Reservation For Women, Persons With Disabilities Not Mandatory In Allotment Of Akshaya Centres: Kerala High Court

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reasoned that allotment of Akshaya Centres is a contractual arrangement and since no government employment is provided, there is no legal mandate to provide reservation as per the Constitution or the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016.

“The grant of an Akshaya Centre or allotment of an Akshaya Centre is a form of contractual arrangement and a measure of privilege extended to persons who are identified on the basis of satisfaction of their compliance with certain eligibility conditions. There is no right for any person to be allotted an Akshaya Centre. The allotment of an Akhsaya Centre is neither a form of employment nor an appointment to an office under the State… Equality of opportunity under the constitutional scheme of Article 16 applies in matters of public employment. The said provision has no application when the engagement is as a contractor,” the Court observed.

Referring to Article 15 of the Constitution, the Court observed that though State is empowered to make special provision for women, the mere absence of such a special provision would not make the selection process of a contractor void or illegal.

“even if it is open to the Government, to include, even in matters of grant of privilege or a largesse, the principles of reservation, the constitutional mandate of substantive equality ought to be context based. Such affirmative actions cannot be applied de hors the nature and scope of the scheme. In the instant case, neither the scheme nor the guidelines stipulate any reservation for women and hence the selection cannot be stalled or interfered with for the lack of it.”

The Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the notification proposing new Akshaya Centres in the State and inviting applications from those interested in becoming Akshaya entrepreneurs.

One of the petitioners was a person with locomotor disability and, he had alleged that there was no reservation to persons with disabilities. The other petitioner was All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation, which alleged that there is no reservation for women or differently-abled persons, and even the reservation to SC/ST category was less than 10%.

In the counter filed, the State IT Mission Director stated that the Confederation's intention was to halt the selection process for the new centres. The other official respondents of the State also took a stand that the procedure adopted to identify new locations is transparent and remote and tribal areas were identified so as to enable persons residing her to avail the services.

They also stated that Akshaya centres cannot be treated as business creates with a profit-making motive. Moreover, distance norms have also been maintained between centres to ensure that existing entrepreneurs would be able to run financially viable establishments.

It was pointed out that weightage in marks is given to women candidates in the selection process. Also, advice was sought from the social justice department regarding specific categories and percentage of disability to be considered for granting reservation but there was no response. Once, proper guidelines are formulated, a special drive would be conducted to select entrepreneurs with disabilities.

The party respondents, who were those that had submitted applications for allotment of centres, contended that the Confederation's rights have not been violated and that it was on the basis of public demand that the decision to open more centres was made.

Court noted that the main aim of the Akshaya project is to address the issue of digital divide and to enable the general public to seamlessly access government services. It also found that since the Confederation's rights are not affected, it has no cause of action to challenge the notification.

The Court also held that in the absence of a legal provision or executive order compelling reservation to women or differently abled person in the allotment of Akshaya centres, the pleas can only be dismissed.

Case Nos: WP(C) Nos. 11070 & 8974/2026

Case Titles: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Moideen v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

Counsel for the petitioners: V. Premchand, C.P. Manisha, Pinky A.R., P.A.Mohammed Shah, Sahal Shajahan, Aquin Kuruvilla Tom, M.N.Mohammed Hussain, Nafiya Shahala C.K., Jithin Alexander Sunny, Ayisha Riswana, Rejabana Parveen T. R., Femitha Fathima, Almiya Aji, Chelson Chembarathy

Counsel for the respondents: Anirudh Kadavil - Govt. Pleader, Babu S. Nair, Smitha Babu, P.A. Rajesh, Pranav, K.P. Dhaneesh, Siddharth Karun Pisharody, Farsana Noushad

Click to Read/Download Judgment