Delhi High Court Seeks Law Commission Recommendations on Amendments to Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act for Unfilled Higher Education Seats
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a petition concerning the allocation of seats under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) quota in medical admissions. The Court held that Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides reservation only for persons with benchmark disabilities and does not empower the Court to extend this benefit to those with lesser disabilities or to carry forward unfilled seats. Noting the legislative gap, the Bench referred the matter to the Law Commission of India to consider recommending amendments for better fulfilment of the Act’s objectives
The proceedings originated from a petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner initially sought directions against the Union of India and the National Medical Commission for allocation of a seat under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the NEET-UG 2022 cycle. The petitioner also sought a fresh medical examination by a medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences to assess the extent of disability. Additionally, the petition challenged Section 32(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) as unconstitutional insofar as it limited reservation benefits to persons with benchmark disabilities, while also requesting expeditious disposal of a representation dated 05.01.2023 and compensation.
Subsequently, counsel for the petitioner stated that the prayer seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 32(1) was not pressed and other prayers had lost efficacy, except the issue raised in the representation of 05.01.2023. The Court had, on 13.04.2023, recorded that the petition involved an important aspect concerning filling seats under the PwD category. The order noted: “in case candidates with prescribed benchmark disability are not available under PwD category, the seats are being diverted to the open category/respective categories.”
The petitioner contended that Section 32(1) of the RPwD Act requires reservation of not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities but is silent on what course is to be adopted when eligible candidates are unavailable. The argument advanced was that seats should be allocated to persons with disabilities even if they do not meet the benchmark threshold, rather than being diverted to other categories. Counsel further submitted that unless such seats are allocated to persons with disabilities, the purpose of reservation stands defeated. Reliance was placed on statutory definitions under Sections 2(r) and 2(s) of the RPwD Act, distinguishing “persons with benchmark disability” from “persons with disability.”
Suggestions were advanced that unfilled seats could be offered to persons with less than benchmark disability as a form of reasonable accommodation, with a possible baseline cut-off such as 5%, or alternatively, the vacancies could be carried forward to the next academic year. Counsel relied on Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC Online Delhi 4609, where the Court observed that all endeavours should be made to fill such seats from persons with disabilities. Reference was also made to Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370, where the Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities who do not meet the benchmark are entitled to reasonable accommodation. A recent Division Bench decision in Ashwin Murali v. ONGC Ltd. (LPA 754/2023, decided on 01.09.2025) was also cited, which held that depriving persons with disabilities of reserved posts by diverting them to open category candidates defeats the RPwD Act.
The respondents opposed the prayer, contending that in the absence of any provision in Section 32 or elsewhere in the Act, seats reserved for benchmark disabilities cannot be diverted to persons with disabilities. They argued that judicial directions could not extend the scope of statutory provisions.
The Court examined the scheme of the RPwD Act, noting its objective to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13.12.2006. The Court recorded that the Act draws a distinction between a “person with benchmark disability” and a “person with disability.”
It was observed: “The Act itself draws a distinction between a ‘Person with Benchmark Disability’ and ‘Person with Disability’.” Section 20 of the RPwD Act was quoted, which prohibits discrimination against any person with disability in employment. Sections 32 and 34 were also reproduced. Section 32 mandates a 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher educational institutions, whereas Section 34 provides 4% reservation in government employment, with provisions for carrying forward unfilled vacancies and inter-category interchange.
The Court stated: “The rule of carry forward is thus absent in Section 32 of the Act, whereas it is available in the matter of public employment as per Section 34 of the Act. In the absence of any provision in Section 32 of the RPwD Act, or anywhere else in the said Act, providing for carrying forward a vacancy… it is difficult for the Court to issue directions for such carrying forward.” It further noted that Section 32 does not provide for diversion of unfilled seats to persons with disabilities, and “it is neither possible nor permissible for Court to issue such direction as has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the policy gap: “since the prayer being urged by learned counsel for the petitioner lie in the realm of policy making, appropriate decision at the end of the Union of India may be required… for the purpose of achieving the object of meaningfully empowering the persons with disabilities.” The Court drew extensively from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, citing paragraphs that discussed equality, non-discrimination, and the principle of reasonable accommodation.
The Division Bench concluded that addressing unfilled seats in higher educational institutions reserved for benchmark disabilities requires legislative intervention. The Court remarked: “In our opinion, a provision providing for carrying forward the seats… to the next academic year and/or a provision for diverting such seats to persons with disabilities will go a long way to fulfil the aims and objects of the RPwD Act.”
It directed: “Accordingly, we request the Law Commission of India to deliberate on the issues outlined in this judgment and make appropriate recommendations to the Union of India for incorporating the requisite amendment(s) in the RPwD Act.” The Court also ordered that a certified copy of the judgment be furnished to the Law Commission of India by the Registry. The writ petition along with pending applications was disposed of in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Advocate with Ms. Sarah, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kavindra Kumar Gill, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India; Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Anum Hussain, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Vedant Sood, and Mr. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for National Medical Commission
Case Title: Ms. Jahanvi Nagpal v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8142-DB
Case Number: W.P. (C) 1975/2023
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
