Supreme Court Affirms HC Order Setting Aside Disability Commissioner's Directions Against Bank Official

The Supreme Court today(April 1) dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court's order, which set aside directions passed by the Goa State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in censuring a Canara Bank official for treating in a rude and discriminatory manner the caregiver of a person with an intellectual disability.

The Commissioner had directed the concerned official to undergo mandatory disability training for eight days and, all bank officials to be made to undergo disability sensitization and for a written public apology to be issued to the caregiver. The High Court quashed the Commission's order on the grounds that the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities does not possess the power to issue mandates and dictate how bank officials should behave.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran stated that it would not interfere with the High Court's order.

At the outset, when Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, for the petitioner, began has arguments, Justice Dhulia asked: "Was the daughter [who is the person with disability] in the bank herself? She was not there, only the person was there...Where does the Commissioner gets the power to do all these things?

Justice Chandran also orally stated that the bank had only asked for KYC and nothing else. Muralidhar stated that it was not about the KYC and was about the discriminatory attitude towards a person with disability. 

In this case, the petitioner is the father of a girl with mental disabilities. The petitioner opened a joint account in the name of himself and his daughter at the Porvorim branch of Canara Bank as requested by girl's school a few years ago. The Petitioner's account was lying dormant for the past few years due to its non-usage. The Canara Bank sent a letter to the petitioner to make the bank account operational.

Subsequently, the petitioner visited the said bank to deposit a cheque made out in favour of her daughter.  The cheque represented funds previously invested in a private company. The petitioner, being the 'caregiver' of her daughter, wrote an application on behalf of his daughter and provided other relevant documents (including her birth certificate) to reactivate the dormant account held jointly by the petitioner and his daughter. However, the bank did not take the documents provided by the petitioner and insisted that the petitioner submit the Aadhaar card of his daughter. However, owing to the nature of her disability, an Aadhaar card could not be issued to her. 

"Nevertheless, not only did the Bank Manager keep insisting on the procurement of an Aadhaar card, he also did so in a callous manner completely impervious to the Petitioner's pleas. The Branch Manager treated the Petitioner with disrespect and showed no willingness to address his concerns. Not only did he refuse to review the Petitioner's documents, but also scolded the petitioner harshly and quarrelled with him instead of engaging in constructive dialogue to deal with the issues at hand," the petition stated.

Case Details: SAGAR JAWDEKAR v. THE CANARA BANK AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 8352/2025