The Supreme Court in 2024 made several important decisions relating to the rights of Persons with Disability. Here are the key judgements, orders and observations on Disability Rights:

Supreme Court Directs Union To Frame Mandatory Rules Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act For Accessibility Of Public Spaces

In a significant judgment boosting disability rights, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to ensure that public places and services are accessible to persons with disabilities.

The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed the judgment in a PIL filed by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

Case Details: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 875

'Disabling Humour' Disparaging Persons With Disability Must Be Distinguished From 'Disability Humour' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a significant ruling on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) laid down guidelines for ensuring their sensitive portrayal by Creators on Visual and Electronic Media. The Court also highlighted the difference between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' which often gets overlooked by the media creators.

The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was deciding on a plea that challenged the insensitive portrayal of PwDs in the film 'Aankh Micholi,' produced by Sony Pictures.

The Court observed that creators should be cautious of the difference between disability humour and disabling humour. The first type, disability humour, is positive and aims to offer a better understanding of disabilities. The second type, disabling humour, is negative and belittles people with disabilities. These two should not be seen as the same because they have very different impacts on the dignity of people with disabilities.

Case Title : Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Ltd

Supreme Court Laments 'Dismal' Implementation Of Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, Issues Directions To States

The Supreme Court expressed disappointment at the inadequate implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD) across states. Observing that the enforcement of RPwD is in a 'dismal' state, the Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to consider the larger picture and provide an update in the next hearing.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing a petition seeking the enforcement of the rights of persons with disabilities by implementing the RPwD Act across states. The bench directed the Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, UP, Punjab, Tripura, UT of Chandigarh to appoint State Commissioners for persons with disabilities under Section 79 of the RPwD Act by June 30. Section 79 of RPwD provides the appointment of State Commissioners by the State governments, while Section 80 outlines the key functions of the State Commissioner which include suo motu identification of issues and suggest solutions and corrective actions concerning the disabled persons.

Case Title: Seema Girija And Anr. v. UoI And Ors. Diary No. 29329/2021

Supreme Court Slams Centre For Not Filling PwD Vacancies, Directs Appointment Of Visually Impaired Candidate Who Cleared CSE 2008

The Supreme Court criticised the Centre for making a 100 per cent visually impaired candidate who cleared the Civil Services Examination (CSE) “run pillar to post” for his appointment despite a large number of backlog vacancies for persons with disabilities.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal said that there is a “gross default” on part of the Union of India in implementing the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act).

Case Details: Union of India Pankaj Kumar Srivastava & Anr. C 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Mere Existence Of Benchmark Disability Won't Disqualify Candidate From MBBS Course : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 15) held that the mere existence of a benchmark disability is not a reason to bar a person from pursuing medical education unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that that candidate is incapacitated from studying the MBBS course.

Mere quantification of the disability will not disbar a candidate and the capacity to pursue the course has to be examined by the disability assessment board. The negative opinion of the disability assessment board is not final and can be reviewed by the judicial bodies till appellate forums are created, the Court added.

Case Details: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India & Ors SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 39448/2024

MBBS Admissions For Persons With Mental Health Conditions: Supreme Court Asks NMC's Expert Committee To Review Its Opinion

In an MBBS-aspirant's plea challenging the denial of reservation under the quota for Persons With Disabilities (PwD) on account of a mental health condition, the Supreme Court recently directed an Expert Committee constituted by the National Medical Council to review its recommendations in light of the Centre's notification of March 2024 prescribing certain guidelines for assessment of specified disabilities.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal passed the order, calling for an affidavit from the National Medical Council (NMC) within 8 weeks.

The Court was dealing with the plea of an MBBS aspirant diagnosed with a mental health condition exceeding 40 per cent on the Indian Disability Evaluation Assessment Scale (IDEAS), who was not only deprived of reservation under the persons with disabilities (PwD) quota, but also denied admission in a medical science course on the strength of the opinion of a disability certification board.

Case Title: Vishal Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1093 of 2022

Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Blindness To Attend Interview For Civil Judge Selection

The Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing a candidate with blindness to attend the interview for the selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, referring to its previous decisions, noted that quota for Persons with Disabilities will be treated as under horizontal reservation.

Case Details : Siddharth Sharma Vs. High Court Of Judicature At Rajasthan| Writ Petition (Civil) No.710/2024

Supreme Court Directs NMC To Issue Fresh Guidelines To Admit Persons With Disabilities Into Medical Courses

In a significant stride towards social recognition of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the Supreme Court recently stressed the need to give opportunities to PwDs in the medical sector and devise qualitative standards for testing disabilities in the procedure for medical course admissions.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its judgement allowed a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UG 2024. In doing so, the Court underlined that Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) needed to be perceived not with an element of sympathy but as an essential part of the society we live in today. It is imperative to further the cause of inclusion of the PwDs to achieve the national project of eradicating all forms of discrimination that the Country is scarred with.

Case Details : Om Rathod Versus The Director General Of Health Services And Ors.Slp(C) No. 21942/2024

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Disability Rights Activist's PIL To Strengthen Right Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016

The Supreme Court issued notice in a PIL seeking the establishment of centres across the states for the assessment of disabilities as well as adequate reforms to strengthen the framework of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) and State Commissioners (SCPDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra agreed to consider the issues raised in the PIL.

Case Details : Satendra Singh Versus Union Of India And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 636/2024

'Provide Separate Cut-off' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recruitment Of Persons With Disabilities In District Judiciary

In a major development, the Supreme Court issued several general directions relating to the recruitment of persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) in judicial services. The direction issued would be followed for the selection of candidates to the District Judiciary across the country.

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that till the pending orders, the directions issued ought to be adhered to by the High Courts or State Public Service Commissions, as the case may be while carrying out the recruitment exercises in the District Judiciary.

Case Title: In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services Smw(C) No. 2/2024

Supreme Court Allows Candidate With Locomotor Disability To Appear For Rajasthan Civil Judge Interview

The Supreme Court allowed a candidate with locomotor disability to appear for the interviews for Rajasthan Civil Judge.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing the plea of a petitioner who suffers from locomotor disability to the extent of 60% cleared the preliminary and main examinations with 111.5 marks.

Case Details : Tishan Jangid v. High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.49998/2024

Not Declaring Separate Cut-Off For PWD Category Falling Under Overall Horizontal Reservation Isn't Arbitrary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that non-fixation of the cut-off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability falling under an Overall Horizontal Reservation could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of the Fundamental Rights.

The Court said that when a particular category falls under an overall reservation, than it would not be incumbent on the selection authorities to show the cut-off marks for such category.

The Court explained that the Horizontal Reservation is of two types: - (i) Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation, and (ii) Overall Horizontal Reservation. The Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation is such wherein the proportionate vacancies are reserved in each vertical reserved category. However, in case of Overall Horizontal Reservation, the Reservation is provided on the total post advertised i.e. such reservation is not specific to each vertical category.

Case Title: Rekha Sharma Versus The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5051 Of 2023 (And Connected Matter)

Supreme Court Concerned At Lack Of Child Care Leave In Himachal Pradesh, Says CCL Necessary To Ensure Mothers Remain In Workforce

The Supreme Court directed the government of Himachal Pradesh to review its policies on Child Care Leaves (CCL) concerning working mothers, especially mothers of children with special needs. Noting the lack of any policy framework in the State to provide CCL to mothers of differently abled children, the Court further directed to constitute a committee headed by the State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons With Disability Act 2016 to examine the possible solutions to the present issue.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala observed that CCL was elemental in ensuring that a working mother's fundamental rights are not compromised. The Court noted that where the state is the employer of a working mother, it cannot be ignorant of her responsibilities at home while serving the state. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ms Pragati Neekhra.

Case Details : SHALINI DHARMANI vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SLP(C) No. 016864 - / 2021

'Sensitise Airport Staff': Supreme Court Endorses Centre's Guidelines On Airport Assistance For Persons With Disabilities

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Arushi Singh, a person with benchmark disability, who had approached the Court about the humiliation she had to face at the Kolkata airport where she was allegedly asked to stand up by security personnel.

The Court held that the guidelines suggested by the Union Government for the treatment of specially-abled persons with dignity at the airport shall be treated as mandatory onwards and shall also extend to elderly and injured passengers in need of wheelchair assistance.

Case Details: Arushi Singh Vs. Union Of India W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Certain States/UTs On Implementation Of Persons With Disabilities Act

The Supreme Court, in a writ petition pertaining to the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, has directed the States/UTs who have not filed compliance affidavits to file the same within eight weeks.

The matter was placed before the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.

These States and UTs are Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chhattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Lakshadweep, Ladakh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha, Puducherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand and West Bengal.

Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION vs. U.O.I., Diary No.- 2844 – 1998

Other Supreme Court annual round-up stories can be read here.