Madras High Court Asks Puducherry Chief Secretary To Frame SOP, Sensitise Public Officials Dealing With Persons With Disabilities

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan highlighted that persons with disabilities had to be treated equally without discrimination and attitudinal barriers, and with sensitivity. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to bring in an SOP for conducting sensitization programmes for public officials periodically.

The bench added that the right to access to justice and right to quality and equal treatment was basic human rights. However, the court added that while these principles found place in the constitution and the statute, the ground reality was different due to the attitude od the officials.

“The right to access to justice and right to equality and equal treatment claimed by a person with disability are ingrained in the basic human rights, in addition to it being recognized under the Constitution of India and given effect to by the law makers by enacting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [for brevity, “the Act”]. However, those principles enshrined in texts, at times, find difficult to be operated on ground realities majorly because of attitudinal behaviour and approach which lacks sensitivity, in utter disregard to right to equality,” the court observed.

The bench was dealing with a plea filed by Hariharan, a native of Puducherry who was suffering from hereditary sensory motor neuropathy. Hariharan had approached the court seeking direction to the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildar to issue nativity and community certificates to him, for his appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department.

Hariharan's case was that though he was born and bred in in Puducherry, the authorities denied nativity certificate to him for the sole reason that he was currently residing with his sister in Arasalankudi village, near Karaikal. The petitioner argued that all his government documents would reflect that he was a native of Puducherry. Emphasising that nativity and residence certificate were different and not interchangeable, he argued that the conduct of authorities ran counter to the objectives of the Persons With Disabilities Act.

Opposing the plea, the government pleader argued that upon field enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not living in Puducherry but in Mayiladuthurai District of Tamil Nadu where his father owned agricultural land and was involved in agricultural activities. It was submitted that as per the Government Order, in case of nativity by continuous residence, the candidate should be an ordinary resident of Puducherry five years prior to the date of application and the petitioner had not fulfilled that condition.

The authorities also argued that the petitioner had applied for special category but upon examination by medical board, the board opined that he was not eligible for the post of Engineer (Electrical).

The court noted that the petitioner was a native of Puducherry and this fact was also reflected in all his government documents. The court also noted that the petitioner and his father were recorded as voters of the Union Territory of Puducherry and they had also cast votes in the Lok Sabha elections from that constituency.

The court noted that only reason why the petitioner and his father had moved to his sister's place was because he was unable to manage his weak father after the death of his mother, due to his physical disability. The court highlighted that even after moving to his sister's place, the petitioner had not changed his address in government documents, which showed that he had intention to permanently come back and settle in Puducherry.

The court observed that the authorities had mechanically rejected his application for nativity certificate without considering all the factors. The court noted that the authorities' conduct was mechanical, arbitrary, and lacked sensitivity.

With respect to the denial of appointment on medical ground, the court noted that a deeper examination by medical expert was necessary to find out what percentage of disability would render a person unfit to perform the specific work of a Junior Engineer (Technical).

The court noted that the petitioner had completed B.Tech successfully, which would show that he was able to deal with electrical and electronic equipment and these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Medical Board which had mechanically declared that he was unfit for the position.

Thus, the court concluded that the denial of nativity certificate was illegal and directed the authorities to issue the certificate. The court also directed that a fresh Medical Board be constituted including neurologist, and departmental officer who can examine him. The court also imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the authorities, to be paid to the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. R. Vaigai, Senior Counsel For M/s. S. Meenakshi

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. V. Vasanthakumar, Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

Case Title: E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104

Case No: WP No.26303 of 2025