Ensure Equal Opportunity in Sports under RPWD Act : Delhi High Court Reinforces the Rights of Para Athletes

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice A.K. Chawla
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12060/2018
Case Title: Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India & Ors.
Decided on: 1 July 2019
Neutral Citation: 2019:DHC:4583

Background

The Delhi High Court, in Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India, addressed a significant issue concerning the recognition, governance, and promotion of para sports in India. The petition was instituted by Sunil Tanwar, an internationally acclaimed para athlete and Arjuna Award recipient, who sought effective implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities in the field of sports.

The petition highlighted systemic deficiencies in the administration of para sports, including disputes over the recognition of National Sports Federations (NSFs), inadequate governmental oversight, lack of institutional support for para athletes, and the consequent impact on India's participation in international para sporting events.

The petitioner argued that despite the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and India's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), persons with disabilities continued to face significant barriers in accessing sporting opportunities on an equal basis with others.

During the proceedings, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports informed the Court about various steps taken to streamline the administration of para sports and to recognize appropriate National Sports Federations for disabled athletes.

Issues Before the Court

The principal issues before the Court were:

• Whether the Union Government had fulfilled its statutory obligations to promote and regulate para sports in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016.
• Whether adequate institutional mechanisms existed for recognition and governance of para sports federations.
• Whether persons with disabilities were receiving equal opportunities in sporting activities as mandated under domestic and international law.
• Whether further judicial directions were required to strengthen the administration of para sports.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court emphasized that sports constitute an important dimension of social inclusion, dignity, rehabilitation, and empowerment for persons with disabilities.

The Court observed that the RPwD Act, particularly Section 30, casts a statutory obligation upon the appropriate Government and sports authorities to ensure effective participation of persons with benchmark disabilities in sporting activities at every level.

The Bench noted that India has also undertaken binding international commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, requiring equal participation of persons with disabilities in recreational, leisure, and sporting activities.

During the hearing, the Union Government placed before the Court various measures undertaken to improve the governance of para sports, including:

• Recognition of appropriate National Sports Federations.
• Development of transparent mechanisms for participation in international competitions.
• Financial assistance and training support for para athletes.
• Institutional reforms intended to improve administration and eliminate disputes affecting athletes.

The Court appreciated the efforts undertaken by the Government and observed that the reforms initiated would significantly strengthen India's para sports ecosystem.

Recognizing that the executive had already initiated corrective measures, the Court considered it unnecessary to issue further mandatory directions.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition after recording the assurances and submissions made by the Union Government. The Court:

• Took note of the policy measures introduced for better governance of para sports.
• Recorded the Government's commitment to ensuring transparent administration of National Sports Federations dealing with disability sports.
• Expected the authorities to continue implementing the reforms in accordance with the RPwD Act and international obligations.
• Disposed of the writ petition while leaving it open to affected parties to seek appropriate remedies if future grievances arose.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is significant because it reaffirmed that promotion of sports for persons with disabilities is not merely a welfare measure but a statutory and constitutional obligation.

First, the Court recognized the importance of Section 30 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which requires Governments and sports authorities to facilitate participation of persons with disabilities in mainstream and disability-specific sporting activities.

Secondly, the judgment underscored India's obligations under the UNCRPD, reinforcing that disability rights extend beyond education and employment to include equal opportunities in sports.

Thirdly, by recording the Government's commitments, the Court encouraged administrative reforms without unnecessarily interfering in policy formulation, thereby respecting the separation of powers.

Finally, the decision contributed to strengthening institutional accountability in the governance of para sports, an area that had long been affected by administrative uncertainty and federation disputes.

Commentary

The judgment in Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India represents an important stage in the evolution of disability rights jurisprudence relating to sports governance in India.

Unlike many disability rights cases focused on accessibility or reservation in public employment, this litigation emphasized the importance of equal sporting opportunities as an essential component of dignity, inclusion, and social participation.

The Court's approach was pragmatic. Rather than issuing extensive mandatory directions, it monitored the Government's response, ensured that reforms were placed on record, and emphasized continued compliance with statutory obligations under the RPwD Act.

The decision also highlights that the success of disability rights depends not only upon legislative guarantees but equally upon robust institutional mechanisms capable of supporting athletes throughout their sporting careers.

Subsequent developments in India's para sports framework—including greater governmental recognition of para athletes, improved financial support, enhanced training infrastructure, and increased participation in international competitions—reflect the broader movement toward inclusive sports governance, of which this litigation formed an important part.

The judgment thus reinforces the principle that persons with disabilities have an equal right to participate, compete, excel, and represent the nation in sports, and that governments bear a continuing responsibility to create an enabling environment where talent is recognized irrespective of disability.

Read the Judgement

W.P.(C) 12060/2018, Sunil Tanwar v. Union of India & Ors. dated 01 July 2019

Supreme Court agrees that people above 50% of hearing and visual disability can not perform as judge!! [Judgement included]

Post Script Note: - The judgement below in V. Surendra Mohan (2019) has been overruled by the Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v.U.P.S.C (2021)

Dear Colleagues,

Please recall my earlier posts "Can a blind person work as a judge?" and subsequently  "Want to become a judge?" and "A step further to ensure that Blind can function effectively in Courts" on this subject. 

However, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph on 22 Jan 2019 in the case titled V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, shattered all my progressive writings and efforts to see more blind judges in India. The bench upheld the Tamil Nadu State’s policy of restricting the eligibility of blind and deaf candidates for the reserved posts of 'civil judge' to those with 40-50% of their respective disabilities. The SC Bench held,   "A judicial officer in a state has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction i.e. fair, logical and reasonable  and that it does not contravene any of the provisions of the Disabilities Act 1995 or any other statutory provision."

I have seen judges's inherent biases and pre-conceived notions about disabling conditions often reflected in their judgements referring to persons with disabilities as unfortunate, handicapped, crippled, wheelchair bound or confined to a wheelchair. This only shows their lack of awareness on disabling conditions and disability rights, however, this judgement has left me totally shaken. A common man's ignorance is pardonable, but for Milord's, whose pen has the ability to impact fate of millions of Indians with disabilities, it can be devastating for the hopes of many of them. The judges need to be well read and aware about the evolving capabilities of persons with disabilities with the advent of technology and science and the concept of reasonable accommodation that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provide. It is easier to label some one as 'incompetent' than set your own house in order. That is what the judiciary has done through this judgement despite the post of a judge identified as suitable to be held by a blind persons by the Expert Committee constituted  by Govt. of India, a bench renders them unsuitable!. Technically the bench should have refrained from stepping in to the shoes of the Expert Committee.

In the instant case, a person with seventy (70) percent blindness was denied appointment as a judge because he was more than fifty (50) percent threshold, the specified outer limit set by the Tamil Nadu State. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion in this case that persons with more than the specified range of blindness are not eligible because they cannot perform functions of a judge!

In the background that several blind lawyers and judges are functioning well and the post is also identified as suitable for persons with disabilities by an Expert Committee under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and that the Act makes no restrictions of degree of  percentage of disabilities for providing job reservations and other benefits etc which are equally available to all persons above 40% disabilities, this judgement looks absurd and unreasonable.  Instead of holding that differentiation based on extent of blindness is invalid and the judiciary should be  working towards facilitating accessibility of ICT, processes and reasonable accommodations for judges with blindness, the Court decided to justify the decision of the Government and the Madras High Court, which took an erroneous stand that completely blind persons cannot perform the so called strenuous tasks of reading, writing, communicating, examining witnesses, following procedures, advising advocates, etc.

Background of the case

In 2012, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission received a requisition from the State Government for filling up the vacancy posts of Civil Judge. The Commission wrote a letter to both the State Government as well as the High Court proposing to notify the percentage of disability as 40%-50% for partially blind and partially deaf for selection. The High Court communicated its approval to the aforesaid proposal which was also consented to, by the State of Tamil Nadu. The TNPC subsequently went on to publish the notification.

V. Surendra Mohan applied for the role of civil judge, however, his application was rejected on the ground that he was 70% blind (instead of below 50%). He challenged this decision in the Madras High Court upon which he was permitted to sit for the interview. Following his interview, Mohan’s application was again rejected. As a result, V. Surendra Mohan filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. In 2015, the High Court held that the TNPC’s decision was lawful as it was in line with the State’s policy.

In 2019, Mohan appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of his application as well as the policy on the basis of which his application was rejected, alleging it as arbitrary and unjustified.

The Bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph rejected this submission. It remarked that “a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable limit of the faculties of hearing, sight and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post is a legitimate restriction”.

The Supreme Court’s view that a totally blind person cannot function as a judge is trashed by live examples of  several successful blind judges in India and beyond. Accessible work place, computers with screen reading softwares, pleadings and documents in accessible format and reasonable accommodations is what is needed for their inclusion and this makes so many lawyers and judges do wonderfully well in their workplace.

Surprisingly, neither the State government or the High Court nor the Supreme Court have given any reasons as to justification of  50% disability cut-off when Persons with Disabilities Act makes so such distinction. No empirical evidence or research has been put forward to support that beyond the 50% threshold, a person would not be able to effectively perform his duties as a judge.  Supreme Court blindly relies on the government wisdom on this 50% cut-off, without questioning its scientific basis. It is also unclear as to how an advertisement by TNPSC pursuant to a “letter” from the government attained the status of an overriding legal norm. This matter wasn't referred to by the State to the Experts Committee. Decision was taken by babus based on their own whims and fancies and since it affected judiciary, the court also felt safe as they had not to change any infrastructure to accommodate a blind judge in their system. It is almost another level of apartheid visible in the present order. 

The present judgement also literally backtracks its own judgement dated 22 January 2019 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set deadlines to make public places accessible to persons with visual impairment. It had expressed that “it becomes imperative to provide such facilities so that these persons also are ensured level playing field and not only they are able to enjoy life meaningfully, they contribute to the progress of the nation as well.”  Instead of providing level playing field, this judgement deprives blind candidates from their established legal right  arbitrarily. This order is a black spot on the image of Indian Supreme Court which has otherwise been very proactive for the rights of marginalised communities and has always batted for their inclusion in constitutional spirit. Therefore, this needs to be remedied soon in coming days.

Read the judgement in V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal No. of 83 of 2019:

Post Script Note: - The judgement below in V. Surendra Mohan (2019) has been overruled by the Hon'ble  Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. U.P.S.C (2021)