Karnataka High Court Upholds ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Teacher Who Became Disabled While Saving Student From Jumping Off School Building

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj confirmed the Commissioner's order directing PSBB Learning Leadership Academy to pay Rs 10 lakhs within 3 months as future treatment expenses to a teacher, Ms. Barnali Raut, previously employed with the private institution. She had acquired 90% PP1 locomotor disability in 2013 while trying to save a Class VI student threatening to jump off from a school building, allegedly by ignoring the established SOPs.

“…The Teacher's disability is not the problem. The absence of a wheelchair-accessible classroom, the absence of a disabled-friendly washroom, the absence of accessible transport, and the school's unwillingness to adjust its timetable constitute the socially constructed barriers that prevent her from resuming her teaching duties. These barriers arise from the school's failure to make reasonable adjustments, not from her disability…”, the Court observed.

The Court further directed the CBSE school to reinstate the teacher with reasonable accommodation, including a ground-floor classroom, disabled-friendly washroom, transport allowance of Rs 150000/-, and flexible timings, online teaching options.

In 2015, the school had terminated her services as a teacher by offering an administrative role at a reduced salary scale post the duly payment of her teacher's salary for 21 months posts the accident. However, the administrative role was refused by the teacher.

“…the Teacher did not choose to become disabled. She acquired the disability in an act of selfless courage within the School's own premises. The School's response, to offer her a demotion and then to treat the employment as ended, is precisely the kind of institutional indifference that the 2016 Act is designed to counter…”, the bench sitting at Bengaluru noted in the order.

If the teacher were to accept reinstatement, she shall be reinstated with seniority from her original date of appointment but without back wages for the period of absence, the court further said.

“…an inclusive educational environment necessarily includes a teaching staff that models inclusion. A school that employs a teacher with disability and provides her with reasonable accommodation demonstrates to its students the lived reality of inclusion. The refusal to accommodate the Teacher undermines the very values of inclusive education that Section 16 [educational institutions funded or recognized by state to provide inclusive education free from discrimination] seeks to promote…”, the court reasoned.

The order also contains an expansive SOP covering physical and digital accessibility, equal opportunity policies, grievance redressal, timelines for compliance, and penalties for non‑compliance, holding that accessibility is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Obligation To Provide 'Reasonable Accommodation' & Private Institutions

A private unaided school cannot be expected to provide 'reasonable accommodation' in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner's senior counsel B K Sampath had argued before by relying on Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2007).

“Section 2(i) of the 2016 Act defines 'establishment' to include a Government establishment and private establishment. Section 2(v) defines 'private establishment' to mean a company, firm, cooperative, institution, organisation, union, factory or such other establishment. The petitioner‑school falls squarely within this definition …The decision in Dalco Engineering was rendered under the 1995 Act, which has since been repealed. The 2016 Act operates on an entirely different definitional framework. Dalco Engineering has no application to the interpretation of the 2016 Act”, the Court further clarified.

The Court further noted that Section 3(3) of the 2016 Act provides that “No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.  This prohibition, the Court held, is universal and binds all persons and entities, government or private.

The High Court said that the school's refusal to provide accessible infrastructure and its offer of a demoted role amounted to discrimination under Section 2(h) [benchmark disability-not less than 40 per cent] read with Section 3(3) of the Act.

“….Globally, teachers with disabilities teach with appropriate support. The school's assumption that the Teacher's disability necessarily renders her unable to teach at a high level is itself a form of stereotyping that the Disabilities Act of 2016 seeks to combat…”, the court said.

The Court also noted that the school had violated Section 21 of the Act, which says that every establishment is required frame and notify an Equal Opportunity Policy, and Rule 8 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which expressly applies to private establishments with 20 or more employees.

The court has, hence, directed the CBSE School to frame, notify and register an Equal Opportunity Policy under Section 21 read with Rule 8, and conduct an accessibility audit and comply with the Harmonised Guidelines, 2021.

Jurisdiction Of PwD Commissioner

The Court also referred to Section 82(2) of the 2016 Act, which declares proceedings before the Commissioner to be 'judicial proceedings' and deems the Commissioner to be a civil court for purposes of contempt, and clarified as below:

“…The decisions of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010) and the line of cases following it were rendered under the 1995 Act, which had no equivalent of Section 82(2). Under the 2016 Act, the Commissioner has the power to issue binding corrective directions against private establishments….” the Court underscored, disagreeing with the school's argument that the Commissioner could only issue directions.

Additionally, the court also clarified that Section 89 of PwD Act is a criminal penal provision which mandates Rs10,000/- as fine for the first offence whereas the Commissioner's current direction was a civil compensatory relief without such ceiling. Hence, the court also disproved the school's reliance on Section 89.

“…Section 89 operates in the criminal domain; Sections 80‑81 operate in the domain of civil enforcement and compensatory relief. The direction to pay Rs. 10 lakhs is a conservative fraction of the Teacher's documented expenses exceeding Rs. 46 lakhs. It is not arbitrary…”, the court further observed.

“…In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that sympathy has no role in construing a statute. This Court applies the same principle. No sympathy for the Teacher should lead this Court to stretch the statute beyond its terms; no sympathy for the school's operational convenience should lead this Court to restrict the statute below its express terms. The plain text of Section 3(3) – 'No person with disability shall be discriminated' – is universal….” the single judge bench finally held.

Additionally the court issued a comprehensive SOP on Universal Accessibility mandating that all government buildings as well as private buildings such as schools, malls, hospitals, and transport hubs as well as digital platforms become fully accessible to persons with disabilities

Case Title: PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 11351 of 2020 (GM‑RES)