The Supreme Court recently explained the concept of waiver of rights as an intentional relinquishment of a right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege that the person may have enjoyed. Pertinently, the key to waiving a right is that it must first be known to the person; that is, he must be aware of his existing right. On May 13, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG...
The Supreme Court recently explained the concept of waiver of rights as an intentional relinquishment of a right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege that the person may have enjoyed. Pertinently, the key to waiving a right is that it must first be known to the person; that is, he must be aware of his existing right.
On May 13, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih awarded extraordinary compensation of Rs. 1.25 crore to a former driver of the Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF) after he developed visual impairment during service and he was not accommodated with an alternative post as required by law.
One of the issues which arose in the Union Government and the CRPF's appeal was whether the respondent had waived his right under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which mandates an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee who developed disability.,
The High Court had observed that the CRPF violated Section 47 of the PwD Act by declaring him medically unfit instead of accommodating in an alternate post.
CRPF, however, argued the respondent had only sought disability pension, and he never sought reinstatement. Therefore, it argued that he had waived his right of reinstatement.
On this argument, the Supreme Court asked whether the respondent at all knew that he had a right of reinstatement after developing a disability during service?
It explained that to constitute a waiver, the party raising the plea must: 1. be a person who has a right; 2. such person has clear knowledge of that right; and 3. despite the knowledge of an existing right, that person has voluntarily and consciously given up that right. However, a mere silence or inaction or delay to enforce the existing right does not constitute a waiver.
The Court further explained that the waiver of a statutory right is generally disfavoured, particularly when the statute is for public welfare such as the PwD Act, or when it would be contrary to public policy.
It referred to Krishan Lal v. State of J & K(1994), wherein the issue was whether the requirement of giving a copy of the proceedings of the inquiry under Section 17(5) of the Jammu and Kashmir (Government Servants) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1962 can be waived. The Court held that such a mandatory provision can be waived if the same is aimed at safeguarding the individual's interest but not for a public purpose.
Considering all this, the bench stated that the single judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court had clearly recorded a finding that the former CRPF driver did not know Section 47 of the PwD Act. This was upheld by the division bench of the High Court,t and was not disputed by the appellants throughout the proceedings. In such a situation, what was required by the CRPF was to demonstrate that the respondent knew of his existing right and yet decided to give it up.
"In such a situation, to attract waiver, what was required of the appellants was to demonstrate that the respondent was aware of his right under Section 47, yet, he elected to give it up while preferring to receive invalid/disability pension. However, there is no material on record to suggest that the respondent had been informed by the appellants of a right available to him under the PwD Act and that he relinquished his claim for enforcement of such right. Therefore, the second and the third elements to constitute a waiver are absent in the present case," the bench concluded.
Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BALI RAM NO.850808321|CIVIL APPEAL No.13783/2015
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 668