Disability Justice: Court Decisions on Disability Rights in India

Despite Article 14 (right to equal treatment), Article 21 (right to life) and Article 19 (right to carry out a profession or occupation of one’s choice) of the Indian Constitution applying to all persons with disabilities, only 36 per cent of persons with disabilities are working. About 58 per cent of this group are engaged in agriculture or household industries.

Courts have been instrumental in helping persons with disabilities realize their rights in the sphere of education, employment, healthcare and access to justice through its jurisprudence on reservations, reasonable accommodations and non-discriminatory practices. For example, in a case Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2022), the Allahabad High Court’s award of Rs 5 lakh to a petitioner who had suffered a violation of his dignity by State functionaries reaffirmed his constitutional right to be treated with dignity and respect.

In Jeeja Ghosh & Anor v. Union of India (2016), the bench stated that “disability should be viewed in terms of the societal and structural barriers that hamper persons with disabilities from exercising their rights and freedoms, rather than from a charitable or welfare approach, which sees persons with disabilities as incapable of enjoying the same opportunities as others”.

The Supreme Court (SC) has not extended the umbrella of protections under the RPD Act to include private establishments. Therefore, the rights of persons with disabilities are only actionable against public bodies as set out in the legislation. Some of the rights under the RPD Act, however, extend to the private setting: the requirement to provide equal access to quality education in an inclusive setting also applies to private educational institutions funded or recognized by the government. Other rights under the RPD Act, such as the right against discrimination and right to accessibility standards applies against both public and private establishments. For example, the denial of health cover to persons with disabilities by private insurance companies has been held to be discriminatory.

The SC has been required to intervene to ensure that reservations in employment and education are adhered to. For example, in Disabled Rights Group and Another. v UOI (2017), the SC threatened to take penal action against educational institutions that failed to implement the mandatory reservation for persons with disabilities.

The High Courts expanded the scope of Section 32 of the RPD Act and held that the Act makes no distinction between temporary and permanent disability. The SC has also acted to include thalassemia in the category reserved under the RPD Act.

The report tackles the important issue of intersectionality in the lived experience of women with disabilities, and notes important judgments on the issues of their reproductive rights, rights not to be discriminated against and right to have their testimony be given full legal weight.

In Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that persons with mental illness are to be treated as persons with disability. In Dhaliwal & Anor. v UOI, the SC further held that instituting disciplinary proceedings for misconduct against a person with a mental health disorder, where their disability played a part in the alleged misconduct, amounted to discrimination under the RPD Act.

Focus and Factoids by Abhaya Ganashree.

PARI Library's health archive project is part of an initiative supported by the Azim Premji University to develop a free-access repository of health-related reports relevant to rural India.