On the International Day of Persons with Disabilities we list down the judgments by the Supreme Court of India that have defined the jurisprudence on disability rights in the country.
The petitioner was de-seated from the flight due to her disability. This de-seating not only caused financial loss and prevented her from participating in the conference but also shocked, traumatised and humiliated her. She then approached the Court by way of a Public Interest Litigation to put together a system which avoids the repetition of such an event. The Court observed that the airline violated the Civil Aviation Requirements with regard to Carriage by Air of Persons with Disabilities and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility issued by the DGCA. The Court also observed that the response of the airline company was disproportionate and insufficient. The Court awarded exemplary compensation to the Petitioner. The Court issued a slew of directions to the multiple Respondents to ensure that no such incident happens again. Additionally, the Court held that human dignity is part of Article 21 and it is imperative for able-bodied persons to have sensitivity towards specially-abled persons.
National Federation of Blind (NFB), a representative body of visually impaired persons filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India and UPSC to permit the candidates with visual impairments to compete for the Indian Administrative Service and the Allied Services and further to provide them the facility of Braille Script/scribe. The court discovered that the Government had acknowledged the specific job positions suitable for disabled individuals and had made decisions regarding their recruitment. The Ministries/Departments were supposed to inform the UPSC about giving preferential treatment to disabled candidates. UPSC had agreed in principle to provide preference. However, the decisions were not implemented for seven years. The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the Government of India and UPSC to permit the blind and partially-blind) eligible candidates to compete and write the civil services examination.
In an appeal filed by the appellant against the representation of PwDs in the movie Aankh Micholi, the division bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud laid down the guidelines for the creators to follow on the portrayal of persons with disabilities (PwD) in the visual media by closely examining the existing legal framework and the international jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court permitted a candidate suffering from muscular dystrophy to participate in the ongoing counselling for NEET-UGC 2024, considering that the expert report opined that the candidate could pursue the MBBS course with the help of assistive devices. The petitioner faced 88% muscular dystrophy and was disqualified from pursuing MBBS on the ground that the national Medical Council guidelines required bringing down the disability to less than 80% for those with the petitioner’s condition to pursue the course.
The Supreme Court held that the individuals with over 40% speech and language disability cannot be denied admission to medical courses based on the quantification of their disability. The judgement was passed on a plea by a medical college aspirant against a regulation that disqualified persons with speech and language disabilities exceeding 40% from MBBS admissions.
Laying down the jurisprudence on accessibility, the Supreme Court pointed out the inconsistencies in the standards established under Rule 15, RPwD Rules and the intent of the Act. The court held that Rule 15 is ultra vires the intent of the Act and directed the government to delineate the mandatory rules from the existing guidelines within a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment.
The Supreme Court in this judgement directed changes to the schedule of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, concerning the education of Children with Disabilities (CwD). The Central Government to establish a specific ratio of special teachers or rehabilitation professionals per student in all schools that admit CwD. As an interim solution, the Court defined the ratios for different disabilities, such as 8:1 for cerebral palsy, 5:1 for intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and specific learning disabilities, and 2:1 for deaf-blindness or a combination of these disabilities. The Court also outlined a roadmap for integrating special educators into schools that accommodate CwD. The roadmap includes the creation of permanent positions, a timebound appointment process, and training and awareness programs for all teachers regarding the additional requirements of CwD. Furthermore, the Court directed the State Commissioners of Persons with Disabilities to monitor compliance with the Court’s roadmap throughout the country.
Appellant was employed in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was diagnosed with and undergoing treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. CRPF initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on grounds of misconduct. The appellant claimed that he had mental illness to avoid penalties for misconduct. The Court ruled that the right of the Government to exempt establishments to not discriminate against persons with disabilities under Section 3(3) of the RPwD Act, 2016 is not absolute and is subject to a proportionality analysis. Subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings on this ground without taking the same into consideration would amount to indirect discrimination. The Government was additionally obligated to shift such an employee who acquired a disability to a suitable position with the same pay scale and benefits.
The Appellant filed a petition claiming that the recommendations made by an expert committee to make education accessible for persons with visual impairments were insufficient to ensure reasonable accommodation and equal treatment. The Court, agreeing with the Appellant held that what is required is not more orientation but special intensive training of teaching and non-teaching staff. It referred to Section 31 of the PwD Act, 1995 and stated that state and central governments are mandated to develop special devices and aid to make sure that visually impaired students are at par with others and are provided equal opportunities. It held that the University should do more than just provide visual aids, but has to work in congruence with Article 41 of the Constitution of India and look into real grievances that relate to Constitutional and statutory policy. Thus, the Court directed the committee to consider the recommendations of the petitioner.
The court held that the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ should not be limited by quantification. Providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities is a positive obligation of the state, as it ensures equal participation in society. Misuse of the scribe facility should be addressed separately, and the Appellant was entitled to use a scribe in the Civil Services Examination and other government competitive exams. The court stated that persons with nonbenchmark disabilities have a right to avail a scribe to appear in any exam conducted by the Government. Denying a reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination against persons with disabilities, irrespective of the extent of the person’s disability.