'No Different From You Or Me': Delhi High Court Calls For Using Term 'Differently Abled' For Persons With Disabilities

Observing that those who suffer from disabilities as recognized by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, are no different from anyone, the Delhi High Court has said that the more appropriate term to use for such persons would be “differently abled” rather than “disabled”.

“The RPWD Act, and all laws which strive to provide support to a person suffering from a disability, merely seek to neutralize the disability, so that the person's ability matches those of the rest of his peers, and they stand on an equal footing. This is the heart of the theory of equal opportunity, which pervades Article 14 and, indeed, the Constitution as a whole,” Justice C Hari Shankar said.

The court said that the persons who are differently abled are as able as any of us, but as their ability is different, it poses a challenge when they seek to integrate with the societal whole.

It is that difference that the RPWD Act seeks to eliminate, the court said.

“Persons who suffer from disabilities, as recognized by the RPWD Act, are no different from you or me. In one way or the other, each of us suffers from disabilities, known and unknown. Yet, we all have to function as a cohesive human whole,” the court observed.

Justice Shankar was dealing with a plea moved by one Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, a 100% visually disabled individual, pursuing M.A. in Sociology in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), seeking hostel accommodation.

It was Mishra's case that has was allotted any hostel since the time he was admitted to the M.A. course on November 23, 2022.

Granting relief to Mishra, Justice Shankar accepted the submission of his counsel, Advocate Rahul Bajaj, who is blind since birth, that the paradigm to deal with persons who are completely visually challenged is distinct and different.

The court said that given the means to tide over the difference, a differently abled person no longer remains differently abled, and becomes a part of the homogeneous human whole.

“It is then that, the difference in ability being neutralized, the individual is able to rise to his full stature, and invoke his innate talents and faculties to their fullest extent. In such a situation, the person who was otherwise regarded as “disabled” often equals, if not excels, his more redoubtable peers in the profession that he pursues. Mr. Rahul Bajaj is a luminescent example,” the court said.

It further accepted Bajaj's submission that any attempt at equalizing the differently abled with their peers itself infracts Article 14 of the Constitution, which frowns as much on inequality among equals, as on equality among the unequal.

“Inclusivity, and the need of integration into the mainstream of society, remaining thus at all times the raison d' etre of the RPWD Act and the entire movement towards neutralizing disabilities, cases dealing with “persons with disability” have to be approached with this prevailing consideration in the forefront,” the court said.

Justice Shankar held that Mishra is entitled to hostel accommodation provided by the JNU within its campus free of cost, with all other entitlements to which a differently abled student is entitled under the law and the policies of the varsity, till completion of his Masters degree course.

The court directed JNU to provide all facilities to Mishra within a week.

It observed that no empirical data was provided by the JNU to indicate that it would be unreasonable to expect the varsity to provide hostel accommodation to Mishra.

“The provisions of the RPWD Act, needless to say, would have overarching priority over all provisions of the JNU Hostel Manual. Enforcement of the provisions of the Hostel Manual can only, therefore, be said to be lawful if it is in sync with the mandate of the RPWD Act,” the court said.

It added: “The JNU has to be acutely conscious of its obligations under the RPWD Act, and the law that has developed in that regard, while implementing the provisions of its Hostel Manual – or, for that matter, while taking any other executive or administrative decision.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Mr. Kushal for Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 215

Click Here To Read Order