRCON International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh

Date of Judgment: July 18, 2024

Citation: 2024:DHC:5269-DB

Cases Referred: Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022);  Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (2014 14 SCC 383);  V.K. Bhasin v. State Bank of Patiala and Ors. (2005:DHC:19141-DB); Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board ((2009) 13 SCC 758); Anju Mehra v. Canara Bank (2020:DHC:3183); Sudhanshu Tripathi v. Bank of India (MANU/MP/0932/2018); Pradeep Kumar Shrivastav v. CBI (OA No. 2233/2017); Manoj Kumar Gupta v. UOI (2013:DHC:444); S.K. Tandon v. Export Inspection Council of India & Anr. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 5461); Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. St. of Bihar & Ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 659); H.K. Chawla v. Indian Oil Corp ((2005) 80 DRJ 411); Madanjit Kumar v. UOI (2016:DHC:7563); Amarjeet Singh Dagar v. UOI & Ors. (2022:DHC:847-DB).

Summary & Brief Background

This judgment marks a decisive chapter in the ongoing legal battle concerning the rotational transfer policies applied to employees with benchmark disabilities. The appellant, IRCON International Limited (a Central Public Sector Enterprise), preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the landmark judgment of a learned Single Judge bench delivered on December 15, 2023. As previously covered on our blog (see our detailed breakdown of the Single Judge's order at Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Disabled Employee Transfer Case), the initial ruling quashed a punitive transfer order dated August 22, 2022, that sought to relocate the respondent from New Delhi to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project in Bilaspur.

The respondent, an Assistant Manager within the Human Resources and Management (HRM) cadre, is a person with a 72% permanent locomotor disability arising from cerebral palsy. His functional condition requires regular clinical tracking in Delhi, the continuous physical assistance of a paramedic, and the maintenance of a knee-length prosthetic ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) with a 4-inch raise. He additionally manages severe medical complications, including lumbar spondylosis, a degenerative cervical spine, and tendinosis. Prior to the contested relocation, the respondent had already been subjected to two separate systemic transfers within a span of five years. Following complaints filed before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities regarding derogatory organizational behaviour , the respondent was abruptly served a relocation order. He successfully resisted the transfer before the Single Judge , leading to this subsequent confirmation battle before the Division Bench.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Management Prerogative Defense: IRCON IL strictly maintained that workplace transfers are a natural, non-negotiable incident of civil employment. They asserted that corporate management retains an absolute administrative prerogative to deploy human resources based on functional requirements, qualifications, and localized staffing deficits. They further alleged that the regulatory Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) protecting disabled workers do not inherently bind corporate entities like CPSEs.
• The "Suitability & Infrastructure" Alibi: The appellant argued that Bilaspur possesses multiple super-specialty multi-specialty healthcare networks, ensuring that the respondent's accessibility and orthopedic updates could be facilitated at the new location without impacting his health.
• The Systemic Targeting Contradiction: The legal team for the respondent, heavily fortified by the specialized insights of the Amicus Curiae, exposed a glaring institutional contradiction in how IRCON applied its own rotation policies. IRCON had issued an internal circular mandating that employees stationed at a single location for 5 years or more must be prioritized for rotational transfers. The record revealed that multiple completely non-disabled employees matching these transfer filters were retained in Delhi. Meanwhile, the respondent—who had highly meritorious performance evaluations, including an "Outstanding" Annual Performance Report (APR)—was selectively picked for relocation. The appellant attempted to justify this by citing unspecified interpersonal friction and alleged office behavioural updates. This exposed the institutional reality that the transfer was structurally punitive and discriminatory rather than an objective "administrative necessity".

Key Issues Addressed

• Whether Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) can escape the legal obligation to comply with central government guidelines and DoPT Office Memorandums that exempt disabled employees from routine rotational transfers.
• Whether an explicit transfer clause contained within a standard employment contract can override or subordinate the protective social legislation enacted under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Upon whom does the burden of proof rest to validate "administrative exigency" when an order uproots an employee with a severe benchmark physical disability.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, establishing that corporate convenience cannot diminish statutory disability mandates:

1. The Fallacy of Unconditional Corporate Transfers: The Court held that while the general standard of minimal judicial interference applies to standard transfers, substantial caveats govern actions affecting employees with disabilities. Relocations must strictly align with the welfare objectives of the RPwD Act, ensuring that disabled workers are exempted from rotational systems, placed near their choice of supportive locations, and kept in environments with uninterrupted medical accessibility.
2. Statutes Supersede Employment Contracts: The Court rejected the argument that signing a standard transferable employment contract limits a worker's rights to challenge an unfavourable transfer: "A contractual arrangement between parties, including an employment contract, is always subordinate to the legislative framework governing the field occupied by the subject contract... If the terms and conditions of the employment contract executed between an employer and a differently-abled person are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the 2016 Act, the latter would prevail."
3. Shifting the Burden of Proof: The Court ruled that employers must justify any transfer of a benchmark-disabled employee by presenting verifiable, clear administrative constraints. IRCON’s reliance on vague denials was deemed legally insufficient, particularly when non-disabled alternatives were readily available: "...when a transfer order is passed concerning a differently-abled person, the burden to prove that it was triggered due to administrative exigencies or constraints would be on the employer."
4. The Mandate of a Model Employer: The Court noted that transferring an individual as a workaround for interpersonal friction violates the core duties of public sector entities. Instead of executing exclusionary transfers, organizations must actively implement sensitization frameworks: "As a model employer, IRCON IL could arrange training sessions for non-disabled employees to sensitise and help them prepare for their interactions with differently-abled persons."

Directions Issued

Upholding the Single Judge's decision, the Division Bench issued the following orders:

1. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by IRCON International Limited was dismissed.
2. The quashing of the impugned transfer order dated August 22, 2022, and the corresponding relieving order dated August 23, 2022, was sustained, allowing the respondent to continue working at the corporate office in Delhi.
3. Legal costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- were imposed on the appellant, with a strict directive to remit the amount to the respondent within a period of two weeks.

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

Read the judgement

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.