Post-wise functional safety filters under Section 33 are legally valid- says Delhi HC

 
Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

Case No.: W.P.(C) 9994/2024 & CM APPL. 40929/2024 (Connected with W.P.(C) 10130/2024, W.P.(C) 10153/2024, & W.P.(C) 10511/2024)

Case Title: Nand Lal Luhar and Ors v. Western Railway and Ors

Date of Judgment: July 1, 2025

Citation: 2025:DHC:5040-DB

Cases Referred: Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta ((2010) 7 SCC 626); Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind ((2013) 10 SCC 772); UOI v. Tara Chauhan (MANU/DE/1943/2014); Aditya Suresh Rao Kaware v. Western Railway Recruitment Cell (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5165); Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar ((2019) 20 SCC 17); Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur (2024 SCC Online SC 2316); Sivanandan CT v. High Court of Kerala ((2024) 3 SCC 799); Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of J & K ((2023) 17 SCC 147); Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan ((2011) 12 SCC 85); State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalatha ((2020) 19 SCC 430); Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 16 SCC 187); L. Chandrakumar v. UOI ((1997) 3 SCC 261); N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission ((1990) 3 SCC 157); B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore (AIR 1966 SC 1942); P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka ((1990) 1 SCC 411).

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioners are 100% Visually Impaired (VI-Blind) individuals who sought recruitment against the statutory quota reserved for visually impaired candidates in Level 1 posts within the Western Railway. They participated in the centralized selection process initiated under Central Employment Notice (CEN) 01/2019, which advertised 10,734 vacancies for the Western Railway division. In compliance with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), a 1% quota amounting to 171 vacancies was explicitly set aside for visually impaired candidates.

The petitioners successfully met the baseline educational and age requirements and scored above the initial selection cut-off mark of 57.27633, qualifying them for document verification and medical screenings. However, when the Western Railway published its subsequent provisional selection panels, the petitioners' names were entirely omitted. Their exclusion stemmed from a specific post parameter matrix annexed to the CEN (Annexure A), which split the 171 reserved vacancies post-wise : 85 posts were designated as functionally suitable for both blind and low vision (LV) candidates, whereas 86 technical/field posts were flagged as suitable only for low vision candidates and completely unsuitable for blind individuals.

The petitioners filed a batch of Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contesting that less meritorious low-vision candidates were selected over them for those 86 slots. The Tribunal dismissed their pleas on July 16, 2024, noting that the exclusions were safety-based and that the candidates were estopped from challenging the recruitment terms post-examination. The petitioners subsequently moved the Delhi High Court via writ actions under Article 226.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

• The Post-Based Bifurcation Challenge: The petitioners, through Senior Advocate S.K. Rungta, argued that Section 34(1)(a) of the RPwD Act treats "blindness and low vision" as a singular, homogenous statutory category entitled to a collective 1% vacancy-based reservation. They contended that further sub-dividing or bifurcated parsing of these 171 reserved vacancies into separate sub-pools based on specific medical sub-disabilities is legally impermissible. They asserted that because the statutory reservation layout is legally vacancy-based and not post-based, completely locking blind candidates out of 86 vacancies in favour of lower-scoring low-vision candidates violated basic administrative equality rules.
• The Executive Identification Stand: The Western Railway countered by pointing out that Section 34 (Reservation) and Section 33 (Identification) represent two separate structural stages under the RPwD Act. They successfully met Section 34 by executing the 1% quota computation on total structural vacancies. However, under Section 33(i), the appropriate government holds explicit statutory powers to perform post-wise identification matrices to verify which roles can realistically be held by specific sub-categories of disabled workers.
• The Safety Contradiction: The respondents emphasized that Level 1 roles in the field (such as Assistant Loco Shed, Signal & Telecom, and Depot tracks) directly entail heavy machinery handling, track lines, and train operations. They maintained that introducing a 100% blind worker into active rail lines or operational shop floors creates severe physical hazards for the worker and compromises public safety. Furthermore, they raised a preliminary waiver objection: the petitioners had applied, sat for exams, and competed with complete visibility of these post boundaries without entering any initial protest or challenge against the parameters of the CEN.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an employer, under the guise of Section 33 post-identification matrices, can legally divide a combined category under Section 34(1)(a) to restrict completely blind candidates from technical, operational posts.
2. Whether a post-wise suitability filter transforms a vacancy-based statutory protection framework into an unauthorized post-based reservation layout.
3. Whether a candidate who participates in a recruitment track without demur is legally barred under the doctrine of estoppel from later disputing the validity of post-suitability allocations after being declared unsuccessful.

Observations & Findings of the Court

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that administrative safety matrices and post-identification choices are fully valid under disability law:

• Distinction Between Vacancies and Posts Upheld: The Court clarified that the petitioners’ challenges blurred the functional boundaries of the statute. Reservation under Section 34 strictly handles vacancies at the macro computation level, whereas Identification under Section 33 deals directly with individual posts. Because the macro 1% vacancy volume was successfully met, the math of Section 34 stood satisfied. The subsequent classification of posts is legally distinct.

• Public Interest Predominates Over Absolute Inclusivity: The Court ruled that judicial review cannot override objective field-level safety assessments crafted by executive expert bodies:

  "We cannot be unmindful of the fact that we are dealing with the Railways, and that the posts to which the petitioners aspire are not desk jobs... The appointment of a person who, owing to one reason or the other, is physically unable to manage the post, in the Railways, can result in untold public harm and may possibly also endanger the life and limb of the public who use the Railways. There is an overwhelming element of public interest involved, which has to be balanced against the rights of the petitioners to inclusion in the mainstream."

• Validation of Post Parameters via Central Guidelines: The Bench noted that the exclusions in Annexure A aligned with earlier central guidelines, including a specialized Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPWD) Office Memorandum dated March 4, 2015, which explicitly categorized operational lines and technical Khalasi tracks as unsuitable for 100% blind operators due to active train movement hazards.

• The Definitive Apply of Estoppel: The High Court strongly applied the principles of waiver and acquiescence. Candidates cannot treat a selection criteria format as flexible, competing under its terms and only challenging its legality when they fail to clear the final merit layout:

  "...candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time... simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process... was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process."

Directions Issued

Upholding the previous conclusions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the High Court issued the following final orders:

1. The common judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' applications was upheld in its entirety, and the writ petitions were dismissed without costs.
2. The Limited Caveat for Unfilled Vacancies: To protect the interests of visually impaired workers, the Court added a clear administrative caveat. The Bench reserved complete liberty for the petitioners to file a formal structural representation before the Ministry of Railways to claim the benefits of a subsequently issued corporate circular dated December 16, 2024, which allows for the diversion of unfilled vacancies under CEN 01/2019.
3. The Court specified that if the application of the December 2024 Circular can facilitate an alternative vacancy allocation or appointment slot for any petitioner, this judgment will not act as a legal bar or impediment against the administration executing that relief.

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

Read the Judgement in Nand Lal Luhar and Ors v. Western Railway and Ors

Delhi High Court Directs GD Goenka Public School to Readmit Child with Autism; Emphasizes Enforceable Right to Inclusive Education

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13490/2024
Case Title: Aadriti Pathak (Minor) Through Her Mother Sadhana Sharma v. GD Goenka Public School & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 01 July 2025

Brief:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to inclusive education, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed GD Goenka Public School, Rohini to readmit Aadriti Pathak, a child with mild autism, to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class, within two weeks. The Court noted that her removal from school was not a voluntary act by the parents but stemmed from the school’s reluctance to provide necessary accommodations as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The Court’s order comes in a writ petition filed by the child through her mother, challenging her discontinuation from the school and seeking relief under the provisions protecting children with special needs.

Background:

• Aadriti Pathak was admitted to GD Goenka Public School in the 2021-22 session.
• In December 2021, she was diagnosed with mild autism. The school was duly informed, and her mother requested support such as a shadow teacher.
• Despite assurances, the school failed to offer the required accommodations, leading to Aadriti’s education being discontinued from January 1, 2023.
• The school claimed that the parents voluntarily withdrew her due to "severe behavioural issues" and non-payment of fees, though fees were paid up till March 2023.
• Attempts to seek admission under the Children With Special Needs (CWSN) quota in the subsequent session were also thwarted. Though initially allotted a seat again in GD Goenka, it was withdrawn at the school’s request, citing lack of vacancy.

Court-Appointed Committee Findings:

Upon direction of the Court, a special board constituted by the Inclusive Education Branch of the DoE assessed the child’s needs. The committee unequivocally held that:

• Aadriti should be reintegrated into the same school, in an age-appropriate class.
• The school must permit her to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
• The institution is duty-bound to make all required accommodations as per the RPwD Act.

School’s Defence & Court’s Analysis:

The school presented multiple defences:

1. That the disability was not disclosed at the time of admission.
2. There were no vacancies in the relevant class.
3. Admission of CWSN students happens via a centralized draw, not direct admission.

However, the Court found these arguments untenable:

• On the issue of non-disclosure, the Court noted that the school had previously acknowledged the diagnosis and agreed to accommodate Aadriti.
• The claim of “no vacancy” was rejected. The Court held that classroom strength is not a rigid barrier and inclusive education is a legally enforceable right, not an administrative discretion.
• Most importantly, the Court rejected the claim of “voluntary withdrawal” and recognized that the child had been pushed out due to an unsupportive environment.

Court’s Directions:

Invoking the spirit and letter of the RPwD Act, 2016, the Court passed the following key directions:

1. Readmission of Aadriti to Class 1 or an age-appropriate class within two weeks, as a fee-paying student.
2. Permission for the child to attend classes with a shadow teacher appointed by the parents.
3. The Department of Education (DoE) to monitor the reintegration process and ensure that an inclusive, supportive environment is maintained.
4. The school to file a compliance affidavit within four weeks.

Significance:

This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of the right of children with disabilities to equal participation in mainstream education. It puts schools on notice that inclusive education is not optional, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination under the law. The Court has rightly emphasized that administrative technicalities like classroom capacity or centralised processes cannot be used to defeat fundamental rights.

By holding the school and the education department accountable, the Court has sent a clear message—inclusive education is a right, not a favour.

Post Script

The School Management challenged this single bench order in the Double Bench   which was rejected by the bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela vide their Judgement in LPA 499/2025 dated 23 Sep 2025 and is covered on this blog.

Read the Court Judgement embedded below:

---

Posted by: Team @ Disability Rights India
For more such case updates and commentary, visit www.disabilityrightsindia.com

MP High Court Seeks Response on PIL Demanding Special Educators in Private Schools Across Jabalpur

Court: MP High Court at Jabalpur
Case Title: Saurabh Subbiah Vs Union Of India And Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16753 of 2025

Date of Hearing: 17 June 2025
Next Date of Hearing: 22 July 2025

Introduction:

In a significant move for inclusive education and disability rights, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice to the Centre and State authorities on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the appointment of special educators in private schools across Jabalpur city.

The PIL, filed by petitioner Saurabh Subbiah, draws attention to the lack of compliance with mandatory legal provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and schemes such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan—all of which collectively mandate the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular school settings, supported by trained special educators and appropriate infrastructure.

Court Proceedings:

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf heard the matter on June 17, 2025, and issued notice to the respondents. The notice was accepted by counsel appearing for the Union of India and for the state authorities. Upon request, the court granted time for the respondents to file their replies. The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 22, 2025. [Read the Court Order dt 17 June 2025 here (PDF 69 KB)]

Key Allegations:

The petitioner has asserted that:

• Even prestigious private schools in Jabalpur lack basic infrastructure and do not have special educators.
• There is a clear failure to implement the statutory mandates that protect the rights of children with disabilities.
• This non-compliance undermines inclusive education, which is not only a policy priority but a legal obligation.

The plea highlights an “eminent need” for trained personnel and infrastructural support for children with disabilities, and argues that meaningful inclusion in mainstream schools cannot happen without systemic enforcement of these mandates.

Reliefs Sought:

The petitioner seeks directions from the High Court to:

• Ensure strict compliance with relevant disability rights laws.
• Mandate the appointment of special educators in every private school in Jabalpur city.
• Ensure the provision of inclusive infrastructure in accordance with legal and policy frameworks.

Echoes of the Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment:

This case is part of a broader struggle for enforcement of inclusive education mandates. In the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, the Apex Court had already emphasized the systemic gaps and non-implementation of laws relating to inclusive education. In its detailed judgment delivered on 28 October 2021, the three-judge bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar held that:

“The lack of trained special educators and appropriate infrastructure is a serious impediment to the enforcement of the fundamental right to education for children with disabilities.”

The Supreme Court had called for time-bound action plans, setting up of monitoring cells, and periodic audits to ensure implementation of inclusive education mandates.

Read our full coverage of the Supreme Court judgment here:
🔗 Supreme Court Calls for Systemic Reform in Inclusive Education (October 2021)

Why This PIL Matters:

Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention nearly four years ago, ground-level implementation continues to falter. The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s action signals the judiciary’s continued role in upholding the rights of children with disabilities, especially when executive inaction persists.

This PIL could have far-reaching implications—not just for Jabalpur, but for private schools across India, many of which continue to sidestep their statutory responsibilities under the RPWD Act and RTE Act.

---

We will continue to track developments in this matter and share updates following the next hearing.

📝 For more updates on disability rights litigation and policy, stay tuned to Disability Rights India.

Kerala High Court: Employee with a Disability Can’t Be Penalised for Inaccessible Workplace

Court: Kerala High Court
Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John
Case No.: OP (KAT) 51/ 2025  [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:36153] 
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v T. Rajeev
Date of Judgement: 26 May 2025

Brief Summary

In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace, the Kerala High Court has observed that a government employee with disabilities cannot be penalized for the State’s failure to provide accessible infrastructure. The judgment in State of Kerala & Ors v. T. Rajeev [OP (KAT) 51/2025] underscores the legal obligation of the State under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) to make public buildings accessible and to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities.

Case Background

T. Rajeev, who has a 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis, was working as a Senior Grade Typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. His office, however, was located on the upper floor of a building without lift access, making it inaccessible to him. Faced with this physical barrier, Rajeev sought an inter-departmental transfer to the Irrigation Department’s Thalappilly Subdivision office, which was on the ground floor of the same building. He also requested that his pay be protected, despite being transferred to a lower designation (LD Typist).

After several rounds of litigation, the State Government finally agreed to the transfer — but demoted his pay to that of an LD Typist. Aggrieved, Rajeev once again approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which ruled in his favor, stating that he should be paid as a Senior Grade Typist and that the denial of pay protection violated the RPwD Act. The State then challenged this order before the High Court.

Key Observations by the High Court

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John dismissed the State’s appeal, issuing a strong rebuke to the Government for failing in its legal obligations. The Court emphasized that:

“It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the infrastructural facilities in public places are accessible to the differently abled persons. … If any public place remains inaccessible to differently abled persons, the failure cannot be construed to their detriment.”

The Court relied on the RPwD Act, 2016, particularly:

• Section 3 – Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability,
• Section 20 – Prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates reasonable accommodation,
• Section 45 – Mandates that public buildings be made accessible within a stipulated timeline.

A Crucial Principle: No Punishment for Seeking Access

The Court was unequivocal in stating that a person with a disability cannot be punished for the Government’s infrastructural failures. In fact, it acknowledged that Rajeev had himself proposed a workable solution — a transfer to an accessible location — which the State should have supported with pay protection, not penalized.

The Bench also held that:

• If the Government refuses to protect the pay, it must repatriate Rajeev back to the Motor Vehicle Department and assign him duties compatible with his physical abilities.
• Under no circumstance should he be required to climb stairs to access his workplace.
• The State was directed to pay him the salary of a Senior Grade Typist until his repatriation and to issue appropriate orders within a month.

A Broader Message to Public Authorities

This ruling is a wake-up call to public authorities across India. It affirms that the onus of creating accessible environments lies firmly with the Government, and employees with disabilities cannot be made scapegoats for systemic failures.

It also demonstrates how courts are increasingly willing to interpret disability rights laws in favor of substantive equality, aligning with the spirit of the RPwD Act, the UNCRPD, and the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equal opportunity.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces a fundamental truth: accessibility is not a favour—it is a right. And when the State fails in ensuring this right, it must bear the consequences, not the person with a disability. Through this decision, the Kerala High Court has not only upheld the dignity of one employee, but also set a precedent that could empower thousands of others navigating inaccessible workspaces.

Read the judgement

 

For more such case analyses and updates on disability jurisprudence, follow our blog: Disability Rights through Courts.

Supreme Court of India Upholds the Right to Accessible Footpaths as a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Number: IA No. 50798 OF 2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.  295/2012
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: 14 May 2025

Cases Referred: 

• Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors  (1985) 3 SCC 545
• Bombay HC in High Court on its own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21221
• Karnataka HC in the case of D.S. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore & Ors  2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12223

Brief:

In a historic development for pedestrian safety and disability rights in India, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty. This judgment, rooted in constitutional guarantees and grounded in empathy for the lived realities of persons with disabilities (PwDs), marks a significant leap forward in the recognition of accessible urban infrastructure as a legal and human right.

The Background

The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest matter that raised critical concerns about the lack of proper footpaths, rampant encroachments, and the resulting safety hazards to pedestrians — especially those with disabilities. The Court acknowledged the urgent and widespread nature of the problem, noting that without accessible and continuous footpaths, pedestrians are effectively forced onto the streets, putting their lives at constant risk.

Key Observations and Findings

The Bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, made a series of pointed observations that reflect both the legal urgency and the human costs of inaccessibility:

• "Right to have unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court unequivocally stated.
• The safety of pedestrians is not a luxury, but a constitutional obligation of the state.
• The absence of accessible footpaths disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, older persons, and others who rely on mobility aids.

Supreme Court's Directions

The Court issued a set of sweeping directions to ensure nationwide compliance and structural reforms:

1. Mandatory Accessibility: Footpaths must be designed and maintained to be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

2. Encroachment Removal: All encroachments from footpaths must be removed without exception.

3. Universal Footway Standards: Every public road must have proper, inclusive footpaths or walkways.

4. Policy Mandate: All States and Union Territories must evolve and implement policies for the construction, maintenance, and protection of accessible footpaths.

5. Compliance Timeline:

• States and UTs must frame guidelines in line with those issued by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and DS Ramchandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police.
• The Union of India is directed to place on record existing or new national guidelines within two months.
• The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 1st August 2025, to review compliance.

Relevance of the Bombay High Court Model

The Supreme Court emphasized that States should refer to the Bombay High Court’s earlier directions, which already set a progressive precedent on footpath design, accessibility, and encroachment-free pedestrian zones. This reinforces the principle that access to infrastructure must be inclusive by design, not adjusted retroactively.

A Constitutional and Human Rights Milestone

This judgment is not merely about footpaths. It is a profound reiteration that urban design and infrastructure planning are constitutional issues. For persons with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure is not an amenity; it is a prerequisite for dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.

The Supreme Court’s order stands as a powerful reminder that accessibility is not optional — it is a mandated right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment sets the stage for a nationwide shift in how cities and towns approach pedestrian infrastructure to ensure accessible and dignified mobility for all people with disabilities.

Next Steps for Advocates and Stakeholders

• Monitor Compliance: Civil society organizations, disability rights groups, and urban planners must actively engage with State governments to ensure meaningful implementation.
• Participate in Policy Making: Stakeholders must demand participation in the framing of guidelines to reflect diverse accessibility needs.
• Use as Precedent: This order provides strong judicial backing to challenge inaccessible infrastructure in any city or district.

Taking note of standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress and other authorities, the Court directed: All State Governments and Union Territories shall frame guidelines in line with the High Court directions and file compliance reports within two months. The Union of India shall also place on record the policy/guidelines issued for protecting the rights of pedestrians within two months. 

As we approach the next hearing on 01 August 2025, this judgment offers a foundation to push for inclusive, safe, and equitable urban mobility — not just as a policy goal, but as a constitutional promise.

Read the Order dated  14 May 2025 above.

Supreme Court issues directions to make the process of Digital KYC accessible for persons With disabilities, declares it an integral part of fundamental right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 & W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

Case Title: Pragya Prasun v. Union of India & Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 30 April 2025

Published on: May 1, 2025
By: Disability Rights India Team

Background

The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose from writ petitions filed by persons with disabilities highlighting accessibility barriers in the digital KYC and e-KYC verification processes used by several financial institutions, telecommunications providers and other service platforms. The petitioners argued that the design and functioning of these digital verification systems prevented persons with visual impairments and facial disfigurements from independently completing identity verification procedures.

According to the petitioners, many digital KYC mechanisms relied on technological requirements such as capturing live photographs, facial recognition and other verification steps that were not compatible with the needs of persons using assistive technologies. These systems often required actions such as blinking or visually aligning documents, which created significant barriers for persons with blindness or severe eye injuries.

The petitioners contended that such barriers effectively excluded persons with disabilities from accessing essential services including banking facilities, telecommunications connections and other digital governance platforms. They argued that this failure violated the obligations imposed on public authorities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which requires government institutions and regulated entities to ensure accessibility in information and communication technologies.

In a historic and far-reaching judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to digital access is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent-setting decision is a major milestone in the struggle for disability rights in India, specifically addressing the systemic digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements.

The judgment was delivered in two writ petitions:
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025  —filed by advocates and disability rights activists seeking digital accessibility in the e-KYC process for individuals with blindness and acid attack survivors.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued 20 binding directions that mark a significant overhaul of the digital architecture for service delivery, with inclusivity and accessibility at the center.

Here are some of the landmark directives:

Digital KYC Must Be Inclusive

• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) must issue new guidelines that incorporate alternative methods to verify "liveness" or live photographs, moving beyond the default “blinking of eyes” method.
• Entities must now accept thumb impressions as valid authentication for visually impaired users during the e-KYC process.

Right to Reasonable Accommodation

• All reporting entities (REs), whether public or private, are directed to adhere to accessibility standards, appoint digital accessibility nodal officers, and undergo periodic audits by certified professionals.
• All apps, websites, and platforms must involve persons with visual impairments in user acceptance testing for any new digital service.

Mandatory Accessibility for Government and Private Services

• All government websites and digital services must comply with Section 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates both electronic and print media be accessible.
• WCAG 2.1 and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) are now mandatory for all government platforms.

Communication and Service Delivery

• Public services must provide information in alternative formats—including Braille, easy-to-read formats, and audio-described content.
• Helplines, grievance redressal mechanisms, and human review of rejected KYC applications must be set up for PwDs.

Sensitization and Training

• Disability awareness and inclusion modules must be part of training for employees of all regulated entities.
• RBI is directed to monitor implementation and regularly conduct public awareness campaigns about inclusive KYC processes.

A Game-Changer for Digital Equality

This judgment unequivocally affirms that access to digital services is no longer a privilege—but a constitutional right, especially for persons with disabilities who have been persistently side-lined in India’s digital revolution. The Court has not only addressed the how (mechanisms and guidelines) but also the why—the deep need to treat persons with disabilities as equal citizens entitled to dignity, convenience, and autonomy.

This move will have far-reaching consequences across all sectors—from banking and governance to education and healthcare. It is a wake-up call to both government and private entities that accessibility is not an afterthought—it is a non-negotiable obligation under the law.

Next Steps and Accountability

As disability rights advocates, it is now essential to monitor the implementation of these directions and hold entities accountable. Civil society must collaborate with regulators, tech developers, and service providers to translate these orders into practice on the ground.

The judgment reinforces the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and aligns with the Accessible India Campaign. It is now up to us—activists, organizations, and allies—to ensure that these rights are not just declared but delivered.

Download/Read the judgement 

Railways Requires Compliance with RPwD Accessibility Standards for Accessible Transportation : CCPD Reviews Accessibility of Divyang Coaches

Court: Court  of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD)
Case No.: 14089/1103/2023
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways
Date of Order: 03 April 2025

Background

The proceedings before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities arose from a complaint filed by a person with disability regarding the accessibility of railway transport services. The complainant highlighted that certain railway services lacked essential accessibility features required under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

According to the complaint, Train Nos. 12324 (Howrah–Barmer) and 12323 (Barmer–Howrah) were operating without a Divyang-friendly coach, thereby preventing persons with disabilities from accessing the trains with adequate support facilities. The complainant submitted that the absence of such coaches limited the ability of persons with disabilities to travel independently and safely.

The complainant argued that such deficiencies effectively restricted access to railway services for persons with disabilities. It was contended that the failure to ensure accessible railway facilities undermined the statutory obligations imposed on transport authorities under the RPwD Act. 

Key Observations

The Chief Commissioner emphasised that access to transportation is an important component of social participation and independent living. Without accessible transport systems, persons with disabilities may face barriers in accessing employment, education and essential services.

The authority observed that the RPwD Act places obligations on governments and public transport providers to progressively ensure accessibility of transportation infrastructure. This includes the design of vehicles, stations and passenger facilities in a manner that accommodates the needs of persons with disabilities.

The Commissioner also examined the explanation provided by the railway authorities regarding the operational configuration of the trains and the ongoing electrification process affecting the availability of Divyang-friendly coaches.

Importantly, the CCPD noted that although accessibility concerns raised in the complaint were legitimate, the complaint did not satisfy the maintainability requirement of personal grievance under Rule 38 of the RPwD Rules, 2017. 

Directions Issued

• The matter relating to the accessibility of Train Nos. 12323 and 12324 was reviewed in light of the accessibility obligations under the RPwD Act.
• The Railway Board was advised to examine the accessibility status of the trains and consider providing Divyang-friendly coaches or alternate accessible arrangements.
• Authorities were recommended to align railway accessibility measures with the Railway Accessibility Guidelines issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (12 March 2024).
• The respondent authority was requested to submit an Action Taken Report within three months outlining the steps taken to address accessibility concerns. 

Commentary

The order underscores the important role that accessible transportation plays in enabling persons with disabilities to participate fully in society. Mobility is often a prerequisite for accessing employment, education, healthcare and community life. When transport systems remain inaccessible, persons with disabilities may face significant limitations in everyday activities.

Despite the statutory framework established by the RPwD Act, accessibility in railway transport continues to face practical challenges related to infrastructure, operational constraints and implementation timelines. These challenges often delay the realisation of accessible travel facilities across different routes and services.

By examining the accessibility concerns raised in the complaint and referring to the broader accessibility guidelines issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the CCPD highlighted the continuing obligation of public transport authorities to move toward inclusive transport systems.

The order therefore contributes to the broader effort to ensure that accessibility principles are progressively integrated into the planning and operation of railway infrastructure. Accessible transport systems remain essential for enabling persons with disabilities to live independently and participate meaningfully in social and economic life.

Read the judgement [PDF 134  KB]

All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case Title: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Case No.: Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1091-1092/2023

Date of Judgement: 03 April 2025

Brief

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle of equality for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court has ruled that prescribing different retirement ages based on the type of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that all benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) constitute a single homogenous class for the purposes of service-related benefits—and must be treated equally.

Case Background:

The case arose when Kashmiri Lal Sharma, an electrician with 60% locomotor disability, was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. However, under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013, employees with visual impairments were permitted to serve up to 60 years of age. Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the appellant challenged the policy as arbitrary and discriminatory, invoking both the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

After unsuccessful representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled in the appellant’s favour. The Court struck down the impugned policy, declaring that prescribing different retirement ages solely based on the nature of disability lacks any rational basis and violates Article 14.

“There is no intelligible differentia to justify extending the retirement age benefit to only one category of benchmark disability while denying it to others. Such discrimination is arbitrary,” the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that all benchmark disabilities listed under the 1995 and 2016 disability laws must receive uniform service benefits, including retirement age.

Reference to Precedent:

The Bench relied on its earlier approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which also upheld the principle of parity in service benefits across all recognized disability categories.

Relief Granted:

While the State had later withdrawn the 2013 OM on November 4, 2019, the Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to continue in service until that withdrawal. As a result, the Court ruled:

“The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. He is also entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, along with all consequential benefits impacting his pension.”

The Court thus partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision dated 28.07.2021, which had earlier upheld the retirement.

Significance:

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory mandate of non-discrimination in employment policies affecting persons with disabilities. It sends a strong message that disability-based classifications in service benefits must meet the test of reasonableness and equality.

The decision underscores the spirit of the RPwD Act, which aims to ensure equal opportunity, protection of rights, and full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life—including public employment.

Read the Judgement

Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

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: