Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the launch of “Project Ability Empowerment,” entrusting eight National Law Universities to monitor care institutions nationwide for compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court also raised concerns over the denial of general category seats to candidates with disabilities who score above the unreserved cut-off, cautioning that such practice undermines the statute’s purpose. It asked the Union Government to clarify whether measures are in place to ensure their upward movement into the general category

The present litigation originated from two connected matters concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. The first was a writ petition instituted in 1998 by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, seeking effective implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The prayers included enforcement of statutory provisions, reservation of 1% teaching posts for visually disabled persons, and a declaration that denial of such appointments violated fundamental rights. In its judgment dated 26 March 2014, the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to ensure full compliance with the 1995 Act. Despite this, many States failed to furnish compliance affidavits. Subsequent orders recorded partial compliance and fixed deadlines, including a final opportunity until 17 February 2025 for deficient States to file responses.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Uttarakhand Doctor Acquitted in Homicide Case on Grounds of Private Defence | Right of Self-Preservation Not to Be Weighed on Golden Scales

The second strand arose from conditions at the Asha Kiran Home in New Delhi, a government-run institution for persons with cognitive disabilities. Media reports and petitions highlighted overcrowding, poor hygiene, custodial deaths, and abuse. Dissatisfied with limited measures directed by the Delhi High Court, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016. Orders dated 2015 and 2016 recorded systemic failures in State-run homes and directed nationwide remedial measures, including appointment of qualified administrators and establishment of Governing Councils. The Court constituted an Advisory Group Expert Panel to assess the situation and provide recommendations, which included decongestion, community living models, vocational training, healthcare access, and participatory governance.

During hearings, the petitioners also sought enforcement of mandatory reservation in teaching posts for persons with visual disabilities, establishment of a monitoring committee for inclusive recruitment, and publication of reservation rosters. The statutory provisions invoked included the 1995 Act, later replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as Section 19 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. International conventions such as the UNCRPD and CRC were also considered by the Court through the Expert Panel’s report.

The issues before the Court included systemic non-compliance with disability rights legislation, the conditions of institutional care, and the denial of upward movement for meritorious persons with disabilities in employment and education despite higher scores than the general category cut-off.

The Court observed that “disability represents a fundamental aspect of human diversity that transcends medical definitions to encompass critical questions of constitutional democracy and social justice.” It stated that “the principle of accessibility and reasonable accommodation emerges as a fundamental constitutional principle, not merely a technical requirement, but a measure of democratic inclusivity.”

The Bench recorded that the earlier writ petition had resulted in clear directions for implementation of the 1995 Act but “a majority of the States and Union Territories failed to furnish the requisite data and did not submit their compliance affidavits within the stipulated timeframe.” On 3 December 2024, the Court noted that “several States and Union Territories in fact had failed to either file the requisite affidavits or were deficient,” and expressed concern over the “lackadaisical approach towards compliance with statutory mandate and judicial directions.”

With regard to Asha Kiran, the Court referred to earlier findings that “deficiencies at Asha Kiran Home reflected a larger, systemic failure in the care and treatment of persons with cognitive disability across the country.” It recorded that “this Court, while affirming the directions of the High Court of Delhi regarding the Asha Kiran Home, implicitly endorsed a model that States and Union Territories should consider for similar institutions.”

The Court stated that the Advisory Group Expert Panel underscored the transition away from institutionalisation, noting that “large-scale congregate facilities should gradually be replaced with community-based systems of care and support for persons with cognitive disability.”

On the issue of reservations, the Court stated: “we are informed and it is a matter of grave concern that the same treatment is not provided to persons with disabilities…who, in spite of standing higher in merit, are denied such upward movement.” It recorded that “the direct consequence of not providing upward movement to the meritorious candidate(s) applying under the category of persons with disabilities would be that even when a candidate with disability scores higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category, such a candidate would invariably occupy the reserved seat, thereby denying the opportunity to a lower scoring candidate with disability.” The Bench further stated: “in our view, this defeats the very purpose of reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act and constitutes a glaring example of hostile discrimination.”

The Court directed that “the monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of the ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ and shall be undertaken by eight National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union Territories.” It ordered that “these institutions, in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and other experts associated with the present report, shall undertake extensive monitoring of all care institutions, whether state-run or private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities.”

“The monitoring shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD Act. The proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ must not only limit itself to the 9 parameters identified in the Report…but also assess the extent to which such state-run institutions adhere to the broader legal commitments of autonomy, inclusion, and dignity.”

The judgment required “all District Magistrates/Collectors and Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority [to] extend full cooperation to the monitoring teams and ensure access to institutions within their jurisdiction.”

All State Governments and Union Territories…shall provide logistical and administrative support. The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories shall designate a Nodal Officer, not below the rank of Secretary in the concerned Department, to liaise with the monitoring institutions and Advisory Group Expert Panel.”

“All expenses incurred by the monitoring teams of the NLUs (supra)…shall be borne in equal proportion by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, and the Social Justice Department of the concerned States/Union Territories.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Ban on Meat Shops Near Public Temples | Licences Cancelled for Establishments Within 50 Meters Under Municipal Act

“The Union of India shall provide an interim project fund to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs each to the eight designated National Law Universities.”

“A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Registrar of each of the above eight National Law Universities, as well as to the Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India and Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories, for immediate compliance.”

It concluded: “Accordingly, IA No. 130117 of 2018 (Application for Directions) is disposed of, in the above terms. List the matters on 13th March, 2026, for receiving the detailed Consolidated Report.”

Case Title: Reena Banerjee and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1101
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta