Breaking Barriers : How Justice Ravindra Bhat Expanded Scope Of Disability Rights

Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who retired as a Supreme Court judge on October 20, has made immense contributions to the expansion of disability rights jurisprudence in our country. He has advanced a pragmatic and purposive interpretation of the statutory provisions to further inclusivity and accessibility for persons with disabilities in the public sphere.

Even before his elevation to the Supreme Court, as a judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Bhat had way back in 2016 pointed out certain shortcomings in the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, particularly in reference to the rigid insistence on 40% benchmark disability. He emphasized on the importance of a tailored model for disability rights for greater inclusivity and flagged the insufficiency of a uniform, "one-size-fits-all" approach in a country with such a vast number of people living with disabilities.

Challenging Traditional Notions of Disability

His judgments reflect a deep understanding of the challenges faced by individuals whose disabilities do not neatly align with conventional categories. One landmark case that exemplifies his visionary approach and challenges the traditional understanding of disability in India is Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director. In this case, a person with 'color blindness' was denied employment, as he did not fit into the predetermined categories of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). Justice Bhat astutely observed that the existing framework defining disability is exclusionary and arbitrary, as it recognizes only specific categories of PwDs for affirmative action.

In his own words, “The actual benefits in the form of affirmative action are defined by a specific category of PwDs (orthopaedical, visual, hearing, mental, etc.) and tied to the context of “benchmark” disabilities, which entitles those PwDs who qualify with a certain threshold of disability (40 percent or more) to the affirmative action and other similar benefits. The nature of inclusion of specified categories only to the exclusion of other categories of disabilities, on the one hand, and the eligibility of a threshold, in the opinion of this court, constitute barriers.”

The heart of Justice Bhat's judgment was his call for a more inclusive approach to accommodate individuals who do not neatly conform to established PwD categories. He questioned the rigidity of these categories and the imposition of a minimum disability threshold. He opined “The twin conditions of falling within defined categories, and also a threshold condition of a minimum percentage, of such disabilities, are a barrier.”

His verdict was clear: reasonable accommodation must be provided to enable the employment of individuals with disabilities. This ruling expanded the very notion of disability and impelled organizations to adopt a more inclusive approach to disability-related employment matters.

Advocate-on-Record Mehmood Umar Faruqui, who assisted the bench in this case as an amicus, said :

"Beyond his erudite and scholarly judgments, anyone who has practiced before him would know that he was one of those great Judges who would consider the person - the human - beyond that brief and the letter of law. During normal court observations and exchanges between the Bar and the Bench, one could sense the compassion and his commitment towards those who are differently abled. He believed in affirmative action for the marginalized, differently abled and the downtrodden. As a judge, he would give equal respect and attention to even younger members of the bar. Supreme Court especially the Bar would surely miss him.”

A rational and compassionate approach to disability pension claims

Another case that highlighted Justice Bhat's commitment to disability rights was his ruling in favor of a veteran who had served in the Indian Army for 15 years and was discharged due to cardiac discomfort. The case revolved around the disability pension claim of the veteran, with the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal limiting the benefit to just one year. Justice Bhat's wisdom and compassion shone through as he questioned the rationale behind this decision. He emphasized that the medical board had found no negligence on the veteran's part and had attributed his permanent disablement to his service. This judgment emphasized the need for a rational approach to disability pension claims, ensuring that veterans are not unjustly denied their rightful benefits.

Pioneering the Implementation of the HIV Act

In addressing broader issues of social justice, Justice Bhat's contributions are equally noteworthy. He recently delivered a pioneering judgment regarding the effective implementation of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV Act). This case resulted in a significant compensation of Rs 1.5 crore awarded to an ex-Indian Air Force official who had contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital. Justice Bhat's judgment not only highlighted the importance of implementing the HIV Act but also called upon all Courts, Tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies to prioritize cases relating to HIV-infected individuals for early disposal. It also emphasized the vital need to safeguard the identities of HIV-infected persons, offering them the dignity and protection they deserve.

Pushing the boundaries of disability rights by ensuring Inclusivity in education

Moreover, recently in the case of Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union Of India, Justice Ravindra Bhat's order allowed a candidate with cerebral palsy to be eligible for reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) Act, 2016, for admission to an MBBS course.

The Court questioned the cryptic and unreasoned opinion of the medical board that initially rejected the candidate's claim to be considered as a PwD. The medical board must clearly explain why the person with disability won't be able to pursue medical education; it can't be merely assumed that such a person will be unfit for MBBS course, the order passed by the bench led by him stated.  Justice Bhat's directive to consider the candidate as a person with a disability under the PwD Act, 2016, set a crucial precedent for ensuring the inclusion of individuals with various disabilities in educational and professional institutions.

Expanding the Horizon of Reservation in Promotions for disabled persons

In a significant case (Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair And Ors), a bench led by Justice Bhat invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with a disability who was unjustly denied this right for an extended period. The Court invoked the special powers under Article 142 since the PwD Act1995 did not contain an express provision mandating reservation in promotion.

His Stint as the Chairperson of the SC Committee on Accessibility

Justice Bhat was also the chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility which recently released its Audit Report on the physical and functional access of the Supreme Court to persons with disabilities.

The Committee which was set up by Chief Justice Chandrachud in 2022 made several recommendations geared towards removing barriers to access to the Supreme Court.

He said that “the report has tried to ascertain the views of the widest cross-section of people. The audit pertains to both physical accessibility as well as accessibility to technology, he pointed out.”

His dedication to the cause of disability rights and social justice will undoubtedly leave a lasting impact.

Also Read - Justice Ravindra Bhat's Scholarly Legacy : A Look At His Important Judgments