Kerala HC- Double Bench dismissed the appeal against Single Bench order that directed the aided private educational institutes to implement reservation under Disabilities Act.

Court: Kerala High Court 

Bench: Mr. Justice A.M. Shaffique and Mr. Justice Gopinath P. 

Case No. : WA.No.1237 OF 2020 (against the Judgement in WP(C) 4753/2020(T) OF Hight Court of Kerala Dated 26/8/2020)   (Heard with WA.1238/2020, WA.1239/2020, WA.1242/2020, WA.131/2021)

Case Title (lead Case) : Secretary, NSS College Central Committee  Vs.  Renjith  J.V.

Date of Judgement: 04 Feb 2021

Brief:

Please refer to our earlier post titled Kerala HC: Aided Private Education Institutions are 'State' and need to implement reservation for persons with disabilities, dated 27 Aug 2022

The Respondent in the WP 4753 of 2020 had gone in appeal in the present case before the double bench, however the Bench dismissed the appeal finding no merits and that the contentions raised were similarly to many other cases already decided by the Supreme court of India.

The main contention urged on behalf of the Consortium of Catholic School Managements in Kerala was that Ext.P8 order cannot be enforced since no posts had been identified to be filled up in terms of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act and Sections 33 and 34 of the 2016 Act.

It was also contended that the posts which had been notified are relating to Government departments, Government schools and colleges and do not have any relation to the creation of posts with reference to aided schools and colleges. And, thefore, it was argued that unless the posts in such aided schools and colleges are notified in terms of the statutory provision, incorporating Exts. P3 to P7 Government Orders will not suffice.

The bench, however, did not find any of these arguments sustainable in light of catena of previoous judgements of the hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India [(2014) 14 SCC 383)].  Government of India through Secretary and Another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [(2010) 7 SCC 626], Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 13 SCC 153],  Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992Suppl (3) SCC 217], and therefore, dismissed the appeal.  

Read the detailed Judgement below:

CCPD Court directs concessions in GST, Road Tax and Toll Tax to all persons with disabilities irrespective of their category of disability.

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

Bench/Presided by: Ms. Upma Srivastava, CCPD

Case Title:  Shibu S.V. and Others Vs. Deptt of Heavy Industry

Case No. : 12149/1141/2020

Date of Order: 01 Dec 2020

Brief:

Currently the concessions in GST during purchase of new vehicle for personal use such as car is only provided by the Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises to persons with othopedic disabilities only. 

In this instant case, the Court of CCPD while hearing a batch of petitions form persons with disabilities other than orthopaedic / physical disabilities which challenged the discrimination among different sub-categories of disabilities,  directed the Ministry of Heeavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India to amendn their rules and provide this facility to all persons with benchmark disabilities irrespective of their category of disabilities. 

Read the order embedded below:

Delhi High Court Holds Dilution of 5% Disability Reservation in JNU Violates RPwD Act

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3471/2020
Case Title: Javed Abidi Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Decision: 06 November 2020

Cases Referred:   

• W.P.(C) 3817/2018  titled National Federation of Blind v. Union of India & Ors. [2018 SCC Online Del 12367]
• Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Anr.; [(2017) 14 SCC 1]

Background

The Javed Abidi Foundation approached the Delhi High Court through a Public Interest Litigation raising concerns regarding non-implementation of the mandatory 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher educational institutions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The petition specifically challenged the admission policy and electronic prospectus issued by Jawaharlal Nehru University for the Academic Year 2020–21. According to the petitioner, although the University formally mentioned reservation for persons with disabilities in its admission policy, the actual method adopted for calculating seats substantially reduced the reservation guaranteed under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

It was argued that in several courses and academic programmes, the effective reservation available to persons with benchmark disabilities fell below the statutory minimum of 5%, and in some cases was reduced to nearly 2.5%.

The petitioner contended that the University was calculating reservation on a fragmented basis by dividing seats school-wise and centre-wise instead of calculating reservation against the total seats available in the institution. This, according to the petitioner, diluted the purpose of the law and resulted in underrepresentation of students with disabilities.

Reliance was placed on earlier judgments, including National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India and Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, where courts had stressed the importance of effective implementation of reservation policies for persons with disabilities.

In response, JNU argued that its admission policy expressly incorporated 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in compliance with the RPwD Act. The University further submitted that where courses had fewer than nine seats, clubbing of seats at the school or centre level was undertaken to ensure reservation benefits were extended to candidates with disabilities.

Key Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court examined the reservation framework under Section 32 of the RPwD Act and reiterated that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is a mandatory statutory obligation and not a matter of discretion.

The Court observed that the RPwD Act is a rights-based legislation enacted to secure substantive equality and meaningful inclusion for persons with disabilities in education and public life.

Importantly, the Bench held that merely mentioning reservation provisions in institutional policies is not sufficient if the actual implementation mechanism defeats the statutory mandate. The Court stressed that compliance must be real and effective, and not merely symbolic.

The Court noted that institutional methodologies which reduce the effective percentage of reservation available to persons with disabilities would be contrary to the object and purpose of Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

Reaffirming earlier disability rights jurisprudence, the Bench observed that educational institutions cannot adopt administrative or structural mechanisms that dilute or defeat mandatory reservation requirements.

The Court further recognised that reservation for persons with disabilities is closely linked to the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and participation under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

According to the Court, educational access for persons with disabilities cannot be undermined through fragmented seat calculations or compartmentalised admission practices that effectively reduce opportunities for disabled students.

The Bench emphasised that the RPwD Act must be interpreted in a manner that advances inclusion rather than restricts it.

Directions Issued

The Delhi High Court directed the authorities to ensure strict implementation of the reservation mandate under Section 32 of the RPwD Act.

The Court clarified that:

• Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities must be implemented in its true letter and spirit.
• Educational institutions cannot adopt admission methodologies that reduce the minimum 5% reservation guaranteed under the RPwD Act.
• Regulatory authorities are obligated to ensure uniform compliance with disability reservation requirements across higher educational institutions.
• The reservation framework under the RPwD Act must be interpreted in a manner that advances substantive inclusion and equal participation for persons with disabilities.

The judgment also highlighted the responsibility of governmental authorities to monitor compliance and take corrective action wherever institutions fail to implement disability reservation properly.

Commentary

The judgment in Javed Abidi Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. is an important reaffirmation of the enforceability of disability reservation rights in higher education.

A key contribution of the ruling is the Court’s clear rejection of formalistic compliance. The judgment recognises that institutions cannot satisfy their legal obligations merely by inserting reservation clauses in prospectuses or policy documents while simultaneously adopting admission processes that dilute the actual benefit available to persons with disabilities.

The ruling is particularly significant because educational institutions often rely upon fragmented seat calculations, departmental segregation or administrative compartmentalisation to reduce the effective operation of disability reservation policies. By focusing on the substantive purpose behind Section 32 of the RPwD Act, the Court prevented practices that could convert statutory reservation into an illusory entitlement.

The decision also acknowledges the broader constitutional importance of educational inclusion. Access to higher education remains central to economic mobility, professional participation and equal citizenship for persons with disabilities. Exclusion from educational institutions has historically contributed to the marginalisation of disabled persons from mainstream social and professional spaces.

Equally important is the judgment’s rights-based approach to disability. The Court treated reservation not as a welfare measure or concession, but as an enforceable legal right grounded in equality, dignity and substantive inclusion.

At the same time, the case highlights continuing implementation failures despite the enactment of the RPwD Act and repeated judicial interventions. The litigation demonstrates how persons with disabilities and advocacy organisations are often compelled to approach constitutional courts merely to secure compliance with rights already guaranteed under law.

Nevertheless, the ruling significantly strengthens the legal framework for disability-inclusive higher education and reinforces that institutions cannot dilute statutory reservation obligations through administrative practices or technical interpretations.

Read the judgement below:

Bombay High Court declares BMC circular illegal, directs payment of full salaries to disabled employees for absence during pandemic period

Dear Colleagues,

Please refer to my earlier post  'NAB takes the BMC to High Court for denying full salaries to disabled and older employees during lockdown' detailing the public interest litigation filed by the National Association of Blind after the civic body did not pay full salaries to the 268 visually impaired employees.

Accepting the petitioner's contention that the country’s richest civic body had shown “its inhuman an insensitive face, much to the detriment and prejudice of its physically disabled employees” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court, in their 63-page judgment passed on 28th October 2020 (Wednesday),  has held that the BMC's circular and its action of withholding pay during the pandemic were illegal and said, "we direct the corporation to ensure that none of the physically disabled employees, who did not report for duty during the pandemic are denied pay benefits “which they would have been entitled to, but for the pandemic and had they reported for duty”.

On 27 March 2020, the central government through an OM issued by DoPT exempted all government employees with disabilities from reporting for duty during the lockdown saying, "“All ministries and departments are advised to exempt persons with disabilities (PwD) from duties while drawing up roster of employees required to attend to essential services”.

Similar directions were issued by the Maharashtra government on 21 April 2020 exempting disabled employees from attending offices and that the period of absence may be treated as Special Leave without loss of pay. 

On May 2, the BMC announced that its disabled staffers were entitled to a special leave without loss of pay. But, on May 26, it issued a circular  that it was not a special leave, but a permissible leave which requires sanction and involves a pay loss. The circular directed that its disabled employees be given leave which is permitted under the Municipal Services Act. Under this, if these employees have used up sanctioned leaves, they will not get a salary if they don’t report for work. The BMC has nearly 1,150 physically disabled employees, including 278 visually impaired.

The judges noted that while the BMC initially favoured exemption, a “change of mindset resulted in revision of its earlier decision” and it was not backed by tangible evidence of physically disabled employees not facing inconvenience or discomfort while travelling to their workplace or “reference to any incident that could act as a trigger for such decision”. “If the civic body was not inclined to offer financial benefits, like pay physically disabled employees who do not report for duty, it was its duty as a model employer to make special arrangements for public transport or special measures to ensure hassle-free travel for these employees...”

The judges added that the right to free access is a right guaranteed by the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. Although it casts a duty on the state, nothing prevented the BMC as local authority from taking suitable measures for its physically disabled employees.

The judges said the BMC’s ‘flip-flop’ has intrigued them and there was no explanation for it. “This volte-face deserves to be viewed seriously and disapproved strongly.” 

The court said, “The circular requires judicial intervention. The circular and its action of withholding pay is held illegal.”  The Bench said that the payment must be made in two instalments, the first must be paid before Diwali and the second must be paid within 45 days from the date of the first instalment.

Watch out this space for the PDF Judgement soon...

Manhattan Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer rules "NYC has violated the ADA by not installing accessible pedestrian signlas for the blind."

Dear Colleages, 

A federal lawsuit, brought by the the American Council of the Blind in 2018, sued NYC Govt. on behalf of plaintiffs Michael Golfo and Christina Curry, claiming that out of the city’s 13,000 pedestrian traffic signals, just over 2 percent conveyed information in a way that is accessible to blind pedestrians. 

The lawsuit argued that the city’s Department of Transportation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by neglecting to add audible features to crosswalk signals that let visually impaired people know when they have the traffic signal. There are about 205,000 blind or otherwise visually-impaired people who live in the city and face this inaccessible and hostile environement. 

The arguments have found favour with the District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer and on 20 Oct 2020, the court ruled  the current “near-total absence” of accessible crossing information violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal disability law that preceded the ADA.

The tuesday ruling notes that blind pedestrians in New York will typically stop at the curb and assume they are at a point where they can cross the street. Without any accessible indicator of a crossing, however, blind pedestrians cross somewhere other than the crosswalk 30 percent of the time. This leaves them to rely on other auditory cues, which is prohibitively difficult with New York’s level of ambient noise. 

In particular, Engelmayer ruled the city had failed to equip traffic signals with accessible pedestrian signals — APS for short — which include alarms or other audible alerts. The Court held that the absence of non-visual crossing information at more than 95% of the City’s signalized intersections denies plaintiffs meaningful access to the City’s signalized intersections and the pedestrian grid, in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act,” Engelmayer wrote.

“The Court further holds that some, but not all, of the City’s projects with respect to traffic signals gave rise to a duty under these statutes to add APS [Accessible Pedestrian Signals]—a duty that the City has largely breached.”

The Court ordered  the NYC lawyers to seek an agreement with petitioners to make more intersections safe for pedestrians who cannot see. The two sides must submit a letter to the court by Oct. 30 laying out a path forward to come to a resolution, which could include benchmarks and deadlines for adding APS to street signals.   Though, the court's ruling itself does not specify how many signals must be installed.

Mayor de Blasio spokeswoman Laura Feyer said the city is already working to expand accessibility for blind people at crosswalks — but declined to provide a timeline for the installation of more infrastructure to make good on the judge’s ruling. 

“The city is dedicated to making our streets more accessible to all New Yorkers with and without disabilities, including those who are blind or have low vision,”  “We will continue to install APS across the city and are consistently working to increase access for the blind and low vision community in all facets of life.”  said Feyer.

Sources: 

1. pressfrom dot info

2. NYDailyNewsdotcom