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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legal question

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

Key Observations of the Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Directions Issued

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

The Court effectively held that:

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the judgement

Kerala HC- Eight Years for a Promotion: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan's Long Battle for Reservation in Promotion

Court: High Court of Kerala (followed by dismissal of State's SLP by the Supreme Court of India)

Bench: Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran

Case No.: O.P. (KAT) No. 312 of 2023

Case Title: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Others

Date of Judgment: 9 August 2023

Supreme Court Proceedings: State of Kerala & Anr. v. Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7352 of 2024, dismissed on 23 February 2024.

Cases Referred:

• State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 9 SCC 208
• Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India (2016) 13 SCC 153
• Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka (2020) 19 SCC 572
• Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair (2023 SCC OnLine SC 801)
• Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta (2010) 7 SCC 626

Summary:

The struggle of Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a senior government doctor with benchmark disability in Kerala, is a stark reminder that having a right on paper does not necessarily translate into its enjoyment in practice. Despite clear statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and binding Supreme Court precedents recognizing reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities, Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to spend nearly eight years in litigation before obtaining the promotion to which he was legally entitled.

Background

Dr. B. Unnikrishnan, a doctor with 40% locomotor disability, was serving in the Health Services Department of Kerala. His claim related to promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services under the reservation in promotion provisions applicable to persons with benchmark disabilities.

The Kerala Government had issued Government Order G.O.(P) No. 5/2022/SJD dated 15 July 2022 to provide reservation in promotion to persons with disabilities in compliance with Supreme Court judgments. However, while considering Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim, the Government adopted a restrictive interpretation of the order and rejected his request.

The State argued that reservation in promotion would be available only where the higher post could be filled both by direct recruitment and by promotion. Since the post of Deputy Director of Health Services was filled exclusively through promotion, the Government contended that reservation in promotion was unavailable.

When Dr. Unnikrishnan challenged the decision before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), the Tribunal accepted the Government's interpretation and dismissed his Original Application.

Kerala High Court Sets Aside the Tribunal's Order

The High Court found the Tribunal's reasoning fundamentally flawed.

The Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Leesamma Joseph had already held that Kerala was required to implement reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities and had directed the State to ensure compliance with the law.

The High Court relied extensively upon Leesamma Joseph as well as the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, where the Court reaffirmed that reservation for persons with disabilities extends to promotional posts and that the term "appointment" includes promotion.

Rejecting the State's interpretation, the High Court observed that the Government Order could not be read to mean that reservation in promotion would be denied where a post is filled solely by promotion. Such an interpretation, the Court held, would be hyper-technical, unreasonable and contrary to the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.

The Court made an important observation: where a post is filled exclusively through promotion, there can be no justification for denying reservation in promotion merely because direct recruitment is not one of the methods of appointment.

Accordingly, the High Court:

1. Set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order;
2. Quashed the Government order rejecting Dr. Unnikrishnan's claim;
3. Directed reconsideration of his case for promotion in accordance with the law;
4. Directed the authorities to complete the exercise within a time-bound period.

State Carries the Matter to the Supreme Court

Instead of implementing the judgment, the State of Kerala challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

On 23 February 2024, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition.

The order was brief but significant. The Supreme Court stated:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

Although the Court kept the broader question of law open, the High Court's relief in favour of Dr. Unnikrishnan remained intact.

Even After Losing in the Supreme Court, the State Delayed Compliance

One would have expected the matter to end after the Supreme Court's dismissal of the State's challenge. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Despite losing before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Government failed to grant the promotion. Dr. Unnikrishnan was compelled to initiate contempt proceedings to secure compliance with the judicial orders.

Only when faced with contempt proceedings did the State finally issue orders on 19 May 2026 promoting him as Additional Director of Health Services with retrospective effect from October 2017.

The promotion came almost nine years after it became due and more than two years after the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment.

A Victory Beyond One Individual

The significance of this case extends beyond Dr. Unnikrishnan's individual grievance.

The litigation highlights a recurring pattern witnessed across the country. Despite authoritative pronouncements in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju, Leesamma Joseph and A.K. Nair, public authorities continue to deny reservation in promotion to employees with disabilities, compelling them to engage in prolonged litigation merely to secure rights already recognized by law.

The facts of this case also demonstrate the human cost of such resistance. During the years spent litigating, Dr. Unnikrishnan continued serving the public health system in lower-level positions while his contemporaries moved ahead in the promotional hierarchy. Had the law been implemented when due, he may have been considered for even higher positions.

The Problematic Caveat

Reports indicate that while granting the promotion, the Government inserted a condition stating that the order would not operate as a precedent.

Such a caveat is deeply problematic. Rights under the RPwD Act do not depend upon individual benevolence or case-specific exceptions. Reservation in promotion is a statutory entitlement recognized by the Supreme Court. The benefit cannot be confined to one employee who succeeded after years of litigation while similarly situated employees are forced to commence fresh legal battles.

The obligation of the State is to implement the law uniformly and proactively, not merely to comply with court orders in isolated cases.

Conclusion

Dr. B. Unnikrishnan's victory is both inspiring and troubling.

It is inspiring because it demonstrates the perseverance of a disabled professional who refused to surrender his legal rights despite years of resistance. It is troubling because a right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court still required nearly a decade of litigation, a High Court judgment, a Supreme Court dismissal, and contempt proceedings before the State finally complied.

The case stands as an important reminder that the true measure of disability rights is not found in statutes or judgments alone, but in their timely implementation. Reservation in promotion is not a concession. It is a legal entitlement flowing from the constitutional promise of equality and the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Until governments internalize that principle, many more employees with disabilities may find themselves fighting the same battle that Dr. Unnikrishnan was forced to wage for nearly a decade.

Read the Kerala Hight Court Judgement (PDF embedded)

Madras HC- State Govt. ought to have ensured Kilambakkam Bus Terminus disabled friendly as per the accessibilty mandate of RPWD Act

Court: Madrash High Court, Principal Benchat Chennai

Bench:  Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Case No. WP No. 29942 of 2023

Case Title: Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority & Others

Date of Judgement: 24 Jan 2024 (PDF 164 KB)

Subject: Accessibility of Public Transportation system, Access Audit of Public Buildings and Built Environment, Grant of Completition Certificate to Buildings,

Brief:

The petition was filed seeking directions against the first respondent to take necessary measures so as to ensure that the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus in Tamilnadu is fully compliant with design and standards prescribed in the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 as as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Durign the hearing on 15 Dec 2024, the government of Tamil Nadu had informed that steps have been taken to make the terminus disabled-friendly. Observing that it is now 'mandatory in every building to have disabled friendly access facilities', the Chief Justice had stressed that "this has to be done before starting the construction".

The petitioner Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar had sought the court to restrain the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) from issuing a completion certificate to the bus terminus without being certified as compliant with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules by an empanelled access audit agency.

She also wanted the court to issue directions to conduct a detailed accessibility audit of the terminus through an empanelled access audit agency as it is not in compliance with the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.

Jayakumar had argued that the terminus was found slippery, there was reflective flooring without adequate contrast, absence of even a single toilet enabling bilateral wheelchair transfer onto the commode, the entire first floor does not have tactile flooring or warning and no dropped kerb (lowered areas of pavement) for wheelchair users to get onto the bus bay tarmac from the elevated seating area.

Ensuing Access Audit report pointed outu some 17 deficiencies and the first respondent subsequently issued work orders with regard to seven deficiencies and with regard to the remaining ten deficiencies, it assured that the work orders would be issued within two months from today. 

The petitioner submitted that in additon there are four more bus stands coming up one each at Koothambakkam, Venpakkam, Varadarajapuram and Mamallapuram. "The aforesaid bus stands will have to be constructed in compliance with the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 and the first respondent shall take necessary steps while issuing the tender notice." the bench directed.

Court also expressed, "We would appreciate if the Access Auditors would make periodical inspection during the construction activity of the bus stands and make necessary suggestions as and when required" and accordingly dispossed off the petition with directions to submit Compliance Report on 25.3.2024.

Read the disposing judgement dated 24 Jan 2024 in the instant case below:

Responding to a PIL in Karnataka HC, Govt Mandates Voice-Based Public Address Systems in Buses: A Victory for Inclusive Transportation

Court: Karnataka High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit

Date of Hearing: 20 Dec 2023

Brief:

In a significant stride towards inclusive transportation, the Karnataka State government has taken a decisive step by mandating the installation of voice-based public address systems and disabled-friendly mechanisms in all existing buses. This development, revealed during a hearing at the High Court of Karnataka, marks a crucial milestone in response to a PIL petition filed by N. Shreyas Reddy, a visually impaired lawyer, advocating for improved accessibility for commuters with disabilities.

The government's commitment to enhancing public transportation accessibility was demonstrated through the issuance of a circular on December 19, 2023 which stipulates the mandatory installation of voice-based public address systems. This initiative, aimed at benefiting visually challenged commuters, underscores the State's proactive approach in addressing the needs of vulnerable segments of society.

During earlier proceedings, the government assured the court of its intention to introduce a voice-based alert system, signaling a promising commitment to inclusive transportation policies. Subsequently, during the hearing on 20 Dec 2023, the government counsel confirmed the issuance of the circular and assured that both public and private stage carriage vehicles would be equipped with these systems by June 30, 2024.

The circular outlines clear directives for both new and existing vehicles. For new vehicles, the installation of these systems will be verified at the time of registration, while for existing vehicles, it will be assessed during the renewal of fitness certificates. Additionally, the government counsel informed the court of forthcoming clarity through another circular regarding the installation process, further demonstrating a proactive approach towards implementation.

In response to these developments, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit adjourned further proceedings while requesting the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation to provide a compliance report on the assurance given to the court regarding the installation of these systems in new buses procured from January 2024 onwards.

This proactive stance by the Karnataka government reflects a commendable commitment to fostering inclusive transportation infrastructure. By prioritizing the needs of visually challenged commuters, the government sets a precedent for other states to emulate, furthering the cause of accessibility and inclusivity in public transportation networks.

As these initiatives progress, there is renewed optimism for a future where transportation systems are not only efficient but also equitable, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of ability, can access essential services and opportunities.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Landmark Judgment: Upholding Rights of Persons with Disabilities Against Unjust Transfer [Judgement included]

Court: Delhi High Court 
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: Bhavneet Singh Vs  Ircon International Ltd. through Chairman & MD & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 12404/2022, CM APPL. Nos. 37256/2022 & 10458/2023
Decided on: 15th December 2023
Cases Refered:  Net Ram Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022

Post Script:- This matter was challenged by Respondent IRCON International in LPA 133 of 2024 and was rejected. 

Summary & Brief Background

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager within the Human Resource Management department, is a person with a severe benchmark physical disability, specifically a 72% permanent locomotor disability. The respondent, IRCON International Ltd., is a prominent public sector turnkey construction company operating under the Ministry of Railways. The petitioner initially joined the corporate headquarters in New Delhi on December 15, 2017. Over the course of his employment, he faced consecutive institutional re-locations, including a transfer to a subsidiary in Noida in March 2020 and a subsequent repatriation back to the Delhi Corporate Office in March 2022.

Following legal representations regarding promotion blockades and an active complaint filed before the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities challenging non-adherence to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the management issued a show-cause notice concerning attendance variations. Shortly thereafter, on August 22, 2022, IRCON issued an office order transferring the petitioner out of New Delhi to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project in Bilaspur, followed immediately by a formal relieving order on August 23, 2022.

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash these orders. He presented extensive medical evidence demonstrating that he wears a knee-length prosthetic Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) on his left leg, which requires continuous engineering maintenance and clinical adjustments at a specialized facility in Delhi where he has been tracked for seven years. Additionally, he has been undergoing critical neurological treatment at Fortis Hospital, Noida, for over a decade to closely monitor degenerative changes in his spine through regular MRI diagnostic tracking.

Core Arguments & Institutional Contradiction

1. The Paternalistic Re-location Alibi: 

IRCON countered by stating that the petitioner had explicitly accepted a universal pan-India transferability clause upon initial appointment. They argued that the transfer was driven purely by administrative resource allocation requiring an experienced HR hand in Bilaspur. The management asserted that Bilaspur is a thoroughly developed city serving as a major zonal headquarters, featuring extensive medical facilities covered under corporate expense packages, free bachelor accommodation, and special transport perks. They also argued that the petition was premature and should have been brought solely before the Chief Commissioner.

2. The Systemic Targeting Discrepancy: 

The petitioner exposed an institutional contradiction in how the company handled workforce rotation. He pointed to IRCON’s own Job Rotation Policy Circular (No. 34/2022), which mandated that employees stationed at a single location for 5 years or more must be rotated. The petitioner proved that multiple non-disabled employees who far exceeded these time limits were retained at the Delhi corporate office, while he was selectively picked for displacement. Furthermore, the petitioner cited an identical precedent where another visually impaired HR official, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, was transferred to the exact same project in Chhattisgarh but was swiftly repatriated to Delhi after the Chief Commissioner intervened.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether an operational transfer clause in an employment contract allows a public sector enterprise to uproot an employee with a 72% locomotor disability, ignoring specific, localized clinical and prosthetic healthcare requirements
2. Whether an administrative re-location that ignores central executive guidelines and DoPT Office Memorandums protecting disabled workers from rotational transfers violates the mandate of equality under Article 14.

Observations & Findings of the Court

Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh allowed the petition, explaining that standard corporate mobility principles cannot override constitutional protections for disabled workers:

The Welfare Mandate of the State: 

The Court observed that India, as a progressive welfare State, is bound by domestic legislations and international treaties like the UNCRPD to ensure equal opportunity and eliminate environmental and institutional barriers for persons with disabilities at the workplace.

Sustaining Executive Guidelines: 

The Court closely reviewed multiple DoPT Office Memorandums (including OMs dated 10.05.1990, 13.03.2002, and 31.03.2014), ruling that they create clear legal parameters. Disabled employees must be structurally exempted from standard rotational transfer tracks, and their preferred location choices must be prioritized to maintain continuity of care and workplace performance.

No Dilution of Rights: 

Citing the Apex Court's decision in Net Ram Yadav, the Court held that once a specific protection or benefit has been granted to disabled individuals via government circulars, an employer cannot introduce conditions that strip away those rights or render them useless.

Empathy as a Constitutional Anchor: 

The Court emphasized that judicial review in these matters requires an empathetic approach to ensure protections under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 are fully realized:

"In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy of others."

Violation of Article 14 Established: 

The Bench concluded that forcing the petitioner to relocate to another state would break the clinical continuity of his treatment, directly violating Article 14 by treating a severely disabled employee on equal footing with non-disabled workers while ignoring his specific medical needs.

Directions Issued

Finding that the administrative orders were arbitrary and legally unsustainable, the Single Judge issued the following directions:

• The impugned Transfer Order dated August 22, 2022, and the corresponding Relieving Order dated August 23, 2022, transferring the petitioner to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project, were officially set aside.
• The petitioner was protected from interstate transfer, ensuring his ongoing access to specialized prosthetic maintenance and neurological tracking within the National Capital Region.
• The writ petition was formally allowed, and all associated pending applications were disposed of.

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 Court Judgement dated 15 Dec 23 below:

Court of CCPD issues notice to Ola Cabs on disability discrimination meted out to a disabled veteran refusing to accept the wheelchair for ride.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India.

Presided by: Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, CCPD

Case Title: Wing Commander Shantanu Vs. Ola Cabs.

Date of Notice/Order: 15 Dec 2023

Brief: 

The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) has issued a notice to Ola Cabs in response to a complaint filed by Wing Commander Shantanu, a para shooter, and a veteran of the Indian Air Force. The notice addresses the alleged denial by an Ola Cab driver to accept the wheelchair of the para shooter, who has an 80% locomotor disability.

According to the complaint lodged with the CCPD, Wing Commander Shantanu had booked an Ola cab to travel a short distance from the Karni Singh Shooting Range, where he was participating in the 1st Khelo India Para Games, to a location 3 kilometres away on Tuesday, December 12, 2023 as there was no space in the rear boot, occupied by a CNG kit, the para shooter’s wife requested the driver to place the folded wheelchair in the back seat—a common practice among sedan cab drivers.

However, the specific Ola driver, whose details have been withheld, reportedly responded aggressively, using derogatory language, and demanded that the couple exit the cab, refusing to accommodate the wheelchair.

Feeling aggrieved and humiliated by this encounter, the Air Force veteran complained to the CCPD, seeking redress and action against the driver. The CCPD, viewing the allegations as an affront to the dignity of a person with a disability, particularly a soldier and sportsperson, has issued a notice to Ola Cabs.

The notice requires Ola to respond within 30 days, addressing the reported ill-treatment and ensuring necessary action is taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

Navigating Indian towns poses unique challenges for individuals using wheelchairs. The infrastructure often lacks proper accessibility features, such as ramps or elevators, footpaths, making it difficult for wheelchair users to access public spaces, including sidewalks and buildings.

Narrow and crowded streets further complicate mobility, hindering the smooth movement of wheelchairs. Additionally, public transportation systems may not be wheelchair-friendly, with limited or no provisions for boarding and disembarking.

The overall lack of awareness and accommodation in public spaces contributes to the daily struggles faced by wheelchair users, impacting their ability to move freely and independently in Indian towns despite their equal right to use public transport and public spaces.

Source: Press Release, Govt. of India

Court of CCPD issues interim directions to Govt. Functionaries to meet disabled visitors on ground floor or other accessible place, until their building is made accesssible.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt of India.

Bench: Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, CCPD

Case No. 14580/1101/2023

Case Title:  Suo Motu in Virali Modi's marrige registration on inaccessible floor case.

Date of Notice/Order: 09 Nov 2023

Introduction

In a landmark judicial intervention, the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), Government of India, recently took suo motu cognizance of a distressing incident involving Ms. Virali Modi, a bride who faced severe accessibility challenges at the office of a marriage registrar in Maharashtra. Ms. Modi, a wheelchair user, encountered significant hurdles on her wedding day, underscoring systemic deficiencies in accommodating persons with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("the Act").

Background and Legal Framework

The court's intervention was prompted by the distressing treatment Ms. Modi received despite prior arrangements and the knowledge of her specific needs. This incident, emblematic of broader accessibility issues nationwide, prompted the Chief Commissioner's proactive step to initiate a quasi-judicial proceeding. The goal was to address not only the specific case but also to highlight systemic failures across public service sectors in ensuring barrier-free access.

Respondents' Submissions and Court Actions

Respondent No. 1, representing the Maharashtra government, acknowledged the gravity of the incident and detailed corrective actions taken, including the suspension and relocation of responsible officials. The Central Public Works Department (CPWD), speaking on behalf of Respondent No. 3, raised concerns regarding retrofitting challenges and sought court guidance on budgetary provisions for necessary modifications.

Judicial Observations and Interim Directions

The court's observations underscored the widespread non-compliance with accessibility norms, despite clear statutory mandates under Sections 44, 45, and 46 of the RPwD Act. These sections mandate adherence to accessibility guidelines for all new constructions and the retrofitting of existing structures within specified timeframes, measures which have not been consistently implemented nationwide.

The Court of CCPD issued following interim directives aimed at immediate compliance:-

(1) The time limit for making old public buildings accessible is already over and considering that the public services run by the government are generally monopolistic, leaving no choice to the customer or citizen/beneficiary to seek the service elsewhere. Hence, concerned officers of any government office across the country, whether a central government or a state government establishment or a local government, officiating from any buildings/premises which are still not made accessible, shall go down to the ground floor or any other place in the building/premises which is accessible for divyangjan along with necessary staff and equipment and provide the service there itself. This shall be applicable to any public service including outsourced service by the government such as the Passport/Visa services, Jan Suvidha Kendras, CSC etc.

(2) The CPWD/State PWD/Municipal Corporation or any other agency, responsible of giving fitness or rent reasonability certificate for hiring or renting or renewal of the hiring or renting of any public or private building shall not give certificates unless the building is accessible. If a government establishment owning or managing a building or operating from a building which is not accessible and is not also willing to prioritise the required work of alteration, then the public works department concerned shall report the matter to their head of the department with information to this Court or the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities concerned, as the case may be.

(3) Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs to furnish the details of training modules developed for implementation of the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India- 2021 and the number of engineers, architects and town planners who have been trained on the subject within 30 days of the issue of these RoPs. MoHUA will also indicate the compliance status and steps taken to ensure implementation of Section 44 of the Act.

(4) This Court is satisfied by the action taken by Respondent No. 1 & 4. Hence, their names be dropped from the array of parties in the matter. However, Respondent No. 2 & 3 shall continue to attend the hearings in this matter. Secretary, Department of Higher Education and Chairman, AICTE shall be impleaded in the matter, who shall within 30 days of the issue of these RoPs shall furnish details about incorporation of Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India- 2021 in the curriculum of Civil Engineering and Architecture Courses.

(5) The RoP shall be forwarded to all Secretaries of Government of India and Chief Secretaries of state governments and UT administration for their information and necessary action. This is to ensure compliance of direction in 3.3(1) above, which is repeated :"Concerned officers of any government office across the country, whether a central government or a state government establishment or a local government, officiating from any buildings/premises which are still not made accessible, shall go down to the ground floor or any other place in the building/premises which is accessible for divyangjan along with necessary staff and equipment and provide the service there itself. This shall be applicable to any public service including outsourced service by the government such as the Passport/Visa services, Jan Suvidha Kendras, CSC etc."

Conclusion

The case of Ms. Virali Modi serves as a poignant reminder of the imperative to translate legal mandates into actionable realities. The Chief Commissioner's proactive stance not only addressed immediate grievances but also set a precedent for rigorous enforcement of accessibility standards nationwide. As India continues its journey towards inclusivity, such judicial interventions play a crucial role in bridging the gap between policy intent and on-ground implementation, ensuring equitable access to public services for all citizens. 

This Suo-motu cognizance in the matter of obstacles, risks and humiliation faced by Divyangjan regarding non-accessibility of public services highlights the pivotal role of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in safeguarding the rights enshrined in the RPwD Act, advocating for a society where physical barriers no longer obstruct the fundamental rights of individuals with disabilities. 

Read the CCPD's Record of Proceedings

Court of CCPD issues Suo Motu notice to Department of Posts for use of inappropriate terms as "Lunatic Account" for a person with autism.

Court: Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi

Case No: 14668/1102/2023 

Case Title: Suo Motu against Department of Posts, Govt. of India & Anr. 

Date of Notice: 07 Dec 2023

Brief:

The Court of CCPD has taken cognizance of a news item published in the daily, “The Hindu” on 21.11.2023 (Chennai Edition) which says that ‘Post office opens ‘Lunatic Account’ for autisticman; plaint lodged’. According to the news item, a senior citizen-a telecom family pensioner, approached the GKM Postal Colony Post Office in Chennai some months ago to open a savings account and term deposit account in the name of his son who has autism.  He had requested to open a Guardian Operated Account, furnishing his son’s National Disability Identity Card and the Guardianship Certificate given under the National Trust Act. His account was opened but citing a colonial-era legislation, Section 12 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, the Department of Posts is continuing the insensitive practice of classifying the account as “Lunatic Account”. 

Incidently, "as per the Section 12 of Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, persons with unsound mind or incapable of managing his affairs are defined as lunatics and as such, the same terminology is used in Post Office Saving Bank operations," clarified a communication from the department of posts.

The court highlighted the mandate of Section 13 of RPWD Act that provides that the appropriate government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities have rights equally with others to control their financial affairs and have access to bank loans and other forms of financial credit and enjoy legal capacity. The Section and the Preamble of the Act also provides that the autonomy, dignity, and privacy of persons with disability shall be respected;

The court also refered to the UN issued Disability Inclusive Language Guidelines launched by the United Nations in 2019 as part of its UN Disability Inclusion Strategy The said guidelines in its  Annexure I lists various commonly used terms, which should be avoided and has also mapped such terms with corresponding terms recommended by the UN. The policy of the UN aims to establish the highest levels of commitment and a vision for the United Nations system on disability inclusion for the next decade, and aims at establishing an institutional framework for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, among other international human rights instruments and development and humanitarian commitments.

Here is the Suo Motu Notice:

Delhi HC seeks Response of Delhi University on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench:  Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Caste No(s): W.P.(C)  5390/2022

Title: Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.

Date of Order: 08 November 2023

Next Date of Hearing:  07 December 2023

Brief:

On a plea moved by one Jayant Singh Raghav, a student with visual disability of the Delhi University, raising the issue of provisions facilities and reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities during examinations.

The court asked the varsity to satisfy in the affidavit as to how the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the suggestions given by amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta have been implemented. “As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to file comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the University,” the court said.

On March 10, the amicus curiae had handed over his report to the court wherein certain suggestions qua physical infrastructure and accessibility in the CLC as well as regarding Raghav were made. The report suggested that the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) must be implemented immediately in CLC, Delhi University in time bound manner. 

It was also suggested that an access audit of CLC must be directed to be conducted immediately and a report be submitted to the court. The amicus curiae also suggested that at least 10 more ramps with tactile at various locations must be ordered to be erected immediately in the varsity and that a washroom for the disabled individuals be made functional on each floor as there was only one such toilet at present in the entire campus of CLC.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Univeristy submitted that the repair work in toilets, corridors, open areas and provision of tactile and other facilities for persons with disabilities at CLC has been completed by the agency upto the satisfaction of varsity’s competent authority.

However, the court said, “Needless to state that the same was not only the expectation or the requirement under the provisions of the Act of 2016 or in the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae. It is to be seen that there are various other requirements to be adhered to by the respondent no.1-University,”.

Here is a copy of the order dated 08 November 2023:-

Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench:  Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.
Caste No(s): W.P.(C) 17460/2022 
Title: Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others
Connected matter: W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 01 November 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7914-DB

Cases referred:  National Federation of the Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB

Brief:

The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).

The grievance was raised that the advertisements failed to provide the mandatory 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons as required under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was alleged that KVS had excluded persons with hearing disabilities from several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and Primary Teacher posts.

KVS defended its recruitment process by relying upon a 2013 notification identifying posts suitable for persons with disabilities and contended that an internal committee constituted by it had assessed suitability and excluded certain categories of disabilities from specific posts.

The petitioners argued that the 2013 notification had already been superseded by the Central Government notification dated 04 January 2021 issued under Section 33 of the RPwD Act, and that KVS had no authority to independently exclude identified posts from reservation.

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court held that the notification dated 04 January 2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment governed the field at the time of recruitment and had superseded the earlier 2013 notification.  

The Court observed that the 2021 notification specifically identified several posts, including Principal, Vice-Principal, PGT, TGT and other teaching posts, as suitable for persons with disabilities.

It held that KVS had acted contrary to the statutory framework by constituting its own internal committee and excluding deaf and hard of hearing candidates from posts already identified by the appropriate government. The Court clarified that the power of identification and exemption vests exclusively with the appropriate government under the RPwD Act and cannot be assumed by autonomous institutions.

The Court further emphasised that reservation under Section 34 must be computed on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and not selectively restricted through administrative practices.

Importantly, the Court recognised that the principle of reasonable accommodation is embedded within the statutory scheme and that institutions are under a positive obligation to create enabling conditions for participation of persons with disabilities, rather than viewing disability from the perspective of inconvenience.

The Court also noted a broader “policy disconnect” between the nodal ministry responsible for disability rights and recruiting institutions implementing reservation policies, observing that such inconsistency repeatedly compels persons with disabilities to seek judicial intervention for enforcement of basic statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• KVS was directed to provide 1% reservation for deaf and hard of hearing persons against the identified posts under the 2021 notification.
• The Court directed KVS to conduct a special recruitment drive for filling backlog vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.
• Reservation was directed to be calculated on the basis of the total number of vacancies in the organisation.
• KVS was directed to complete the process of issuing fresh advertisements and filling reserved vacancies within stipulated timelines.
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was directed to issue suitable guidelines to ensure uniform implementation of reservation policies across departments.

Commentary

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the statutory architecture under the RPwD Act and significantly limits the ability of recruiting bodies to dilute disability reservation through internal administrative mechanisms. By holding that identification and exemption of posts are functions reserved exclusively for the appropriate government, the Court prevents institutions from selectively narrowing the scope of reservation through subjective notions of suitability.

A particularly important aspect of the ruling is its recognition that exclusion often operates not through express denial of rights, but through institutional practices that undermine the implementation of reservation in practice. The Court correctly identified that such practices effectively force persons with disabilities into repeated litigation merely to secure statutory entitlements already guaranteed by law.

The judgment also advances the principle of reasonable accommodation by treating it as an active institutional obligation rather than a discretionary measure. The Court’s observation that disability was being viewed “from the lens of inconvenience” reflects an important critique of entrenched administrative attitudes that continue to shape exclusionary recruitment practices.

At the same time, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach by declining to disturb completed recruitment processes, instead directing future corrective measures and backlog recruitment. While this avoided disruption to existing appointments, it also meant that immediate structural relief to affected candidates remained limited. Nevertheless, the decision substantially strengthens enforceability of disability reservation and reinforces that administrative bodies cannot override statutory guarantees through internal policies or committees.

Read the Judgement in W.P.(C) 17460/2022 dated 01 Nov 2023