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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts of the Case

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

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

Issues Considered

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

Court’s Analysis and Findings

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

The Court observed:

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

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

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

Final Order

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

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

Significance of the Judgment

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

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

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

Read the Judgment below:

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

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

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

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

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

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

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

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

Key Highlights of the Judgment

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

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

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

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

Implications for the Future 

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

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

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

Judgement

Read the Judgement below: