Temporary Disability Certificate subsumes the requirement of " long- term impairment" - can't be used to deny reservation benefits under RPWD Act

Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Prateek Jalan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13146/2021
Case Title: Anmol Kumar Mishra (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2021

Background

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the temporary Disability Certificate cannot be ground to deny reservation benefits  under section 32, while offering an inclusive interpretation of the RPWD Act. The writ petition was filed challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission to IIT Kharagpur under the Persons with Disability (PwD) category in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) process.  

The petitioner suffered from keratoconus, a visual impairment condition, and possessed a disability certificate certifying 40% disability under the category of low vision. The certificate described the disability as temporary and valid for one year.

Prior to participating in the admission process, the petitioner had specifically sought clarification from various IITs regarding his eligibility under the PwD category. He was informed that he would be eligible subject to submission of a valid disability certificate. Thereafter, he successfully cleared the examination and was allotted a seat in the Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering Dual Degree course at IIT Kharagpur.

However, his admission was subsequently cancelled on the ground that the disability certificate mentioned that his condition was “likely to improve”, and therefore did not qualify for reservation benefits.  

Key Observations

The Delhi High Court examined the scheme of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Guidelines issued on 04 January 2018 governing assessment and certification of specified disabilities.  

The Court observed that neither the Act nor the statutory definitions of “person with disability”, “person with benchmark disability”, or “specified disability” distinguish between temporary and permanent disabilities in the context of visual impairment.

It noted that the applicable Guidelines specifically contemplate issuance of temporary disability certificates in certain conditions, including keratoconus, particularly for purposes such as pursuing education.

The Court held that once the petitioner possessed a valid certificate certifying 40% disability, denial of reservation solely because the condition was temporary or “likely to improve” amounted to an unduly restrictive interpretation of the statutory framework.

Importantly, the Court observed that the petitioner had fully disclosed the nature and validity of his disability certificate prior to the admission process, and the respondents themselves had earlier acknowledged his eligibility under the PwD category.

The Court emphasised that the RPwD Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally in a manner that furthers its objectives of inclusion and equal participation, rather than through narrow technical constructions that defeat statutory rights.

Directions Issued

• The communication cancelling the petitioner’s admission was quashed.
• The respondents were directed to take consequential steps forthwith for restoring the petitioner’s admission.
• The writ petition was allowed without costs.

Commentary

The judgment is significant in clarifying that disability rights under the RPwD Act cannot be denied through rigid distinctions unsupported by the statutory framework. By recognising temporary disability certificates as valid where expressly contemplated under the Guidelines, the Court adopted an interpretation consistent with the inclusive objectives of the legislation.

The decision also highlights the importance of institutional consistency and fairness in disability-related admissions. Having accepted the petitioner’s eligibility throughout the admission process, the subsequent denial based on the very nature of the disclosed certificate was correctly viewed as unsustainable.

Importantly, the ruling reinforces that beneficial legislation concerning persons with disabilities must be interpreted in a manner that advances substantive inclusion rather than creating procedural barriers through narrow or technical readings of eligibility conditions.

The judgment therefore strengthens the principle that statutory protections for persons with disabilities must operate practically and effectively, particularly in the sphere of access to higher education.

Read the judgement

               

-----

Supreme Court - Rights of persons with disabilities are not be diluted but limiting them to only those with benchmark disabilities

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice ,  A.S. Bopanna, Justice

Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.18591 of 2021)

Case Title: Avni Prakash Vs. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.

Date of  Order: 23 November 2021

Law//Act: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, 

Judgement Authored by : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice

Background

The Supreme Court (SC) has cautioned that the Rights of persons with disabilities should not be curtailed by the application of a higher threshold prescribed only for ‘persons with benchmark disabilities’.

The bench pronounced its verdict on a plea by a female National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2021 candidate with dysgraphia (which is a learning disability that inhibits the ability to write), who was aggrieved by the denial  of an additional one hour’s time for attempting the paper by the examination centre. She had sought that she either be allowed to sit for a re-examination or be reasonably or proportionately compensated by way of grace marks or elimination of negative marking or otherwise.

Case in brief:

The appellant is a person with dysgraphia- a specified disability listed in 2(a) of the Schedule to the RPwD Act. Her disability has been assessed as 40 percent permanent disability-thus falls within the definition of  a person with a benchmark disability under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act. She was denied the compensatory time while appearing for the NEET Examination conducted by the NTA. 

The Bench at SC framed issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to an hour’s worth of compensatory time owing to her PwD status under the NEET Bulletin 2021 and the Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Union Ministry of Social Empowerment and Justice issued on August 29, 2018.

While the matter was heard at the Mumbai High Court, the National Testing Agency (NTA), had, on October 11, 2021 demanded the procurement of a medical certificate as per the format contained in Appendix VIII-A and from a designated centre specified in Appendix VIII-B of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, in order to claim the one-hour compensatory time. 

However, the Supreme Court observed that it is evident from the format prescribed under Appendix VIII-A that it cannot be issued at a stage before the declaration of results, and will only be considered for admission to the medical courses. The bench held that:

“Para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021 (extracted above) indicates that the appellant was entitled to compensatory time of one hour for an examination of three hours, irrespective of her reliance on a scribe. Para 5.3 indicates that the requirement of a certificate in Appendix VIII-A applies after the results are declared.”

The court clarified that the Right to Inclusive Education is a right enforceable at the examination stage (as per Section 17(i) under Chapter III), distinct from the rights that apply during the admission stage (as per Section 32 under Chapter VI).

The distinction between Person with Disability (PwD) and Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD)

The court then went on to establish the distinction between PwD and PwBD under the RPwD Act. Referring to its decision in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission (2021), in which SC had rejected the submission that only PwBD candidates can be provided with the facility of a scribe and held that the petitioner was entitled to reasonable accommodation even if he did not suffer from a benchmark disability.

“These rights and entitlements which are conferred upon PwD cannot be constricted by adopting the definition of benchmark disability as a condition precedent or as a condition of eligibility for availing of the rights. Benchmark disability, as defined in Section 2(r), is specifically used in the context of Chapter VI.  Undoubtedly, to seek admission to an institution of higher education under the 5 per cent quota, the candidate must, in terms of Section 32(1)10, fulfil the description of a PwBD. But equally, where the statute has conferred rights and entitlements on PwD, which is wider in its canvass than a benchmark disability, such rights cannot be abrogated or diluted by reading into them the notion of benchmark disability” clarified the SC.

Hence, the standards of benchmark disabilities shall apply in situations where admission is sought into an institution of higher education under the five percent quota, in accordance with Section 32(1). However, the right to avail reasonable accommodation cannot be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Thus, the Right to Inclusive Education is a right enforceable at the examination stage (Section 17(i) under Chapter III), distinct from the rights that apply during the admission stage (Section 32 under Chapter VI).

The Court emphasised on the provisions envisaged under the RPwD Act with regard to inclusive education for PwD in Chapter III. Section 17 of Chapter III lays down specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education for students with disabilities. Among other inclusive measures, sub-section (i) provides for the duty of the State to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and the examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This duty can be fulfilled by providing extra time for the completion of examination papers and/or the facility of a scribe. Section 18 provides that the government and local authorities are duty-bound to take measures to promote, protect and ensure participation of PwD in adult education and continuing education programmes on an equal footing with others.

The provision for reservation in Chapter VI specifically directed towards PwBD students is different from the provisions in Chapter III for PwD students. Essentially, it can be concluded that PwD encompasses a wider group, of which PwBD is a sub-set. The principle of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the right to inclusive education, premised on equality and non-discrimination. The denial of reasonable accommodation to a PwD would certainly result in discrimination, especially when the same is denied by applying stricter thresholds meant only for PwBD.

The Court, therefore, held that there was a gross miscarriage of justice in this case by the High Court directing the appellant, who is aggrieved by the denial of a compensatory one hour, to seek a certificate in terms of Appendix VIII-A, on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the NTA. The injustice meted out to the appellant occurred, noted the apex court, because of (i) a vague and imprecisely defined NEET Bulletin 2021, and (ii) the absence of adequate training to the second respondent which was allotted as the appellant’s centre.

Court’s directions

The bench, in accordance with the decision in National Testing Agency vs. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale, ruled out the possibility of conducting a re-examination for the appellant owing to impracticability and uncertainty due to delay in results. However, the Court emphasised that the NTA cannot shirk or abrogate its responsibility to rectify the injustice which had been caused to the appellant, and must therefore consider extrapolation of marks or grant compensatory marks or adopt a ‘no negative scheme’, after applying their mind, ruled the Court.

The principle of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the right to inclusive education, premised on equality and non-discrimination.

The court further directed the NTA to strictly ensure that the provisions which are made at the NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under the RPwD Act are clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity. It observed that, “Facilities which are provided by the law to PwD shall not be constricted by reading in the higher threshold prescribed for PwBD.”

Read the judgement below in Avni Prakash Vs. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.(2021):

Supreme Court Calls for Systemic Reform in Recruitment of Special Teachers for Children with Disabilities

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar
Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 876 of 2017

Date of Judgment: 28 October 2021

Brief Background

This public interest petition was filed in a representative capacity, raising a crucial concern: the continued engagement of B.Ed. (Special Education) and D.Ed. (Special Education) trained teachers on a contractual basis by state authorities, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, despite their statutory recognition as qualified rehabilitation professionals.

The petitioners contended that this practice undermined both the rights of the teachers and the educational needs of Children with Special Needs (CwSN). They called for regular appointments of special educators in line with the recommended pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of 1:5, arguing that thousands of positions remain unfilled across the country despite the legal mandates.

Key Developments and Observations

The Supreme Court, during the course of hearing, considered several legal provisions, schemes, and factual reports:

1. Previous Court Directors and Amicus Report 

• The Court had previously directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to survey the population of CwSN and submit progress on recruitment of special educators.
• An Amicus Curiae was appointed to assess the situation on the ground. His report highlighted serious deficiencies in teacher availability, infrastructure, and educational quality across schools for the visually impaired, hearing impaired, and intellectually and physically disabled children.

2. Legal and Policy Framework Considered 

The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the legislative and policy landscape for inclusive education:

• Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (RCI Act): Mandates that only RCI-registered professionals with recognized qualifications can function as special educators. Any violation is a punishable offence.
• Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): Provides for inclusive education (Sections 16 & 17), free education for children with benchmark disabilities (Section 31), and duties of institutions to cater to diverse needs.
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): While it recognizes children with disabilities (Section 2(ee)), its Schedule of norms and standards does not specify PTR for CwSN, which creates a policy gap.
• Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and IEDSS Schemes: These schemes push for inclusion and recognize special educator-to-student ratios, particularly 1:5 under the Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS).

Supreme Court’s Key Findings and Directions

The Apex Court emphasized that the existing laws and schemes, taken together, create a binding obligation on governments to recruit qualified special educators. The lack of clarity in RTE norms was found to be a regulatory shortcoming needing urgent correction.

Major Directions Issued:

1. Central Government to amend the Schedule of the RTE Act, 2009, under Section 20, to include specific pupil-teacher ratios for CwSN, ensuring uniform standards across the country.

2. In the interim, until the amendment is notified, existing ratios in other enactments and schemes, particularly the 1:5 ratio under IEDSS, must be followed.

3. Only qualified, recognized, and RCI-registered rehabilitation professionals should be appointed as special educators. Ad-hoc arrangements and dilution of standards cannot be allowed.

4. The Court took note of communications from the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and CBSE, both highlighting the need for proper qualifications and adherence to inclusive education norms.

5. The Court strongly reminded authorities of their duty to ensure compliance with inclusive education mandates under the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD, to which India is a signatory.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is a milestone in advancing the cause of inclusive education in India. It clarifies the legal status of special educators as rehabilitation professionals, mandates strict adherence to disability-specific PTRs, and calls for coherence between education laws and disability rights frameworks.

Importantly, the Supreme Court relied upon and cited the 2019 order of the Mr. TD Dhariyal, the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, NCT of Delhi in the case of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Director Education & Others , which had recommended two Special Educators per school in Delhi and had detailed disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios. This reflects the growing judicial recognition of the persuasive value of administrative orders under the RPwD Act.

Conclusion

Through this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that inclusive education is not a charity, but a legal right of children with disabilities, and that trained special educators are not expendable stopgaps, but integral professionals essential to realizing this right.

The verdict sets a strong precedent for systemic reform, and should serve as a wake-up call for education departments across the country to align their policies with the rights-based framework enshrined in Indian law.

Read the judgement 

Madras HC to Tamil Nadu Govt. - No purchasing buses for public transport, unless they are disabled friendly

Court: Madrash High Court, India

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy 

Case No(s): W.P. No. 5957 of 2021(Lead Case) along with WP 38224 of 2005 and WP 923 of 2007

Case Title:     Vaishnavi Jayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & two Others (Lead Case)

Date of Hearing: 22 July 2021

Case Brief 

In a push for the rights and independence of people with disabilities in their commute, the Madras high court on Thursday restrained Tamil Nadu from purchasing any new bus to its fleet in the public transport system unless such buses were disabled-friendly as prescribed by law.

The first bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the interim injunction on a batch of pleas that have been pending before the court for years including from as far back as 2005, seeking universal use of disabled-friendly buses in public tranport fleet. 

One of the writ petitions in the batch i.e. W.P. No. 5957 of 2021 had been filed by cross disability rights advocate, Vaishnavi Jayakumar. She had challenged a Government Order (GO) issued on February 24 this year, for introduction of only 10% of low floor buses and 25% of buses fitted with lift mechanism or any other suitable mode, to provide easy access to wheelchair bound passengers, out of the total buses to be procured for Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited.

The petitioner had contended that the GO violates Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. The legislation requires the State government to take suitable measures to provide facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations and airports and also access to all modes of transport by even retrofitting old modes of transport wherever it was technically feasible.

She said the GO for introducing only 10% of low floor buses and those with lift mechanism was also in violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. “The GO is an arbitrary exercise of power by the State. It is not only in complete violation of the rights of persons with disabilities but also contumacious, since it violates several judicial orders,” she said.

The petitioner had sought to restrain the state from acquiring any further bus unless it conforms to the requirements of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 and under the latter, Rule 15 in particular. Rule 15 mandates that every establishment complies with the specified standard as indicated in a notification issued by the Government of India on September 20, 2016.

Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram said the government was purchasing disabled-friendly buses in phases because the roads were in bad shape and they would damage the low-floored buses.

Advocate Rita Chandrasekar, representing Metropolitan Transport Corporation, said the low floor buses cost ₹58 lakh each as against ₹26 lakh for regular buses and hence there was a delay in purchasing such buses.

The state's submission that low-floor buses were expensive and would be damaged by bad roads was rejected. The state has been submitting excuses of certain practical difficulties, particularly in finding resources not only to acquire the more expensive buses but also to create the road infrastructure required for such sophisticated buses. It sought more time to indicate a roadmap.

Rejecting their submissions, the bench in its order said, "In view of the mandate of the statute, read with the Rules framed thereunder and the notification published in accordance therewith, there may be no room to manoeuvre and little scope for the court to delay the implementation of the policy as reflected in the statute and the laws made thereunder.

The court further said in its order, "the State seeks time to indicate a road-map. However, it is necessary that the State be restrained from acquiring any further bus for the public transport system which does not conform to the specifications indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016 referred to above. In other words, the State will not acquire any new bus for use thereof as part of the public transport system unless such bus meets the standards indicated in the notification of September 20, 2016".

Read the interim order dated 22 Jul 2021, embedded below:

Read the Final updates in the case and Final Order dated 05 Jul 2022 on link: Madras HC | TN Govt. GO to the extent it offends RPWD Act or Provisions of Harmonised Guidelines & SC Judgement in Rajive Raturi case.

Madras HC rejects the argument that victim’s evidence could not be relied upon since she was blind

Madras High Court, rejecting the argument of the petitioner that victim’s evidence could not be relied upon since she was blind, said, “The victim as a blind lacks vision, but her version had vision and hence, this court holds that the evidence of the victim is admissible in evidence.”

According to the prosecution, auto driver Anbu Selvan was hired to transport the victim to her music class. However, he kidnapped her to a secluded location and sexually harassed her besides trying to kill her if she did not cooperate.

Challenging a trial court order awarding a seven-year jail term to him, Anbu Selvan moved the high court. Justice R M T Teekka Raman, however, termed Anbu Selvan as a ‘heartless person’ who had capitalised on the helpless situation of the visually challenged person and sexually assaulted her.

He is not entitled to reduction of sentence, not even for a single day, the judge asserted. Citing circumstantial and other evidence, the judge said, “Merely because of the disability, evidence of disabled persons cannot be treated as inferior in nature.”

Anbu Selvan had also argued, “The identity of the accused was not proved in the manner known to law and since the witness (victim) is a blind, her evidence cannot be termed as eye witness if at all, can be termed only as a hearsay witness which is inadmissible in evidence.”

The trial court convicted him for offences under sections 366 (kidnapping a woman), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (ii) (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Section 4 (harassment of woman) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act primarily based on the evidence of the victim woman.

Merely because a victim of sexual harassment had visual disability, her evidence against the culprit cannot become inadmissible, said the court, awarding seven-year imprisonment to an autorickshaw driver who assaulted the woman. The court then recommended the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to grant Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the victim under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme.