Right of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 - Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025

Additional Directions for PwD Inmates – Held in addition to the L. Muruganantham guidelines, the Court issued further directions - i. Grievance Redressal: States and UTs must establish an independent and accessible mechanism for complaints regarding neglect or abuse; ii. Inclusive Education: Facilities must be created to ensure PwD inmates have meaningful access to education without discrimination; iii. Penalties for Contravention: Section 89 of the RPwD Act (imposing fines for contravention) shall apply to prison establishments nationwide; iv. Assistive Devices: States must report on structured mechanisms for providing and maintaining mobility aids and support equipment while balancing security concerns; v. Enhanced Visitation: Inmates with benchmark disabilities are entitled to enhanced visitation rights to ensure family support and emotional well-being - Held that all States and Union Territories directed to file a comprehensive compliance report within four months. [Paras 10, 11] Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1176

Articles 14, 19, 21 – Held, Indian legal framework on disability rights has evolved from a charity based model to a rights-based framework - this shift is guided by statutory enactments and constitutional mandates - This Act was enacted in line with India's obligations under the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) - It guarantees substantive rights, including community living and protection from abuse - Judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to reframe disability as a structural disadvantage requiring active redressal and inclusion - That failure to ensure accessibility constitutes systematic exclusion and infringes on the equal protection clause of Article 14 - Reasonable accommodation is essential for substantive equality under Article 14, but also cautioned against framing the value of a person with a disability in terms of productivity - Supreme Court expressed concerns over the denial of general category seats to persons with disabilities who score higher than the cut-off marks for the unreserved category - Directed Union Government to explain if appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that PwDs, who score higher than the general cut off, are given 'upward movement' by accommodating them in the general category - Direct consequence of not providing upward movement to the meritorious candidates applying under the category of PwD would be that even when a candidate with disability scores higher than the cutoff for unreserved category, such a candidate would invariably occupy the reserved seat thereby denying the opportunity to a lower scoring candidate with disability to make claim on the said post - this defeats the very purpose of reservation under Section 34 - Directed monitoring of the implementation of RPwD Act, 2016 to be undertaken under the name and style of a project called 'Project Ability Empowerment' and assigned the task to 8 NLUs across the country and project report shall be filed within 6 months. Reena Banerjee v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 898 : 2025 INSC 1101

Constitutional Mandate and Concluding Observations - Constitutional Mandate - Held that the directions are issued to ensure that the constitutional mandate of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, read with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is meaningfully implemented - emphasized that the rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are not acts of benevolence, but expressions of the constitutional promise of equality - It is imperative that the directions are carried out with utmost earnestness, sensitivity, and expedition. [Paras 12, 13] Mission Accessibility v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1163 : 2025 INSC 1376

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Public Interest Litigation – Rights of Prisoners – Persons with Disabilities (PwD)– Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Extension of Guideline - Petition seeking legal framework and facilities for PwD inmates (undertrials or convicts) in prisons across India - Petitioner alleged deficient prison manuals regarding accessible infrastructure (ramps), mobility, and healthcare, violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Supreme Court observed that most issues were addressed in the precedent of L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Supreme Court directed that the 15 specific directions issued in L. Muruganantham (including prompt identification of PwD at admission, accessible infrastructure, universal accessibility audits, and healthcare equivalent to the community) shall now be extended to all States and Union Territories mutatis mutandis. [Relied on L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1444; Paras 6-8] Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1176

Introduction of Screen Reader Software and Accessible Digital Question Papers - In-Principle Decision - Held that the UPSC stated in an additional affidavit that it has, in-principle, resolved to introduce the facility of Screen Reader Software for visually impaired candidates in various examinations conducted under its aegis - This marks a significant policy advancement towards accessibility and inclusion - While recognizing the UPSC's dependence on external infrastructure and manpower, Supreme Court found it imperative that a concrete plan of implementation be established - UPSC is directed to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two months from the date of the order, clearly delineating the proposed plan of action, timeline, and modalities for the deployment and use of Screen Reader Software - UPSC shall, in coordination with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) and the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (NIEPVD), formulate uniform guidelines and protocols for the use of Screen Reader Software and other assistive technologies. [Paras 6-11] Mission Accessibility v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1163 : 2025 INSC 1376

Lack of adequate and hygienic toilet facilities in court premises across India - Directions Issued - Construction and Maintenance of Toilets - Formation of Committees - Maintenance and Hygiene - Special Facilities - Funding and Transparency - Compliance Reporting - All High Courts and State Governments/UTs must ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all court premises and tribunals across the country. Toilets must be clearly identifiable, accessible, and equipped with functional amenities such as water, electricity, hand soap, napkins, and toilet paper. Each High Court shall constitute a committee chaired by a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, with members including the Registrar General, Chief Secretary, PWD Secretary, Finance Secretary, and a representative of the Bar Association. The committee will conduct a survey, assess infrastructure gaps, and ensure the implementation of adequate toilet facilities. Regular maintenance of toilets must be ensured, preferably through outsourcing to professional agencies. A mandatory cleaning schedule and periodic inspections must be implemented. A grievance redressal mechanism must be established for reporting and resolving issues related to toilet facilities. Separate washrooms must be provided for judges, advocates, litigants, and staff. Child-friendly washrooms must be constructed in family courts. Nursing rooms with breastfeeding facilities and changing stations must be provided for mothers. Sanitary pad dispensers must be installed in women's, PwD, and transgender washrooms. State Governments/UTs must allocate sufficient funds for the construction and maintenance of toilet facilities. A transparent and separate monetary fund must be established for this purpose. All High Courts and State Governments/UTs must file a status report within four months. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions, emphasizing that access to proper sanitation is not merely a matter of convenience but a fundamental right essential for human dignity and the fair administration of justice. This judgment reinforces the constitutional obligation of the State to provide basic sanitation facilities as part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. It also highlights the need for inclusive and accessible infrastructure in public spaces, particularly in judicial premises, to ensure equality and justice for all. Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72 : 2025 INSC 75 : AIR 2025 SC 468

MBBS Admission - Reasonable Accommodation - Ableism - Functional Assessment - Whether the National Medical Commission's (NMC) guideline requiring candidates with disabilities to have “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength, and range of motion” for MBBS admission is arbitrary and violative of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Constitution. Held, NMC's “both hands intact” condition is arbitrary, antithetical to the RPwD Act, and promotes ableism, violating the equality principle and the concept of reasonable accommodation. The Court allowed the appellant, a candidate with a 58% locomotor and speech disability, to secure admission to the MBBS course at Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, and directed a functional assessment by a five-member AIIMS committee, including Professor Dr. Satendra Singh. Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 236 : 2025 INSC 256

No distinction can be made between Persons with Disabilities (PwD) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) for employment rights. (Para 67) In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : 2025 INSC 300

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwBD) – Civil Services Examination (CSE) – Accessibility and Equal Opportunity – Scribe Facility – Screen Reader Software - The Supreme Court disposed of a Writ Petition filed by Mission Accessibility, an organization for the advancement of the rights of persons with disabilities, seeking directions against the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for enhancing accessibility in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) - The petition sought two main reliefs: modification of the timeline for scribe registration and permitting the use of laptops equipped with Screen Reader Software along with accessible digital question papers for eligible visually impaired candidates - Held that taking note of the UPSC's assurance and in furtherance of the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination, directed the UPSC (Respondent No. 2) to incorporate a clear provision in all examination notifications - The provision must permit candidates eligible for a scribe to request a change of scribe up to at least seven days prior to the date of the examination - Such requests shall be objectively considered and disposed of by a reasoned order within three working days of receipt of the application. [Para 11] Mission Accessibility v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1163 : 2025 INSC 1376

Sections 40, 45; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Rule 15 - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; Articles 31 - Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 - Constitutional and Statutory Obligations – Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation in Prisons - Whether the State has a constitutional and moral obligation to ensure the rights of prisoners with disabilities, including non-discriminatory treatment, reasonable accommodation, and effective rehabilitation - Compliance of Tamil Nadu prison infrastructure and policies with the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD - Adequacy of prison facilities, including accessible infrastructure, healthcare, and rehabilitation services for prisoners with disabilities. Held: The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities in Tamil Nadu, emphasizing the State's constitutional and moral obligation under Article 21 to ensure dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. The Court directed: 1. Identification and Accessibility: Prison authorities to identify prisoners with disabilities upon admission and provide rules and information in accessible formats (e.g., Braille, sign language). 2. Infrastructure Upgrades: All prisons to be equipped with wheelchair-friendly spaces, accessible toilets, ramps, and sensory-safe environments within six months, with periodic audits per the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India (2021). 3. Healthcare and Rehabilitation: Provision of equivalent community-level healthcare, including physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and assistive devices, with trained medical officers and tailored nutrition. 4. Training and Sensitization: Mandatory training for prison staff on disability rights, non-discrimination, and appropriate handling of disability-related challenges. 5. Policy Reforms: Amendment of the Tamil Nadu State Prison Manual within six months to align with the RPwD Act, 2016, and UNCRPD, incorporating provisions against discrimination and for reasonable accommodation. 6. Monitoring and Data: Establishment of a monitoring committee for periodic inspections, maintenance of disaggregated disability data, and public disclosure with privacy safeguards. 7. Compliance Reporting: Director General of Prisons to file a compliance report with the State Human Rights Commission within three months. The Court underscored that reasonable accommodations are integral to a humane and just carceral system, and systemic transformation is required to prevent further deprivation or suffering of prisoners with disabilities. The petition arose from a case involving an advocate with Becker Muscular Dystrophy and Autism Spectrum Disorder, who faced inadequate facilities during incarceration, leading to compensation of ₹1 lakh by the Tamil Nadu Government. [Referred: Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India, (2017), Paras 34, 35] L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 702 :2025 INSC 844

The condition of “both hands intact” lacks legal sanctity, fails to provide functional assessment, and perpetuates ableism, undermining the RPwD Act and Article 41. The Court emphasized the need for individualized functional assessments over a “one size fits all” approach, as mandated by precedents in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770 and Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857. The AIIMS assessment report was found inadequate for not adhering to the functional competency tests laid down in prior judgments and for failing to provide reasons for denying admission. The Court reiterated the need to revise NMC guidelines to align with the RPwD Act, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and constitutional principles, as previously directed in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 770 and Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 857. The approach advocated by Dr. Satendra Singh, allowing candidates to pursue MBBS and choose non-surgical or medical branches post-course, was endorsed as fair and inclusive. Anmol v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 236 : 2025 INSC 256

The court reaffirmed that all benefits granted to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) must also be extended to Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in examination settings, including facilities such as scribes and compensatory time, without discrimination. The court reviewed the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.08.2022, issued in compliance with its earlier judgment in Vikash Kumar, which provided guidelines for PwD candidates with less than 40% disability and writing difficulties. However, the petitioner highlighted several deficiencies in the OM, including its failure to incorporate reasonable accommodation, its restrictive focus on "difficulty in writing," and the absence of alternative examination modes (e.g., Braille, computers). The court also noted the lack of a grievance redressal mechanism and inconsistencies in implementation across examination bodies. The court directed the respondent authorities to revise the OM within two months, ensuring uniform compliance, extending benefits to all PwD candidates, and incorporating measures such as a grievance redressal portal, periodic sensitization drives, and flexibility in examination modes. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the RPwD Act, 2016 and the principles of reasonable accommodation, as outlined in Vikash Kumar and Avni Prakash. The matter was posted for compliance reporting after two months. (Para 19) Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 151 : 2025 INSC 142 : AIR 2025 SC 1063 : (2025) 4 SCC 90

Visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial service, and Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, was struck down to the extent it excluded them. Rule 7 prescribing additional requirements for PwDs (such as three years of practice or securing 70% marks in the first attempt), was partially struck down as violative of equality and reasonable accommodation. Separate cut-offs must be maintained for visually impaired candidates, in line with the Indra Sawhney judgment. (Para 68) In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. Registrar General the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : 2025 INSC 300

Whether the lack of adequate and hygienic toilet facilities in court premises across India violates the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether the State and Union Territories are obligated to provide separate, accessible, and well-maintained toilet facilities for men, women, persons with disabilities (PwD), and transgender persons in all court complexes. Held, access to clean, functional, and hygienic toilet facilities is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, and the absence of proper sanitation facilities in court premises undermines this right. The State's duty under Articles 47 and 48A of the Constitution to improve public health and protect the environment, which includes providing adequate sanitation facilities. Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72 : 2025 INSC 75 : AIR 2025 SC 468