Delhi HC Clarifies CCPD’s Powers Under RPwD Act, 2016: Interim Recommendations Are Binding Unless Validly Rejected

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 980 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2025
Relevant Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Sections 75 and 76)
Cases Referred:

• Anamika vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1084
• Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, SC
• Ramanand vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3292

Introduction

In a significant judgment delivered on 2 April 2025, the Delhi High Court examined the powers and authority of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), especially regarding the issuance of interim recommendations in service-related matters.

One of the important mandate of the CCPD is to provide a platform for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) to raise their grievances against the government and even private bodies. The CCPD and its state counterparts (SCPDs) have continuously discharged an important function: lending a sensitive ear to the plights of persons with disabilities that are often overlooked in our ableist world. 

However, for past several years (before the RPWD Act 2016), there was no clarity about the exact nature of CCPD's powers due to conflicting judgements from different courts. Many of then simply stayed the CCPD's judgements citing  it had no power to issue injunctions. More recently, it got further complicated and also important. The boiling questions for example were: 

• Can the CCPD interfere in service matters? This becomes critical as more than 70% of the grievances received by the CCPD office pertains to service conditions/ matters. 
• If the CCPD passes an order directing an authority to do something, is that authority bound to follow it? This is even more relevant since the CCPD offers something that other tribunals/bodies do not really have with them : the expertise in the domain of disability rights, and a decision informed by empathy and understanding. And therefore, if a CCPD order is given no binding power whatsoever, the society effectively loses on this deep expertise and empathy-informed decision making. 

Through this judgment, the Delhi High Court has clarified the law on both these questions. Most importantly, it has held that the CCPD's recommendations are binding on respondent-authorities, with the only narrow exception where valid reasons exist for not accepting such recommendations. The judgment doesn't go in to detail explaining what circumstances would constitute a 'valid reason' for the same. 

On the tricky question of service matters, the Court held that generally speaking, service matters are something between an employer and an employee. However, of course, if the employer violates any rights available to a PwDs under the 2016 Act, the CCPD can look into it. Similarly, the CCPD can issue (binding) recommendations on more general matters (as compared to individual cases) such as when an organisation has not reserved PwD seats where it was required to do so. 

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, a government employee with locomotor disability, was posted at the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), Faridabad. He was transferred to NPTI's regional centre at Durgapur, which he challenged as being unreasonable, discriminatory, and in violation of his rights under the RPwD Act.

Alleging mala fide intent and harassment due to frequent transfers, he filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The CCPD, after preliminary review, directed the Institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance. NPTI challenged this direction before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who set aside the CCPD’s order, prompting the present intra-court appeal.

Issues Considered

1. Whether the CCPD can interfere in service matters such as transfers under the RPwD Act?
2. Whether orders or recommendations of the CCPD are binding on authorities?
3. Whether the CCPD can issue interim directions during the pendency of proceedings?

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Court undertook a comparative reading of the 1995 and 2016 disability laws. Under the 1995 Act, the Chief Commissioner’s powers were primarily recommendatory and lacked enforceability. However, the 2016 Act brought a “remarkable change”, especially under Section 76, which prescribes that authorities must provide valid reasons if they choose not to implement the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner.

The Court observed:

“The law now mandates not merely that the recommendations be considered, but that they are presumed to be binding unless compelling reasons are given for their non-acceptance.”

It further clarified that even interim recommendations—like directing an employer to defer a transfer—are within the scope of CCPD’s authority, provided they are aimed at preventing potential violations of rights under the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the judgment reaffirms that service-related matters, while generally the employer’s domain, become subject to the scrutiny of the CCPD if they infringe upon statutory rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Final Order

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the earlier Single Judge order. It held that:

• The CCPD’s direction to keep the transfer in abeyance should be treated as an “interim recommendation” under Sections 75 and 76 of the RPwD Act.
• The respondent, National Power Training Institute, is bound to consider this interim recommendation and, if rejecting it, must furnish valid reasons to both the CCPD and the complainant, Mukesh Kumar.

Significance of the Judgment

This is a landmark clarification on the enforceability of the CCPD’s role under the RPwD Act, 2016:

• Affirms the CCPD’s powers to intervene and issue interim relief.
• Elevates the status of its recommendations from mere advice to conditionally binding directives.
• Empowers persons with disabilities with a more robust and responsive mechanism for redress.

The ruling strengthens the quasi-judicial character of the office of the Chief Commissioner and reinforces the statutory teeth of the RPwD Act, particularly in employment and service-related disputes involving persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgment below:

Supreme Court Upholds Equal Access to Judicial Services for Persons with Disabilities [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Title:  Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vs. The Registrar General , The High Court of Madhya Pradesh  (Suo-Motu)

Case No.: SMW(C) No. 2/2024  (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) by holding that no candidate can be denied consideration for judicial service recruitment solely due to their disability. The ruling strikes down discriminatory provisions and upholds the principles of equality and affirmative action enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

The judgment is a significant milestone in the journey toward an inclusive and equitable judicial system. The Supreme Court explicitly held that persons with disabilities must not face discrimination while seeking employment in the judiciary and that the state is responsible for ensuring an inclusive framework. The Court emphasized that any indirect discrimination—such as unreasonable cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be removed to uphold substantive equality.

By striking down a provision in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service, the Court has sent a strong message against systemic exclusion. The ruling makes it clear that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in the selection process for judicial positions.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which disqualified visually impaired candidates.

• Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as a three-year practice period or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks, was also struck down to the extent that it discriminated against PWD candidates.

• The Court held that reasonable accommodations must be provided to PWD candidates during the recruitment process, in line with the RPwD Act, 2016.

• The judgment extends relief to PWD candidates in Rajasthan who were denied a separate cutoff in the Rajasthan Judicial Service preliminary exams, ensuring they will be considered in future recruitments.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the exclusion of her son from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court subsequently issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue gained prominence after the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the RPwD Act. Interim measures were taken by the Court to ensure participation of visually impaired aspirants, but their selection was made subject to the final outcome of the case.

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

The judgment underscores a rights-based approach to disability inclusion in the judiciary. It affirms that disability is not a limitation but a social barrier that must be addressed through reasonable accommodations and affirmative action. The Court recognized that once recruited, judicial officers with disabilities must be provided the necessary training and support to discharge their duties effectively.

The ruling aligns with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation for PWDs in government jobs, including judicial positions. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, already provide for a 6% reservation in state services, further reinforcing the need for compliance with disability rights legislation.

Implications for the Future 

The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a crucial precedent for other states and institutions in India. It reaffirms that arbitrary barriers preventing PWDs from equal participation in public service must be dismantled. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities.

For aspiring judges with disabilities, this ruling is a ray of hope. It not only paves the way for their rightful inclusion in the legal profession but also strengthens the foundation of a truly representative and diverse judiciary.

This judgment is a reminder that the fight for disability rights is far from over, but each legal victory brings us closer to a more inclusive society.

Judgement

Read the Judgement below:

Indian Supreme Court expands Access to Scribes in Examinations for All Persons with disabilities who need it, Benchmark threshold not a pre-requisite [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Case Title: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Date of Judgement: 03 February  2025

Background

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) by allowing all disabled candidates to use scribes for writing exams, regardless of whether they meet the benchmark disability criteria. The decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by a candidate diagnosed with Focal Hand Dystonia, a chronic neurological condition, who was denied the facility of a scribe in various examinations.

The petitioner had a 25% permanent disability, certified by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences Centre (NIMHANS), Bangalore. Despite this, recruitment bodies refused him the accommodations typically granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). He challenged the restrictive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which failed to ensure reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities below the 40% benchmark.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court emphasized that restricting scribe facilities to only those with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory and contradicted the principle of reasonable accommodation.

The ruling referenced several landmark judgments, including:

• Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) – Held that denying a scribe to candidates below the benchmark disability threshold was discriminatory.

• Avni Prakash v. NTA (2021) – Reinforced the importance of reasonable accommodation in examinations.

• Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities (2024) – Strengthened the principle of equality in educational assessments.

The Court also considered international precedents, such as Moore v. British Columbia (Education) and Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, which advocate for inclusive policies ensuring equal access to education and employment opportunities for disabled individuals.

Key Directives from the Supreme Court

To address inconsistencies in examination accommodations, the Court issued the following directives to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment:

1. Revise the Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 10, 2022 – Remove restrictions and provide reasonable relaxations to all PwD candidates.

2. Ensure uniform implementation – All examination authorities must strictly adhere to updated guidelines.

3. Periodic sensitization programs – Educational institutions must conduct awareness programs to train examination officials on implementing disability accommodations.

4. Establish a grievance redressal portal – A centralized platform should be created to handle accessibility-related complaints before legal escalation.

5. Review and re-notify guidelines – Authorities must standardize scribe provisions across different examination bodies.

6. Extend validity of scribe certification – Increase validity beyond the current six-month period to reduce administrative delays.

7. Incentivize scribes – Provide training and financial incentives to ensure an adequate supply of scribes.

8. Enhance candidate familiarity with scribes – Allow pre-exam interactions to ensure effective communication during tests.

9. Offer multiple accessibility modes – Enable candidates to choose between scribes, braille, large print, or audio recording of answers.

10. Penalize non-compliance – Take strict action against examination bodies that fail to implement the prescribed guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant victory for disability rights in India. By extending scribe accommodations to all disabled candidates, the ruling ensures greater inclusivity and fairer opportunities in competitive examinations. This judgment reinforces the core principles of the RPwD Act, 2016, and underscores the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation as a legal and ethical obligation.

Read the Judgement

Madras High Court Upholds Rights of Policeman Acquiring Disability, Orders Reinstatement

Court: Madras High Court, Madurai Bench

Bench: Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Case No. W.P.(MD)No. 26560 of 2024

Case title: Ganesan   Vs. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Force

Date of Judgement: 07 January 2025

Brief Summary

In a landmark judgment reinforcing disability rights in India, the Madras High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a visually impaired policeman who acquired his disability during service. Justice R. Vijayakumar, presiding over the Single-Judge Bench, ruled that the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force Nayak, discharged from service on medical grounds, must be reinstated with alternative employment and pay protection, as mandated by Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Case Background

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Police Constable in 2010, sustained severe injuries to his head and eyes during election duty. Following the accident, his vision deteriorated, prompting his reassignment to light duty, which he performed for a decade. Despite his promotion to Nayak, a Medical Board later declared him completely unfit for service, leading to his discharge and eviction from government quarters.

Court’s Observations

The Bench noted that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act prohibits the termination of employees who acquire disabilities during service and mandates their reassignment to suitable roles. The Police Department failed to provide evidence of exemption from this provision. The Court emphasized that the law applies to uniformed services, and the petitioner must be offered alternative employment with pay protection.

Judgment

The Court quashed the discharge order and directed the Police Department to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, pay protection, and an alternative light-duty role.

This judgment underscores the commitment of Indian courts to uphold the rights of persons with disabilities, ensuring dignity, equal opportunity, and protection under the law.

Read or Download judgement: Ganesan v. The Commandant (W.P.(MD) No. 26560 of 2024)

Supreme Court Mandates Enforcement of additional guidelines along with the UOI's Airport Guidelines for Dignified Assistance to Persons with Disabilities

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala  and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case No. W.P.(C) No. 121/2024

Case title: Arushi Singh vs. Union of India  

Date of Judgement: 12 November 2024

Brief Summary

On November 12, 2024 the Supreme Court disposed off a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with a benchmark disability, addressing an incident of alleged humiliation at Kolkata Airport. Singh reported being asked by security personnel to stand up from her wheelchair during security screening, a situation that left her feeling disrespected and violated. The Court affirmed that the guidelines proposed by the Union Government for treating persons with disabilities with dignity at airports would now be mandatory, also extending to elderly and injured passengers requiring wheelchair assistance.

Incident Leading to the Petition  

Arushi Singh, a graduate of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and LL.M. holder from the National University of Singapore, recounted her experience on January 31, 2024. She alleged that she waited for approximately 20 minutes without assistance outside the airport and was subsequently asked to stand during security screening three times, despite her repeated explanations of her disability. The insensitivity allegedly displayed by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel prompted Singh to file the petition, seeking effective enforcement of relevant regulations, including the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, and the Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022.  

Supreme Court Observations and UOI's Suggestions  

A bench comprising former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala had noted during earlier hearings that the issues raised required action by the Union of India. During the proceedings, a joint statement was presented, outlining several suggestions for ensuring dignified treatment of specially-abled individuals at airports:  

1. Mobile Application for Wheelchair Availability: Real-time updates on wheelchair availability at designated airport points for easy access by users.  

2. Mechanized Wheelchairs: Availability of mechanized wheelchairs for passengers traveling solo or in cases of delayed assistance.  

3. Boarding Pass Coding:  Incorporation of an alphabet code indicating the type of disability and a color scale denoting the severity of the condition.  

4. Integration of Unique Disability Identity Database:  Streamlining the ticket booking process by linking the database, enabling instant access to verified disability information for better assistance.  

5. Specialized Kiosks for Boarding Passes: Contactless kiosks equipped with voice recognition and response technology to aid persons with disabilities.  

6. Regular Sensitization Training for Airport Staff: Comprehensive and periodic training for airport staff, emphasizing understanding various disabilities and compassionate assistance.  

Court’s Directives  

The Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel, Abiha Zaidi, that these suggestions should be treated as mandatory guidelines. The bench further emphasized that these measures should not be limited to wheelchair users but also include elderly and injured passengers requiring assistance. Importantly, it clarified that physical assistance already being provided at airports would not be withdrawn under these guidelines.  

Concluding the matter, the bench remarked:  

"We dispose of the Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms laying more stress on sensitizing the staff at the airport to be more compassionate towards the specially abled passengers." 

Read the judgement

Ktk HC- Candidates with “absolute blindness” deserve preferential consideration over those with “low vision” for employment

Court: Karnataka High Court

Bench: Mr. Justice Krishna Dixit and Mr. Justice CM Joshi 

Caste Title:  State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Ms. Latha H N. 

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19994 of 2024 (S-KSAT)

Date of Judgement: 11 Nov 2024

Synopsis:

Karnataka High Court has once again reinforced the principle of equity in disability rights, particularly in the realm of employment. Addressing a petition concerning the rights of blind candidates, the division bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice C.M. Joshi ruled that candidates with “absolute blindness” deserve preferential consideration over those with “low vision” for employment, provided their disability does not impede their ability to perform the duties required by the job.

This decision arose in the case of H.N. Latha, a blind Scheduled Caste candidate from Periyapatna taluk in Mysuru district, who had applied for the post of Kannada and social studies teacher in government primary schools. Despite being listed in the selection list published on March 8, 2023, her candidature was rejected on July 4, 2023. Latha challenged this rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), which not only directed the appointment authority to reconsider her case but also awarded her ₹10,000 in costs.

The education department, dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision, argued that reservations for candidates with “low vision” and those with “blindness” form separate categories. They contended that the tribunal had failed to recognize this distinction. However, the High Court dismissed their appeal, upholding the tribunal’s directive to reconsider Latha’s case within three months.

Recognizing the Strengths of Blind Candidates

The court’s judgment went beyond merely resolving a legal dispute. It underscored the inherent strengths and unique abilities of blind individuals, challenging the stereotype that blindness is an insurmountable barrier to professional competence. The division bench highlighted several positive qualities often found in blind individuals, including:

• Exceptional adaptability and resilience.
• Strong coping mechanisms to navigate daily challenges.
• Outstanding listening skills and memory recall.
• Unwavering commitment and focus on achieving goals.
• Heightened senses such as hearing, touch, and smell.

In a remarkable observation, the court drew inspiration from history, citing examples of blind individuals who have achieved extraordinary success. From Homer, the legendary poet of The Iliad and The Odyssey, to John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, to modern-day figures like Srikanth Bolla, the CEO of Bollant Industries, the judgment reminded us of the limitless potential of individuals with blindness when given the right opportunities.

A Call for Inclusive Policies

The court criticized the education department for its failure to adopt inclusive policies. It noted that either specific posts should have been earmarked for blind candidates or that they should have been allowed to compete alongside candidates with low vision for the advertised positions. By upholding the tribunal’s order, the High Court not only reinstated Latha’s right to be reconsidered for the teaching post but also sent a strong message about the importance of equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

This judgment is significant not just for Latha but for the broader movement for disability rights in India. It serves as a reminder that true inclusion requires going beyond formal compliance with laws to actively recognizing and leveraging the unique strengths of persons with disabilities.

The Way Forward

The ruling has opened up new avenues for advocacy. It highlights the urgent need for policymakers and employers to adopt inclusive hiring practices that ensure fairness while tapping into the diverse abilities of all individuals, including those with disabilities. It is a wake-up call to challenge societal and institutional biases and move toward a more equitable and inclusive workforce.

As India strives to fulfill its commitments under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), judgments like these lay the foundation for a society that values and empowers its most marginalized members.

H.N. Latha’s fight for her rightful place in the workforce is a story of resilience and justice, one that inspires hope for a future where disability is not seen as a limitation but as a source of strength and diversity.

Read the judgement 

Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi case holds the recommendatory nature of Sectoral Accessibility Guidelines under Rule 15 as ultra vires the RPWD Act. Grants 3 months to UOI to make corrections in consultation with stakeholders

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Case Title:  Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005

Date of Judgement: 08 Nov 2024

Summary

On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India & Ors., reshaping the landscape of accessibility rights for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India. 

One of the major difficulties faced in enforcing the accessibility mandate and making accessibility a real right had been that the language in RPWD Rule 15 incorporated no compulsion to comply. Despite this absence, the Union of India kept claiming that the rules were mandatory. The Supreme Court bench called off the bluff and asked the Union of India to create a mandatory floor on accessibility. The bench directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed this judgment in a PIL filed by Mr Rajive Raturi, a  person with visual impairment, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

The latest judgment was passed in the light of the report submitted by NALSAR - Centre for Disability Studies, headed by Professor Dr. Amita Dhanda titled “Finding Sizes for All- A Report on the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India” which was prepared by the Centre in collaboration with persons with disabilities, disabled persons organizations and experts on accessibility.

The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, after analysing international treaties such as United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & judgments, culled out the following principles:-

a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and

b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives.

The Court noted that the CDS report opined that while the RPwD Act 2016 creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, whereas the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, create a mechanism which only prescribes self- regulatory guidelines.

Agreeing with this view, the Court observed :

"Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules have transformed into self- regulation by way of delegated legislation. The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of the RPWD Act While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non- negotiable floor. A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act."

The Court therefore directed the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months. "This exercise may involve segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR- CDS is directed to be involved in the process. It is clarified that progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue unabated. However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules must be prescribed in Rule 15," the Court observed.

Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories were directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented in cases of non- compliance with Rule 15.

The judgement in para 22  highlights the importance of Accessibility as a Human Right in the following words:-

"Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities, to exercise their rights fully and equally. Without accessibility, individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society, whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation in cultural and civic activities. Accessibility ensures that persons with disabilities are not marginalised but are instead able to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else, making it an integral part of ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity. By embedding accessibility as a human right within existing legal frameworks, it becomes clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the exercise of other rights."

Para 37 of the judgement explains relationship between Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility in following terms:-

"At this stage, it is also crucial to understand the relationship between reasonable accommodation and accessibility, as both are essential for achieving equality for PWDs. While accessibility generally refers to the removal of barriers in the environment or infrastructure to ensure equal access for all, reasonable accommodation is more individualised. It involves making specific adjustments to meet the unique needs of a person with a disability. In other words, accessibility ensures that environments are designed to be inclusive from the outset, while reasonable accommodation ensures that individuals who face specific challenges can enjoy their rights on an equal basis in particular contexts."

The judgement in Para 39 reiterates the duty of state vis-à-vis accessibility as below:-

"It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning that the State is required to implement accessibility measures proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. The State must establish broad, standardised accessibility standards in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring that these standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all relevant stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests".

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Mandatory Accessibility Standards 

The Court found that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, 2017, previously framed as "guidelines," was ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as it lacked enforceability, which was the intent of the RWD Act 2016. This judgment mandates the government to replace these aspirational guidelines with binding rules within three months. This reading down of Rule 15 from voluntary guidelines to mandatory standards in light of the mandate of the RPWD Act is a major advancement in accessibility rights, aiming to provide PWDs with meaningful access to public spaces and facilities, which is critical for them to exercise other rights.

2. Historical Context and Slow Progress 

This ruling traces its roots to an earlier Supreme Court judgment on December 15, 2017, that directed states and union territories to take actions towards accessibility. Despite the passage of several years, compliance was found lacking, prompting the appointment of NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) to assess the implementation status based on a court order. The report by NALSAR-CDS, coupled with submissions from both the petitioner and the Union of India, formed the basis for this historic judgment.

3. Highlighting Legislative Gaps and Need for Uniformity 

   The judgment underscores discrepancies in accessibility standards across different sectors, such as the Ports and Civil Aviation sectors. Rule 15(1) and its various standards were criticized for presenting conflicting guidelines on fundamental requirements, like accessible toilets, and for the presence of non-enforceable, technical errors. By declaring Rule 15(1) ultra vires to the RPWD Act, the Court has called for a single, enforceable accessibility framework aligned with the Act's legislative intent.

4. Principles for Accessibility and Universal Design. 

The Court directed that the following principles of accessibility should be considered while carrying out the above exercise:

a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations or specialized design;

b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis;

c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers, audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure digital and informational accessibility across public and private platforms; and

d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.

5. Government Accountability and Timelines 

The Union Government has been directed to frame these mandatory rules within three months, in consultation with NALSAR-CDS and stakeholders. Compliance with the redefined Rule 15 will be monitored under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the RPWD Act, ensuring accountability through penalties and non-issuance of completion certificates for non-compliance.

Moving Forward: A Collective Win for Accessibility Rights

This ruling is not merely a judicial milestone; it reflects the resilience and advocacy of India’s disability rights movement. By transforming accessibility from an aspirational goal into a mandatory legal standard, the Supreme Court has advanced India towards becoming a more inclusive and accessible society. The judgment enshrines accessibility as a prerequisite for realizing the rights and dignity of all citizens, ensuring that everyone can participate fully and equally in public life.

As the government works to implement the Court’s directives, the ongoing role of DPOs, NGOs, and individuals in shaping and monitoring these standards will be crucial. This collective approach will uphold the inclusive spirit of the RPWD Act, reinforcing that accessibility is not just a right but a shared responsibility. 

The Writ Petitions have been adjourned to 07 March 2025 on which date, the Union Government must report compliance to this Court.

Read the judgement here:

Stray Animal Menace : Delhi High Court’s Directives on Safety and Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Manmohan, with Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Case Title: NYAYA BHOOMI  Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 3346/2015

Date of Order: 25 Oct 2024

Connected Cases: W.P.(C) 6914/2015 The Society for Public Cause Vs. UOI & Ors &  W.P.(C) 14560/2024 Dhananjay Sanjogta Foundation Vs. Deptt of Animal Husbandry & Dairying & Anr.

Summary

In a public interest litigation (PIL) petition hearing concerning stray animal attacks on persons with disabilities (PwDs) and the overall public in Delhi, the Delhi High Court called for an urgent yet balanced approach to address the issue. The PIL, scrutinized the threats posed by stray dogs, monkeys, and other animals, particularly in sensitive areas like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and city hospitals.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stressed the need for policies that address animal control while protecting human rights, particularly for PwDs. They directed the Chief Secretary of Delhi to convene a meeting with key stakeholders to prioritize clearing hospitals and public spaces of stray animals to ensure public safety.

Key Arguments and Observations: Protection for PwDs Amid Rising Stray Populations

The hearing underscored that stray animals, such as monkeys and dogs, increasingly pose risks for PwDs, making it challenging for them to navigate the streets of Delhi. Advocate Rahul Bajaj, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the current Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 overlook the risks to PwDs, making them non-compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD). Bajaj pointed out that while PwDs support animal welfare, a practical solution allowing safe access to public spaces is essential.

Chief Justice Manmohan commented, “Society comprises various groups, including people with disabilities, who have a genuine problem. It’s impossible to walk in Delhi without being threatened by stray animals. We must balance respect for stray animals with respect for human beings.” Justice Gedela added that hospitals and public spaces should not be compromised, noting that institutions like AIIMS must maintain a clean environment free of stray animals to protect patients undergoing critical care.

Monkeys in Tis Hazari: A Need for Relocation

The bench also highlighted the issue of monkeys flocking to Tis Hazari court premises, pointing out the impact on daily operations. Chief Justice Manmohan noted, “Monkeys are wild animals, not companion animals. This misplaced sympathy is affecting people’s safety and functionality in public institutions.” The court directed authorities to address the issue by relocating monkeys to the Asola Wildlife Sanctuary, citing the need for a “sensible balance” that considers both animal welfare and public safety.

 PwDs’ Right to Walk Safely in Delhi: Stray Animals and Public Access

The court emphasized the fundamental rights of PwDs to access public spaces safely, questioning the effectiveness of sterilization programs aimed at controlling stray populations. “Main streets of Delhi must be accessible,” remarked the Chief Justice. “PwDs have a fundamental right to walk without the threat of being attacked by stray animals. Imagine a visually impaired person trying to walk in South Delhi, where even we struggle with strays.”

The petitioners argued that visually impaired individuals often face attacks from stray animals as the animals misinterpret their walking sticks as a threat. The Chief Justice, aligning with Bajaj's arguments, stated that such attacks prevent PwDs from safely navigating city streets and parks, effectively violating their right to move freely.

Broad Action Plan and Stakeholder Meeting Scheduled

To address this, the court mandated a meeting on November 4 at 4:30 pm at the Chief Secretary’s office. The meeting is to include stakeholders such as the heads of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Forest Department, Animal Welfare Board (AWB) of Delhi, and other key officials. Advocate Rahul Bajaj and other legal representatives, including Amar Jain and Gauri Maulekhi—who has expertise in animal welfare—are also expected to attend.

Action Steps and Observations on Feeding Strays and Litter Control

The court pointed out indiscriminate feeding as a contributing factor to stray animal proliferation in public areas, leading to litter and health hazards. The bench remarked, “We see cars loaded with food, and people litter the area in the name of feeding strays. This practice must be regulated to ensure clean public spaces.”

Operational Changes in Stray Animal Control Mechanisms

The court criticized the Animal Welfare Board for relying on ineffective sterilization guidelines, urging it to consider alternative, viable methods. Advocate Gauri Maulekhi noted that while surgical sterilization fails in many cases, immuno-contraception is a recognized global solution for wild animals. She pointed out that institutions like the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the National Institute of Immunology have explored this technique, although its implementation is still pending.

However, the court emphasized urgency, saying, “We cannot ask persons with disabilities to wait a decade while science catches up. It’s imperative to develop a solution now, ensuring a safe environment for all Delhi residents.”

Interim Relief for Hospitals and Priority Public Spaces

The court directed that hospitals like AIIMS and other public parks should immediately be prioritized for animal control. To achieve this, a “strict regime” was advised to regulate stray animals in hospitals and children’s parks.

In concluding remarks, the Chief Justice called for mutual understanding, stating, “We must balance everyone’s interests. No one’s rights are above the other. Civil society must work with local authorities to find an immediate solution, recognizing the equal rights of persons with disabilities and addressing public safety concerns.” 

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 18 November, 2024. The court’s directive reflects a pivotal moment in Delhi’s approach to animal control, emphasizing both a humane response and the urgent need to safeguard the city’s residents, especially those with disabilities.

The Chief Secretary of GNCTD as well as Respondents have been directed to file a fresh status report before the next hearing. The matter is next listed on 18 Nov 2024.

Read the order here:

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