Supreme Court directs Reasonable Accommodation and Protections under Section 20 RPDA for Employees acquiring disability in service

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026
Case Title: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

 

Background

 

The case arose from a dispute concerning the employment rights of a worker who had acquired a disability during the course of her service with Coal India Limited, a public sector undertaking. The petitioner contended that after acquiring a disability, she was denied meaningful reasonable accommodation in the workplace and faced administrative actions that effectively undermined her continued employment.

 

She argued that the actions of the employer violated the statutory protections provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly the obligation of employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to ensure that employees who acquire disabilities are not discriminated against.

 

The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the central question was whether public sector employers could evade their obligations under the RPwD Act by relying on rigid service rules that failed to account for the needs of employees who acquire disabilities during service.

Key Observations

 

The Supreme Court emphasised that the RPwD Act represents a shift from a welfare-based understanding of disability to a rights-based legal framework grounded in dignity and equality. Public authorities and government-controlled entities are therefore under a positive obligation to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to participate in employment on equal terms.

 

The Court observed that employees who acquire disabilities during service are particularly vulnerable, as they may suddenly find themselves excluded from the very institutions they have served for years. In such circumstances, the law requires employers to explore reasonable accommodation measures rather than resorting to administrative actions that result in exclusion.

 

The Bench reiterated that the RPwD Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities and mandates the creation of inclusive workplaces. Employers must therefore interpret service rules in a manner that promotes participation rather than exclusion.

 

The Court also noted that public sector undertakings, as instrumentalities of the State, are bound by constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. Administrative decisions affecting employees with disabilities must therefore be consistent with both statutory protections and constitutional principles.

 

Directions Issued

 

• The Supreme Court held that the employer was required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

• The authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s employment status in light of the statutory requirement to provide reasonable accommodation.

• The Court emphasised that public sector employers must adopt measures that enable continued employment of persons who acquire disabilities during service.

• Relevant authorities were directed to ensure that future administrative decisions are consistent with the principles laid down in the RPwD Act.

Commentary

 

The judgment highlights the growing recognition within Indian constitutional jurisprudence that employment rights form a critical component of disability inclusion. For many individuals, employment is not merely a source of income but also a foundation for dignity, independence and social participation.

 

Employees who acquire disabilities during service often face a sudden erosion of these rights. Without strong legal protections, they may find themselves marginalised within the workplace or pushed out of employment altogether. The RPwD Act seeks to address this problem by imposing clear obligations on employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to prevent discrimination.

 

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case reinforces the transformative nature of the statute. By insisting that employers interpret service rules in a manner consistent with disability rights, the Court underscored that inclusion requires institutional adaptation rather than mere formal compliance with existing regulations.

The broader significance of the decision lies in its recognition that disability rights cannot remain confined to theoretical guarantees. For persons with disabilities to participate fully in public life, workplaces must be designed and administered in ways that anticipate diversity and remove barriers to participation. The ruling therefore strengthens the evolving framework of disability rights law in India by reaffirming that equality in employment requires proactive institutional reform.

Read the judgement: Sujata Bora v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. [PDF 289KB]

Disability Is Not Incredibility: Court Applies Supreme Court’s Disability Jurisprudence

Court: Sessions Court, Mumbai
Case No.: (Not reported)
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. [Name Withheld]
Date of Judgment: Early January 2026
Cases Referred:
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021, 2021 INSC 272 (testimony of disabled witness; intersectionality)

Presiding Judge: Ms. Surekha A. Sinha, Sessions Judge

Brief:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the rights of survivors with disabilities, the Sessions Court in Mumbai convicted a 35-year-old salon worker for the abduction and rape of a woman with moderate intellectual disability in 2019. The accused was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, and additionally received one year’s imprisonment under Section 92(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (for assaulting or using force against a person with disability), with sentences to run concurrently.

The survivor’s testimony — central to the prosecution case — was accepted by the court despite challenges regarding her cognitive functioning. Medical evidence established that although physically adult, she had a social/mental age of approximately seven years with an IQ of 36. Upon returning home after going missing on April 29, 2019, she tearfully narrated how the accused lured her, threatened her with a knife, gagged her, and sexually assaulted her, attempting to wash away evidence afterwards.

During trial, the special public prosecutor examined 14 witnesses. Forensic reports were inconclusive, attributed to the post-assault washing. However, medical experts testified to trauma consistent with sexual assault. The defence sought to discredit the testimony on grounds of hearsay and minor inconsistencies. The court rejected these arguments, describing the survivor as a “sterling witness” and placing reliance on Supreme Court guidance on the legal treatment of testimony by persons with disabilities.

Importantly, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the apex court held that the testimony of a witness with disability cannot be considered weak or inferior merely because of the disability, emphasising that credibility must be assessed on merit and that disability should not attract prejudice in judicial evaluation. The Supreme Court also recognised the importance of accounting for intersectionality — how overlapping identities (e.g., gender, caste, disability) may compound vulnerability — and called for judicial sensitivity and reasonable accommodations in recording and appreciating such testimony.

In the Patan Jamal Vali case, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for the rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman, affirming that her testimony deserved equal evidentiary value when it otherwise inspired confidence, and underscored that courts should not stereotype persons with disabilities as inherently weak or incapable of giving reliable evidence.

Anchoring its reasoning in this precedent, the Sessions Court emphasised that minor discrepancies in testimony are neither fatal nor unusual in cases involving survivors with cognitive impairments, and that rigid demands for corroboration should not impede justice where the overall narrative is credible and probable. This aligns with the principle that the judicial process must accommodate diverse ways in which persons with disabilities perceive, communicate, and testify.

The judgment is notable for its integration of disability rights jurisprudence into mainstream criminal adjudication, affirming that persons with disabilities possess full legal personhood and that their testimonies — where consistent and credible — merit equal weight. It also reinforces the RPwD Act’s role not only as a protective statute but as an instrument imposing substantive penal consequences where crimes target persons on account of their disability. This case thus contributes to the evolving landscape of disability-sensitive adjudication in India. 

Spouse Appointed Guardian of Comatose Husband: Delhi High Court Invokes Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Amid Legal Vacuum

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16793/2025
Case Title: Professor Alka Acharya v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 31.12.2025

In a significant ruling addressing the continuing legal vacuum surrounding guardianship of persons in a comatose or vegetative state, the Delhi High Court appointed a wife as the legal guardian of her husband, who was rendered incapacitated following a severe intracranial haemorrhage.

Background

The petitioner, Professor Alka Acharya, approached the Court seeking appointment as the legal guardian of her husband, Mr. Salam Khan, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since February 2025. Following emergency neurosurgery and prolonged hospitalization, Mr. Khan remained unconscious, requiring continuous medical support including tracheostomy and assisted feeding.

With no statutory mechanism available for appointing a guardian in such situations, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under the doctrine of parens patriae to manage her husband’s medical care and financial affairs.

Medical and Administrative Findings

Pursuant to the Court’s directions:

• A Medical Board from Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (GIPMER) examined Mr. Khan and confirmed:

  • Persistent vegetative state
  • 100% disability
  • Inability to take any decisions or perform daily activities

• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) conducted a detailed inquiry and verified:

  • The marital relationship and legal heirship
  • Absence of any dispute or conflict of interest
  • Financial stability and proper caregiving by the petitioner
  • Authenticity of disclosed movable and immovable assets

Importantly, the couple’s children also gave their no-objection to the appointment.

Key Legal Issue

The case once again highlighted a critical gap in Indian law: there is no clear statutory framework governing appointment of guardians for individuals in a comatose or vegetative state.

The Court relied on its earlier precedent in N.A. v. GNCTD and other High Court rulings, which recognize that:

• Neither the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 adequately address such situations
• Constitutional Courts retain inherent powers under Article 226 to step in and protect such individuals
• The doctrine of parens patriae empowers courts to act in the best interests and welfare of incapacitated persons

Court’s Observations

The Court reiterated that:

• Persons in vegetative states fall outside conventional statutory categories such as “persons with disabilities” or “persons with mental illness” for the purpose of guardianship frameworks
• This creates a “clear statutory vacuum”, necessitating judicial intervention
• Courts must adopt a case-by-case approach, guided by medical evidence, family structure, and absence of conflict

Directions Issued

Allowing the petition, the Court:

1. Appointed Professor Alka Acharya as the legal guardian of her husband
2. Permitted her to manage and deal with both movable and immovable assets of Mr. Khan to meet his medical and living expenses
3. Granted her authority over: Medical decisions and caregiving; Financial management and daily expenditures; Operation of bank accounts, investments, and insurance

Significance

This judgment reinforces an evolving but crucial line of jurisprudence where High Courts step in to fill legislative gaps affecting some of the most vulnerable individuals. Key takeaways include:

• Recognition of legal vacuum: Existing disability and mental health laws do not cover guardianship for comatose persons
• Expanded role of constitutional courts: Courts continue to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure protection and dignity
• Preference for close relatives: Spouses and immediate family members are ordinarily preferred as guardians
• Need for legislative reform: The case underscores the urgent need for a structured statutory framework governing such situations

Comment

While the judgment provides immediate relief and practical clarity in individual cases, it also highlights a systemic issue. Despite progressive legislation like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, certain categories of persons—especially those in prolonged unconscious states—remain outside formal legal protection mechanisms.

Until Parliament addresses this gap, courts will continue to play a vital, albeit ad hoc, role in safeguarding the rights, dignity, and welfare of such individuals.

Read the Judgement (PDF 599 KB)

Acquired Disability Not a Ground to Push Employees Out of Service: P&H High Court

Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Case No.: CWP-31286-2024
Case Title: Brij Bhushan v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025
Cases Referred: Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 524; Ch. Joseph v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (2025)

In a significant reaffirmation of the rights of employees acquiring disability during service, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that denying service protection on account of disability strikes at the very foundation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court emphasised that such an approach not only violates statutory protections but also erodes human dignity.

Background

The petitioner, a long-serving employee of Haryana Roadways, was initially appointed in 1986 and later promoted as a Painter. During his service, he suffered a brain haemorrhage and was assessed with 70% disability by a competent medical authority, rendering him unable to perform his original duties.

Invoking Section 20 of the RPwD Act, he sought retention in service on a supernumerary or suitable alternative post with full service benefits until superannuation. Despite a legal notice and earlier directions, the authorities rejected his claim on the ground that his disability was not “permanent” and further initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging unauthorised absence.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging both the rejection order and the charge-sheet.

Key Issues

• Whether an employee acquiring disability during service can be denied protection due to absence of a “permanent” disability certificate

• Scope and application of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, 2016

• Legality of disciplinary action in the context of disability-related absence

Court’s Analysis

The Court rejected the State’s narrow interpretation of disability certification. It held that the petitioner clearly fell within the statutory definition of a “person with disability,” given the extent of functional limitations affecting his ability to work and perform daily activities.

Importantly, the Court noted that the disability certificate—valid up to 2029—covered the remaining period of the petitioner’s service, making the distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” disability irrelevant in the facts of the case.

Reiterating the mandate of Section 20 of the RPwD Act, the Court underscored that:

• An employee acquiring disability cannot be removed, reduced in rank, or denied promotion

• If unable to perform existing duties, the employee must be shifted to a suitable post

• Where no such post exists, the employee must be retained on a supernumerary post with full benefits

The Court also drew upon Supreme Court jurisprudence to reinforce that reasonable accommodation is not discretionary but a legal obligation flowing from constitutional principles of equality and dignity.

Observations on State as a Model Employer

In a strongly worded observation, the Court held that public authorities must act with sensitivity and responsibility when dealing with employees who acquire disabilities during service. It cautioned against bureaucratic rigidity and emphasised that institutional responses must prioritise inclusion over exclusion.

The judgment highlights that beneficial legislation like the RPwD Act must be interpreted purposively, ensuring that employees are not pushed out of service due to circumstances beyond their control.

Decision

Allowing the petition, the Court:

• Quashed the rejection order and the charge-sheet

• Directed the State to retain the petitioner on a supernumerary or suitable post

• Ensured continuity of service, full salary, and all consequential benefits

• Ordered payment of arrears with interest

• Directed that the period of absence due to disability be treated as duty

Commentary

This judgment is a crucial addition to the growing body of jurisprudence reinforcing employment security for persons who acquire disabilities during service. It decisively rejects technical objections—such as the nature of disability certification—that are often used to deny statutory protections.

The ruling aligns with earlier Supreme Court precedents and strengthens the principle that reasonable accommodation and service continuity are enforceable rights, not administrative concessions.

For disability rights practitioners, the judgment is particularly important in addressing a recurring issue: the misuse of procedural or certification-based grounds to dilute the protections under Section 20 of the RPwD Act.

At a broader level, the decision reiterates that the State’s role as a model employer must be measured not by formal compliance, but by its commitment to dignity, inclusion, and substantive equality.

Read the Judgement (PDF 140 KB)

HIV-Positive Persons Fall Within the Definition of Persons with Disabilities: A Landmark Ruling by Delhi HC

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench / Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3616/2021
Case Title: [Name withheld] v. Union of India & Ors. (BSF)
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Relevant Statutes:

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
• HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017

Brief

In a significant and precedent-setting judgment, the Delhi High Court has categorically held that an HIV-positive person can fall within the definition of a “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). This ruling marks what is arguably the first direct judicial equation of HIV-positive status with disability under the RPwD framework.

The case arose from the discharge of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable, who was removed from service in April 2019 after being diagnosed as HIV-positive. The constable had contracted HIV in 2017 and was undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART). Despite treatment and recovery from associated ailments, including abdominal tuberculosis, he was issued a show-cause notice in November 2018 and subsequently discharged on the ground of being “physically unfit”. His departmental appeal was rejected in October 2020, compelling him to approach the Delhi High Court.

Key Findings of the Court

The Division Bench held that the petitioner’s discharge was unlawful under both the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

1. HIV as a Disability under the RPwD Act
   The Court held that an HIV-positive employee suffering from a long-term physical impairment that hinders full and effective participation in society would fall within the ambit of “person with disability” under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act. Consequently, the statutory protections under Section 20 of the RPwD Act—particularly the prohibition on dispensing with the services of an employee who acquires a disability during service—were squarely attracted.

2. Non-Discrimination in Employment
   Drawing a clear parallel between the RPwD Act and the HIV Act, the Court reiterated that both statutes prohibit discrimination in matters of employment. Section 20(2) of the RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodation, while Section 20(4) specifically bars termination of service on the ground of disability acquired during employment.

3. Violation of the HIV Act, 2017
   The Court relied heavily on Section 3 of the HIV Act, which imposes an absolute bar on terminating employment solely on the ground of HIV-positive status. The only exception—contained in Section 3(a)—requires a written assessment by an independent and qualified healthcare provider certifying that the employee is unfit to perform duties and poses a significant risk of transmission.

   The BSF, the Court noted, made no attempt whatsoever to comply with this mandatory requirement. In the absence of such an assessment, the presumption must be that the employee posed no significant risk and was fit for duty.

4. Reinstatement with Continuity of Service
   Setting aside both the discharge order (2019) and the appellate order (2020), the Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including pay fixation. However, back wages were expressly denied.

5. Reasonable Accommodation and Alternate Employment
   Importantly, the Court clarified that if the petitioner could not perform duties attached to the post of constable due to medical reasons, the BSF was duty-bound to provide reasonable accommodation. This includes offering alternate employment in an equivalent post, or if such a post is unavailable, placement in a supernumerary or equivalent position.

Broader Significance

This judgment is a watershed moment in Indian disability rights jurisprudence. For the first time, a constitutional court has explicitly recognised that HIV-positive persons may qualify as persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act, thereby extending to them the full spectrum of statutory protections relating to non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and security of tenure.

The ruling also reinforces the legislative intent of the HIV Act, 2017, which seeks to dismantle stigma-driven employment practices rooted in fear rather than medical evidence. Together, the two statutes are interpreted as complementary rights-based frameworks, not siloed protections.

For uniformed services and other government establishments, the decision sends a clear message: HIV status, by itself, cannot be a ground for termination. Any departure from this principle must strictly comply with statutory safeguards, medical evidence, and the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.

From a disability rights perspective, the judgment deepens the understanding of “disability” as a lived, functional, and rights-oriented concept—rather than a narrow medical label—bringing Indian jurisprudence closer to the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Read the Judgement

Disability Benefits for Armed Forces Personnel Must Be Interpreted Liberally: Delhi High Court on Service Rights of Disabled Soldiers

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar & Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17070/2025
Case Title: Union of India v. Col. Surender Mohan
Date of Judgment: 11 November 2025
 
Background
 
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal which had granted disability pension to the respondent, a retired Army officer suffering from primary hypertension.
 
The respondent, Col. Surender Mohan, had earlier challenged the decision of the authorities denying him disability pension and related benefits on the ground that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.
 
The respondent argued that the medical condition had manifested while he was in active service and that the denial of disability benefits was inconsistent with the principles governing disability pension for armed forces personnel. He contended that service conditions in the armed forces are often physically demanding and stressful, and therefore the assessment of disability claims must take into account the unique circumstances under which such personnel perform their duties.
 
The Union of India defended the decision, relying on medical board findings that concluded the disability was not attributable to service conditions. The dispute therefore centred on the interpretation of the rules governing disability pension and the degree of deference courts should accord to medical board determinations.
 
Key Observations
 
The Delhi High Court emphasised that the framework governing disability benefits for armed forces personnel must be interpreted in a manner that recognises the special nature of military service. Soldiers are often required to operate under physically demanding and stressful conditions, and therefore the assessment of disability claims cannot be approached in an unduly restrictive manner.
 
The Court observed that while medical board findings play an important role in determining disability claims, such findings cannot be treated as conclusive where they fail to adequately consider the circumstances of military service. Judicial review remains available to ensure that disability claims are assessed in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice.
 
The Bench further noted that disability pension provisions are intended to provide financial security and dignity to personnel who suffer health complications during service. A narrow or technical interpretation of these provisions would defeat their underlying purpose.
 
The Court therefore emphasised that disability benefit rules must be interpreted liberally in favour of service personnel, particularly where the medical condition has manifested during active service.
 
Directions Issued
 
• The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
• The judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to the respondent was affirmed.
• The authorities were directed to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s order within the stipulated period.
 
Commentary
 
The judgment highlights the complex relationship between disability rights jurisprudence and the specialised framework governing the armed forces. While the military operates under a distinct legal regime, the fundamental principles of fairness and dignity continue to guide judicial interpretation of service-related benefits.
 
Disability pension disputes frequently arise from disagreements between medical board assessments and the experiences of service personnel. Courts have therefore played an important role in ensuring that such assessments are not applied in a rigid or mechanical manner that undermines the purpose of disability benefit schemes.
 
By emphasising the need for a liberal interpretation of disability pension provisions, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle that service personnel who develop medical conditions during active duty should not be denied support through narrow technical reasoning.
 
The decision also reflects a broader judicial sensitivity toward the welfare of armed forces personnel who suffer disabilities during service. Ensuring that such individuals receive appropriate financial and institutional support is essential not only for their personal dignity but also for maintaining the integrity of the service system as a whole.

Read the Judgement [PDF 1.3 MB]

Supreme Court of India Urges Bar Council of India to Consider Reservation for Advocates with Disabilities in Elections

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1045 of 2025
Case Title: Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr.
Date of Order: November 3, 2025

Brief

The Supreme Court has urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine the issue of providing reservation for advocates with disabilities in Bar Councils and Bar Associations, emphasizing that the matter raises vital questions of policy and equality under the Constitution.

The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Yadav, a practicing advocate known for espousing the cause of persons with disabilities. The petitioner sought directions to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to reserve certain positions in their governing bodies for advocates with disabilities.

It was noted during the hearing that elections for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had already been notified, though nominations were yet to be filed. The Court, therefore, observed that it would be difficult at this stage to interfere with the ongoing electoral process or issue a positive mandamus directing such reservation.

However, while declining to intervene directly, the Court underscored the importance of inclusivity and representation in professional bodies. It stated that the issue deserved careful consideration within the framework of existing laws and the constitutional principles of equality.

“The reservation for persons with disability essentially being a policy matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Bar Council of India to consider the cause espoused by the petitioner in light of the relevant legislative policies and statutes emanating from the constitutional principles of equality,”
— Order of the Supreme Court dated 3 November 2025.

The Court further clarified that all stakeholders are free to take an appropriate decision on the issue and that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum again, if necessary. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.

Significance and Perspective

This order, though brief, is an important development in the discourse around representation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in professional self-governing bodies. The Supreme Court’s direction places the onus on the Bar Council of India — the apex regulatory body of the legal profession — to introspect on the inclusivity of its governance structures.

At present, no Bar Council or Bar Association in India formally reserves seats for advocates with disabilities, despite statutory recognition of equality and non-discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 16. The petitioner’s plea, therefore, opens a larger debate on how persons with disabilities can have a voice in decision-making spaces within the legal profession itself.

While several states have begun reserving or nominating persons with disabilities to local self-government bodies, such as municipal or ward-level committees, and women have reserved seats in state legislatures and Parliament, there remains an absence of similar affirmative mechanisms for persons with disabilities in elected professional or representative bodies.

Bar Councils and Bar Associations perform critical regulatory and welfare functions — from enrolment and discipline to welfare schemes and representation before authorities. Inclusion of persons with disabilities in their governing structures would not only enhance diversity but also ensure that policies and welfare measures are attuned to the lived realities of disabled advocates.

This case, therefore, marks an important judicial nudge toward recognizing representation as an essential dimension of equality. Whether or not the Bar Council of India takes proactive steps will determine if this moment becomes a turning point in building a more inclusive legal fraternity in India.

Citation:
Amit Kumar Yadav v. Bar Council of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1045 of 2025, Order dated 03.11.2025, Supreme Court of India.

Download Order: View PDF in Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. Bar Council of India

Recruitment Authorities Must Ensure Statutory Reservation Framework to include Specific Learning Disabilities (Dyslexia) : CAT on Disability Rights in Civil Services Examination

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
Bench: Manish Garg (Member – Judicial) and Dr. Anand S. Khati (Member – Administrative)
Case No.: O.A. No. 3553/2024
Case Title: Molshree Aggarwal & Anr. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
Date of Order: 25 September 2025 

Background

The matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal arose from a challenge relating to the framework governing reservation for persons with disabilities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The applicants, candidates with benchmark disability in the nature of Specific Learning Disability (dyslexia), alleged that the examination framework adopted by the authorities excluded their disability category from the reservation scheme under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

According to the applicants, the authorities had failed to extend the statutory reservation framework to candidates belonging to disability category (d), despite the mandate contained in Section 34 of the RPwD Act. As a consequence, candidates with specific learning disabilities were effectively required to compete in the examination without the benefit of reservation available to other benchmark disability categories.

The applicants argued that the RPwD Act places a clear obligation on public authorities to ensure that recruitment examinations and service frameworks are structured in a manner that enables the effective participation of persons with disabilities. They contended that the exclusion of their disability category from the reservation scheme amounted to discrimination and undermined the statutory guarantees contained in the disability rights legislation.

Key Observations 

The Central Administrative Tribunal emphasised that recruitment frameworks governing access to public employment must operate consistently with the statutory provisions of the RPwD Act. Competitive examinations such as the Civil Services Examination play a decisive role in determining entry into public services, and therefore the governing rules must reflect the legislative mandate regarding disability reservation and inclusion.

The Tribunal examined the policy framework adopted by the authorities, including the Office Memoranda and recommendations of expert committees relating to the identification of suitable disability categories for participation in the Civil Services Examination. The Bench observed that the statutory scheme of the RPwD Act requires the State to ensure meaningful participation of persons with benchmark disabilities in public employment through appropriate identification of posts and implementation of reservation.

The Tribunal further noted that while recruitment authorities possess the power to identify functional requirements of posts, such identification must remain consistent with the statutory objectives of disability rights legislation. Excluding entire categories of disabilities without adequate justification could potentially undermine the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

Importantly, the Tribunal emphasised that disability rights jurisprudence increasingly recognises the principle of reasonable accommodation and inclusive participation as central components of equality within administrative systems.

Directions Issued

• The Tribunal examined the claims of the applicants regarding exclusion of disability category (d) from the Civil Services Examination framework.

• It directed that the candidature of the concerned applicant be considered for appointment in the event that the candidate placed above her in the merit list does not join within the validity period of the panel. 

• The matter relating to the broader legality of the policy framework governing disability categories in the Civil Services Examination remained subject to further examination in accordance with law.

Commentary

The decision highlights the continuing challenges associated with implementing disability rights within competitive recruitment systems. Public service examinations such as the Civil Services Examination represent one of the most significant gateways to public employment in India, and therefore the design of these frameworks has far-reaching implications for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Historically, recruitment systems have often been structured around rigid functional assumptions regarding the abilities required for public service roles. Such assumptions can inadvertently lead to the exclusion of certain disability categories, particularly where institutional frameworks do not adequately account for evolving understandings of disability and accommodation.

By examining the interaction between the statutory mandate of the RPwD Act and the administrative framework governing the Civil Services Examination, the Tribunal engaged with a broader constitutional question regarding equality in access to public employment. Disability rights legislation seeks to ensure that institutional structures evolve to accommodate diverse abilities rather than restricting participation through rigid classification systems.

The decision therefore contributes to the ongoing development of disability rights jurisprudence in India by highlighting the need for recruitment frameworks that align administrative practice with the statutory commitment to inclusion and equal opportunity.

Read the judgement [PDF 13 MB]

Why Are Disabled Persons Who Make Open Category Cut-Off Not Treated as General Candidates? Supreme Court Asks Centre

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Case Title:  Reena Banerjee and Another vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (I.A. No(s). 130117 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No(s). 11938 of 2016  with

Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998 
Date of Judgment: September 12, 2025
Law:  Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Section 34)

Case Summary

On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing disability rights under the constitutional framework and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). The Court intervened on two distinct but connected issues:

1. Upward Movement in Merit Lists for Persons with Disabilities (PWD)
   The Court expressed grave concern over the systemic denial of upward movement in the merit list for PWD candidates in public employment and education recruitment. Despite scoring above the general (unreserved) category cut-off, PWD candidates are treated only as reserved category candidates. This practice leads to lower-scoring PWD candidates occupying reserved seats, which the Court rightly described as "hostile discrimination." The Court directed the Central Government to explain by October 14, 2025, the steps taken to ensure that meritorious candidates are not denied upward movement and that the same principle applies to promotions as well.

2. Project Ability Empowerment: Nationwide Monitoring of Care Institutions
   The Court initiated a comprehensive, independent, nationwide monitoring framework named Project Ability Empowerment. This follows decades of systemic neglect in state-run and private institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The goal is to ensure effective implementation of the RPWD Act, safeguard constitutional rights, and shift away from institutionalisation toward community-based, inclusive models of care.

Key Directions and Distinct Aspects of the Judgment

1. Resident Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation

• Individualized profiling of every resident, including age, gender, disability profile, medical history, education level, vocational skills, and psychosocial needs.
• Creation of Individual Care Plans aligned with best practices to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
• Assessment of healthcare access, periodic review of psychiatric prescriptions, and establishment of multidisciplinary care teams.

2. Accessibility, Infrastructure, and Education

• In-depth audits of physical accessibility aligned with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility.
• Evaluation of accessible transport, assistive technologies, and communication formats.
• Assessment of access to education for children and vocational training for adults, including institutional support for the National Institute of Open Schooling.

3. Rights, Protection, and Compliance

• Examination of grievance redressal mechanisms, institutional policies, and participatory governance structures.
• Review of use of restraints and behaviour management policies.
• Monitoring compliance with the RPWD Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, including appointment of protection officers and institution registration.

4. Staffing, Resources, and Accountability

• Analysis of staffing strength, qualifications, training, and remuneration.
• Review of institutional record-keeping, transparency mechanisms, and responsiveness to Right to Information (RTI) applications.

5. Documentation and Welfare Access

• Recommendations for maintaining an online presence of institutions with an institutional dashboard containing essential functioning information.
• Facilitation of Aadhaar enrollment for every resident to ensure access to welfare schemes.

6. Reservation under Section 34 of the RPWD Act

• Strong emphasis on a positive and purposive interpretation of the reservation provisions.
• Recognition that disability is not homogeneous, requiring nuanced application of affirmative action.
• Mandate that meritorious PWD candidates should benefit from upward movement, leaving reserved seats for those with greater structural disadvantage.

Implications

This judgment marks a watershed moment in disability rights jurisprudence in India. It firmly rejects outdated medical and charitable paradigms of disability in favour of a rights-based, inclusive constitutional vision. The Court highlighted that reasonable accommodation is not charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The involvement of eight National Law Universities, regionalised across India, introduces a systematic, independent monitoring mechanism. The report due in March 2026 will present a data-driven, actionable pathway toward systemic reforms, including transition from institutional care to community living.

By addressing both affirmative action in public recruitment and the quality of institutional care, the Supreme Court affirmed that the true and substantive benefit of disability reservations and welfare must reach the most marginalized.

Read the judgement dated 12 Sep 2025 here

---

For further detailed updates on disability rights and authoritative case summaries, visit disabilityrightsindia.com.

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Guidelines on Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities, calls it "The Muruganantham Doctrine"

Court: The Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Case Title: L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 844
Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025 

Precedents Cited

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 – Arrest guidelines violated; factual foundation for compensation.
• Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 12 SCR 311 – Recognised denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination under Art. 14/21; Court extends principle to prisons.
• Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 4 SCR 638 – Human-rights-based approach to disability; influences Court’s interpretive stance.
• Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017) 10 SCC 658 – Framework of prison reforms adopted and expanded.
• Rama Murthy v. State Of Karnataka (1997) 2 SCC 642 – Need for an All-India Jail Manual and recognition of prisoners’ double handicap (ill-health and incarceration).
• People’s Watch v. Home Secretary, TN (2023) 2 MLJ 478 – Emphasised visitorial oversight; its directives were “re-emphasised”.
• International Instruments: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD); UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules).

Overview:

This case highlights the critical need for systemic reforms in Indian prisons to ensure the rights and dignity of prisoners with disabilities. The appellant, L. Muruganantham, a physically challenged advocate with Becker Muscular Dystrophy, autism, and mental illness, was illegally arrested and incarcerated. He alleged that during his custody, he was denied proper food, medical treatment, and accessible facilities, leading to a deterioration of his health.

Issues Before the Court

1. What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” for prisoners with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)?
2. Do infrastructural or administrative shortcomings in prisons amount to human rights violations requiring compensation?
3. What structural reforms are constitutionally necessary to safeguard dignity and equality of prisoners with disabilities?

Factual Background and Journey Through Courts:

• Illegal Arrest and Harassment: The appellant was falsely implicated in a criminal case and illegally arrested by Respondent No. 2 (police officer) at the behest of his paternal uncle.
• Incarceration and Alleged Neglect: During his incarceration from February 29, 2020, to March 10, 2020, at Central Prison, Coimbatore, the appellant alleged denial of essential support, including physiotherapy, psychotherapy, protein-rich food, and accessible sanitation facilities. He claimed this aggravated his physical and mental health conditions.
• SHRC Proceedings: The appellant filed a complaint with the SHRC, seeking compensation and action against officials. The SHRC awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation and recommended disciplinary action against Respondent No. 2, but dismissed the complaint against the prison authorities (Respondent No. 3), finding no specific human rights violation attributable to them.
• High Court Proceedings: Aggrieved by the SHRC's limited relief, the appellant filed a writ petition. The High Court partly allowed his petition, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- from the State and Rs. 1,00,000/- recoverable from Respondent No. 2) and awarding Rs. 25,000/- in costs. However, it upheld the dismissal of the complaint against the prison authorities, stating that while the arrest was a human rights violation, the non-provision of certain amenities during a short incarceration period did not amount to a "serious Human Rights violation" by jail authorities.
• Supreme Court's Findings:
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of illegal arrest and harassment.
  • It found the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be "fair, just, and reasonable," noting that while the appellant did not receive certain appropriate medical and dietary facilities, this stemmed from "institutional limitations" rather than "deliberate neglect or malice" by prison authorities. Thus, these shortcomings did not, "per se, amount to a violation of human rights attributable to the jail authorities."
  • However, the Court expressed "deep concern" over the systemic neglect of incarcerated individuals with disabilities and emphasized the urgent need for comprehensive prison reforms.

Key Takeaways 

This Supreme Court judgment, while affirming existing compensation, serves as a landmark directive for advancing disability rights within the Indian carceral system. Here are the key takeaways for our blog:

1. Reinforcing the Right to Dignity and Accessibility in Prisons: The Court unequivocally states that "Lawful incarceration does not suspend the right to human dignity." It stresses that failure to provide reasonable accommodations and basic care to disabled prisoners is not merely an administrative lapse but a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and breaches the RPwD Act, 2016, and UNCRPD.
2. Beyond "Deliberate Neglect": Systemic Failure as a Violation: While the Court didn't attribute "human rights violation" to prison authorities in this specific instance due to lack of "deliberate neglect," it highlighted "institutional limitations" as the root cause. This implicitly recognizes that systemic failures leading to deprivation of rights for disabled prisoners are unacceptable and necessitate immediate attention.
3. Mandatory Healthcare and Assistive Devices: The judgment reiterates that persons with disabilities in custody must receive healthcare "equivalent to that available in the general community," including physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices. This is a crucial affirmation of their right to comprehensive medical support, explicitly stating that "Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation."
4. Comprehensive Directives for Prison Reforms: The Supreme Court has issued 15 comprehensive, "immediate and time-bound" directives covering:
   • Identification and Information: Prompt identification of disabled prisoners and provision of information in accessible formats.
   • Infrastructure Accessibility: Mandating wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments.
   • Therapeutic Services: Dedicated spaces for physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and other therapeutic services.
   • Audits and Compliance: State-level access audits and compliance with accessibility guidelines (Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021).
   • Training and Sensitization: Comprehensive training for all prison staff and medical officers on disability rights, appropriate handling, and non-discrimination.
   • Dietary Needs: Provision of nutritious and medically appropriate diets tailored to individual needs.
   • Manual Review and Amendment: Review and amendment of the State Prison Manual to conform with the RPwD Act and UNCRPD, prohibiting discrimination and promoting reasonable accommodation.
   • Data Collection and Transparency: Maintenance and public dissemination of disaggregated data on disability status, accessibility, and accommodations (compliance with Article 31 UNCRPD).
   • Consultation and Monitoring: Periodic consultations with civil society organizations and constitution of monitoring committees.
5. Emphasis on International Standards: The judgment frequently references the UNCRPD and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), reinforcing India's commitment to international human rights standards for incarcerated persons with disabilities.
6. Accountability and Public Interest: The Court emphasizes that these directions are "in the larger public interest to uphold the dignity, and healthcare rights of prisoners with disabilities in all custodial settings," underscoring the State's "constitutional and moral obligation." The requirement for compliance reports to the State Human Rights Commission every three months ensures a mechanism for accountability.

This judgment provides a strong judicial push for a "systemic transformation" towards a "humane and just carceral system" that affirms the rights and provides necessary care for the rehabilitation of prisoners with disabilities. It sets a clear roadmap for state governments to implement the RPwD Act and international obligations effectively within their prison systems.

Read the judgement in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others embedded below: