Supreme CourtAdditional 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...
Supreme Court
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
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
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Muhammad Naeem v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 248 [WRIT - A No. - 18224 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 248
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, to ensure that all officers are sensitised towards the rights of persons with disabilities guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
While dealing with a case of an employee who was denied any post after suffering from disability while working with the Corporation, Justice Ajay Bhanot held:
“The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow shall ensure that all officers are duly sensitized to the rights of persons with disabilities under the Disabilities Act and the legislative intent of the Disabilities Act is brought to fruition by faithful implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent Corporation.”
Case Title: Laljee Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko And 6 Others
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court has held that where disability is acquired during the course of the service, instead of dispensing the services of the employee, he/she must be shifted to a suitable post.
Referring to Section 20 [Non-discrimination in employment] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Justice Abdul Moin held that
“From perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2016 it is apparent that where an employee acquires a disability during his service, his services are not to be dispensed with rather efforts are to be made by the employer for shifting him to a suitable post and in the absence thereto, to continue him on supernumerary post until a suitable post is available.”
Case Title: Maaz Ahmad v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Nirman Bhawan New Delhi and 8 Others
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the benefit of reservation for NEET examination must be given based on Unique Disability ID (UDID) issued by competent authority and the authority under the National Medical Commission Act could not reassess the disability suffered by the candidate.
While granting relief to a NEET aspirant, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held:
“the only function which can be assigned to the authorities designated in terms of the guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission Act can be to assess the 'functional disability' for which the candidate would have to undergo test to form a view as to whether the person who has applied for NEET Examination is functionally able to undergo the studies and the rigours of the course. The same does not authorize the designated agency to reassess the disability suffered by the candidate in terms of the certificate issued by the UDID Authority...Considering the fact that the petitioner qualified in the functional disability test and has been found suitable for undergoing medical studies, the disability certificate issued by the authority and reflected in the UDID would prevail for the benefit of grant of reservation”
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: JAMMULA NANDASAI MITHRA v. THE STATE OF AP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 58
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed a writ petition for grant of additional compensatory time to a second year MBBS student suffering from cerebral palsy, during her examinations sought on account of her disability.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, while granting a total of 4.5 hours instead of 3 hours to the petitioner to complete all the examinations concerning the MBBS course until she finishes the course, held,
“The success of the Writ Petitioner in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the compensatory time of 30 minutes made it evident that the extra 30 minutes was the one that made all the differences for the Writ Petitioner to succeed in the first year MBBS examinations. Although, it was stated by the learned Single Judge that it was not a binding precedent, the case of the Writ Petitioner is required to be assessed and evaluated based on the success in the first year MBBS examinations after availing the extra time. Having regard to the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the socially beneficial laws governing the differently abled persons, this Court does not find any reason to reject the request made by the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner was able to utilise the extra time that was given by this Court on the earlier occasion and pass the 1st year MBBS Examinations.”
Justice Prasad was of the view that the reasonable approximations should be made to give benefit to an individual suffering with any kind of benchmark disability rather than looking for any precision with regard to the degree of disability of an individual inasmuch as assessment to arrive at such precision goes counter to the provisions of the RPwD Act.
Case Title: CH. UDAYA BHASKAR v. K APPA RAO PALAKONDA and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 133
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that continued employment with no reduction in income of a claimant who suffered permanent and partial disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be grounds for denying compensation under the head of 'permanent disability'.
In the present case, one Ch. Udaya Bhaskar (claimant) suffered 40% partial and permanent disability, a chewing problem and alteration in speech owing to an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of an APSRTC bus. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him compensation worth Rs.6,89,000/- at 7.5% per annum. Notably, no compensation was provided under the head of permanent disability as employment and income of the claimant remained unaffected despite the disability.
Interpreting the concept of 'functional disability'— which involves difficulties in performing daily chores, Justice A. Hari Haranandha Sarma explained,
“The disability contributing to loss of income is a relative aspect. Disability may not always directly affect income. But, it is not always the same as functional disability. Functional disability refers to a limitation in respect of day to day activities of a person who becomes disabled. Ability to earn is a different aspect from the disability suffered, causing inconvenience for daily routine. A person might have functional disability although same does not affect the income. A functional disability certainly contributes to loss of income in some cases, restricting someone with mobility issues, making him unable to attend all physical requirements of his job leading to a reduced income, availment of leaves, unable to do extra work having effect on promotions in the job. Factors like accommodation at a particular job, type of job and nature of disability play a role.”
Bombay High Court
Case title: Dharmendra Kumar vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 which grants Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) under the General/Economically Weaker Section /Other Backward Classes (GL/EWS/OBC) category 9 attempts, while providing unlimited attempts to those belonging to SC/ST category. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashwin Bhobe rejected the petitioner's contention and emphasized the distinct status of SC/ST in the Constitution. The Court noted that while the reservations to PwBD under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a 'horizontal reservation', the reservation provided to SC/ST and OBC under the constitution is a 'vertical reservation'. The Court was of the view that though PwBD is a distinct class since it is a horizontal reservation, it would cut across the vertical reservation provided to SC/ST candidates.
Case title: Yash Charitable Trust vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the enactment of State Rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During the hearing, the State counsel submitted that the Maharashtra State Rights Of Persons With Disability Rules, 2024, were framed by the State government by exercising power under Section 101 of the 2016 Act.
Case title: Dharmendra Kumar vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 which grants Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) under the General/Economically Weaker Section /Other Backward Classes (GL/EWS/OBC) category 9 attempts, while providing unlimited attempts to those belonging to SC/ST category. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashwin Bhobe rejected the petitioner's contention and emphasized the distinct status of SC/ST in the Constitution. The Court noted that while the reservations to PwBD under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a 'horizontal reservation', the reservation provided to SC/ST and OBC under the constitution is a 'vertical reservation'. The Court was of the view that though PwBD is a distinct class since it is a horizontal reservation, it would cut across the vertical reservation provided to SC/ST candidates.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Saroj Kshemanidhi vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 80
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the State can interchange reservations among disability categories, so excluding visually impaired candidates for Commerce faculty posts is not illegal.
It was observed by the Court that under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the appropriate Government has the power to interchange vacancies among the five categories of benchmark disabilities if the nature of the post does not permit employment of a particular category. It was held that the State Government had validly identified the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce faculty as suitable only for candidates under One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL) categories because the nature of duties involved extensive writing and numerical work. Therefore, the exclusion of visually impaired candidates could not be termed illegal.
It was further observed by the Court that the appointing authority is the best judge to assess the suitability of candidates for a particular post. Further that judicial interference in academic and administrative decisions must remain limited. It was further held that the reliance placed by the petitioner on National Federation of Blind was misplaced, because the Supreme Court had recognized that if a post is not suitable for one category of disability, it can be identified for another.
It was held by the court that Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 allows interchange of categories with government approval, which was followed. The reservation was already provided to OA and OL candidates in commerce, therefore it was held that refusal to extend it to VH candidates was neither illegal nor arbitrary.
Delhi High Court
Case title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has observed that a recommendation or interim recommendation of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under Section 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is binding on the concerned authority, unless such recommendation cannot be acted upon by the authority due a valid reason such as administrative exigencies.
Title: MS. JAHANVI NAGPAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1124
The Delhi High Court has asked the Law Commission of India to bring amendment in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to include a provision for carrying forward a vacancy in higher educational institutions which could not be filled in on account of non-availability of persons with benchmark disabilities for admission, to the next academic year.
Title: G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL v. AADRITI PATHAK & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1168
The Delhi High Court observed that private schools must take adequate measures to overcome the learning disabilities of children and provide “reasonable accommodation” to them under Section 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Title: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS v. AMIT KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1389
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rejecting a physically disabled individual's candidature citing no vacancy for such individuals defeats the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Gujarat High Court
Case title: Program Officer, ICDS & Anr. vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 11
After examining the duties and responsibilities of the Anganwadi worker provided in a government resolution, the Gujarat High Court recently set aside a single judge's order which had directed the state to appoint a woman with 70% permanent disability as an anganwadi worker.
The court said this after noting that the role necessitates the physical capability to perform tasks which involves taking care of infants, children and mother.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Susheel v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the transfer order of a visually impaired government employee to a hard area who has disability of more than 40%. ("hard/tribal areas" refer to regions that are geographically remote, have challenging terrains and have limited access to resources).
Case Name: Dr. Daljit Singh v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 122
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a government employee who acquires benchmark disability during service is entitled to the benefit of extended retirement age under the State's policy, even if he was not appointed under the handicapped quota.
Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua said: “Merely because a person suffers disability in service, offers no valid ground to discriminate him vis-a-vis the person, who was physically disabled and had been inducted into service under handicapped quota for purposes of fixing retirement age.”
Case Name: Sajil Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 229
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 50% locomotor-disabled candidate challenging the selection of another candidate for the post of Pharmacist.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner, having 50% locomotor disability, was found unfit for the post of Pharmacist due to improper standing and walking. The work of a Pharmacist involves physical tasks such as giving first aid, performing emergency duties, and sometimes travelling…”
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Shivani Misri Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 182
Reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the disqualification of a visually impaired law graduate from recruitment to the Airports Authority of India (AAI), holding that the authorities “failed to take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation” as mandated under the law.
Case-Title: Union of India vs Nirman Singh Jamwal & Connected matters, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 293
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that once a soldier is enrolled in a medically fit condition and subsequently develops disabilities during service, the disability is presumed attributable to or aggravated by service unless the Army proves otherwise.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Anil Kumar S B AND Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.1673 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court has said that the assessment of the suitability of a candidate who is suffering from physical disability must not be based solely on the medical certificate, but also on the functional assessment of the candidate.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Anil Kumar S B who had challenged a single judge order and held him eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the reservation for persons with disabilities in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd (BESCOM).
The court said, “What requires consideration, in this context, is the functional assessment. In determining the suitability or eligibility of a candidate with a disability, the functional assessment, beyond just the medical evaluation, is crucial. Annexure-A, the Disability Certificate, clearly records that the appellant can perform normal work with both hands, albeit subject to certain restrictions.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21783 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
Disposing of a plea by an National Law School India University (NLSIU) student seeking alternate subject/exemption from studying Economics in view of her disability, the Karnataka High Court asked the varsity to have a liberal approach enabling the student to pass her first year course in case is clears all other subjects except Economics.
Justice R Devdas disposed the petition of a student who is stated to be suffering from specific learning disability known as 'Dyscalculia' resulting in difficulty in learning or comprehending Arithmetics, difficulty in understanding numbers, difficulty learning how to manipulate numbers, to perform mathematical calculations and difficulty in applying and analyzing such applications in/of Mathematics.
Kerala High Court
Case name: Shoyab K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others., WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Kerala High Court observed that reservation provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is confined to the posts which are identified by the government for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 33.
At the outset, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the petitioners have a normal promotional avenue to the post of Assistant Registrar / Deputy Registrar / Joint Registrar. However, the promotional posts have not been identified as suitable for granting reservations to persons with disabilities. Thus, unless the university does not identify higher promotional posts, such as those of the petitioners, the petitioner could not claim any legal right for promotion.
Case Title: Bindumol A T v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no provision under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act of 2016 for the appointment of a permanent guardian for a person with mental disability.
Justice C.S. Dias clarified that this is because the office of guardianship operates on a mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with a disability, intended for a specific purpose or situation.
Case Title: Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala High Court has ruled that reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot be extended while appointing government pleaders and public prosecutors, as they do not have a specific cadre strength, and therefore, no vacancies within a cadre where such reservations can be applied.
Justice D.K. Singh observed that appointment of advocates as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors is a decision of the Government, as they are the client here. It was also stated that no one has an inherent right to claim appointment as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court has asked the State government to scrupulously implement its 2015 policy for persons with disabilities under which it had announced a Scheme for distribution of monthly scholarships to eligible students.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also flagged the 'reluctance and apathy' of ground-level officers in implementing the Scheme and directed the State to take deterrent and punitive action against those found in default, including the Secretaries of the Local Self Government Institutions.
Case Title: Samajam Higher Secondary School and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Kerala High Court recently held that there was no need to interfere with the Government order and circular regarding reservation for person with benchmark disabilities in the government-aided educational institutions. Justice T. R. Ravi considered challenges by various schools into the mode of appointment which was not decided in the earlier cases.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v. T. Rajeev
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
The Kerala High Court recently observed that it was the duty of the government as per the Rights of Persons with Disability Act to ensure public places are accessible to differently abled persons and any failure to do so should not be detrimental to a government employee with disabilities.
The Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John made this observation in a case filed by T. Rajeev who has 60% locomotor disability due to post-polio residual paralysis. He was working as a Senior Grade typist in the Motor Vehicle Department. Due to his inability to climb to the upper floor of the building where the office was situated, he sought an inter-departmental transfer as an LD Typist in the Thalappilly Subdivision office of the Irrigation Department which was on the ground floor of the same building. In the request, he had also sought for protection of pay. After multiple rounds of litigation, the government made the transfer as per his request but he was given only the salary of an LD typist which was lesser than the salary he drew as a Senior Grade typist.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 12) issued a set of directions to the four Devaswom Boards in the State, namely, Travancore, Cochin, Guruvayoor and Malabar Devaswom Boards, in order to facilitate temple darshan for persons with disabilities (PWDs).
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition, which was registered on the basis of a complaint preferred by T. Suganthi. In the complaint, she had outlined the difficulties faced by her during her visit to Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple at Thrissur last year as she was not permitted to carry her wheelchair inside.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v. The National Human Rights Commission and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 9) set aside a 2019 order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that had recommended the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to pay an amount of ₹1,000 each to 290 physically challenged candidates.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji accepted the contention of the KPSC that the NHRC order was a blanket direction, made without considering the nature or degree of disability of each candidate. It also opined that the order is difficult to implement since none of the beneficiaries of the order were made parties before the NHRC or the High Court.
Case Title: N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court has suggested the State Election Commission to develop a Mobile App to ensure that all voters, especially senior citizens and persons with disabilities, are able to cast their votes comfortably and without undue delay during the upcoming local body elections.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's decision to cap the number of voters at 1,200 per polling booth in Panchayats and 1,500 in Municipalities.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Siddhi Paal Versus Kaushal Vikas Kshetriya Kaaryalaya And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 63
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed a 2024 advertisement and the recruitment process initiated by the state's Skill Development Department for not complying with the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016.
In doing so, the Court opined that a person with higher percentage of disability must be given preference in recruitment process with the condition that it does not come in the way of discharging duties attached to the post. The court also observed that the recruitment had violated a 2018 circular which provided that persons with higher disability shall be given the preference in public employment.
Case Title: Arpit Kumar Bhana Versus Union Bank Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 88
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the appointment of a man as IT Officer of the Union Bank of India, whose candidature was rejected on the ground that his mental disability- Schizophrenia was temporary. The Court opined that since the disability certificate did not mention any likely improvement in future, therefore, the disability would fall under the 'permanent' category.
Case Title: Vaishali Chaturvedi v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP 19248 of 2024]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 255
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, which had been identified as far back as 2019 but were advertised only in 2023, would be treated as backlog vacancies.
Case Title: Sonu Singh Narwariya v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-38868-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 276
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to appoint the petitioner, certified as having 40% permanent locomotor disability, observing that he was denied appointment due to the cumbersome procedure adopted by the State and therefore rejecting his candidature merely because the selection list has expired would be unreasonable.
Madras High Court
Provision Of Alternate Employment Applicable To Police Force Unless Exempted By State: Madras HC Grants Relief To Visually Impaired Nayak
Case Title: Ganesan v. The Commandant, TN Special Police Force
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a Police Nayak who was discharged from service after acquiring 100% blindness during service and being declared medically unfit for service.
Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench observed that though the proviso to Section 20(1) empowered the Government to exempt any establishment from the requirements of the Act, no such notification had been made exempting the Police Department. Thus, the court noted that the provision would be applicable to the uniformed service also and thus directed the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force to reinstate the workman.
Provisions Of Right To Education & RPWD Act Don't Apply To Sainik Schools: Madras High Court
Case Title: M. R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court recently held that the provisions of the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not applicable to Sainik Schools since it is administered under the control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan thus found no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling, for the year 2025, which had prescribed eye standards for children seeking admission to the Sainik School.
Case Title: C Somasundaram v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court has asked the Chief Secretary of the Tamil Nadu state to issue a necessary circular to all State Government Departments to ensure that all representations submitted by Persons with Disabilities should be considered at the earliest.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the authorities should act with a greater degree of sensitivity and empathy while dealing with applications/appeals by persons with disabilities. The court added that when a constitutional and statutory obligation is put on the State to work for the welfare of persons with disabilities, such petitions should not be kept pending for a long time.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
In a major relief to a female aspirant with physical disability (PwD), the High Court ordered the State to appoint her as 'Sikshya Sahayak'/teacher more than a decade after her application for selection to the post was wrongly rejected. Acknowledging her long fight for justice, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad remarked –
“Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier and before the authorities thrice. She has been a relentless fighter for justice. The time spent in the legal battles fought one after another, cannot be a ground for denying relief to the victorious party. Fruits of successful litigation, howsoever long the same be fought, ordinarily should reach the hands of winner party. Otherwise faith of right thinking section of people would be shaken and that would not augur well to the rule of law.”
Case Title: Odisha Public Service Commission v. Biswajit Panda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 114
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held that Candidate with low vision disability cannot claim selection for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer when the disability is not identified as suitable for the post under the Government notification issued under Sections 32 & 33 of the PwD Act, 1995.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Title: Dr. Sushank v. Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 30
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the National Medical Commission to ensure creation of Appellate Medical Body to address disputes related to disability certificates for medical admissions.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. JC 428517 EX SUBEDAR ANOKH SINGH AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 37
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a stern stand on the failure of the Union Government to grant disability pension to a retired Armed Forces Officer following the Supreme Court's directions. In an order passed on January 23, a bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, "In another three days, we are going to celebrate the 76th Republic Day, and the entire celebrations of Independence and Republic Day are basically on account of our Army Forces performing strenuous duties at the borders and even challenging the counter-terrorism. The Union of India and its authorities are therefore required to be alive to their situations."
Title: Vikram and others v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 185
Observing that an advertisement to the post cannot be contrary to law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed to consider candidates unjustly denied benefit of reservation for the post of Assistant Lineman.
Jagmohan Bansal said, "There is no change in the legal position from 2013 to 2024. In the absence of change in legal position, there was no reason to deny benefit of reservation to persons with disability of one leg in 2019-2020 and grant in 2023. The stand of respondent is contradictory, arbitrary and whimsical."
Title: Bachan Kaur v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 334
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the conduct of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (UHBVN) authorities who equated disability sustained by an employee during service with “inefficiency,” calling their approach “terribly apathetic.”
The Court also pulled up officials for asking a widow to prove that her husband had sustained injuries while on duty nearly 40 years ago.
Title: Jaswinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 351
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee who acquires a disability during the course of service is entitled to be considered for promotion under the physically handicapped (PH) quota.
The petitioner's promotion under the PH category was denied by the State authority on the grounds that he had acquired the disability during his service and not at the time of appointment.
Title: The Union of India and others v. Ex Sep Sham Singh & another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 352
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticized the Central Government for denying disability benefits to a soldier who sustained serious injuries during an explosion in the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
The Court rejected the Union Government's petition challenging Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)'s order whereby the deceased soldier's wife was granted pensionary benefits.
Title: BHIM SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 469
Emphasising that the right to be free from disability-based discrimination, as enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, must be regarded with the same seriousness and protection as a fundamental right—ensuring that no employee is excluded from consideration solely on the basis of disability—the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Haryana Government to grant retrospective promotions with consequential benefits to a visually impaired Forest Department employee under the statutory disability quota.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Sunita, and other connected appeals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of appeals moved by the State against an order ruling in favour nursing candidates who were meritorious in the reserved category of “40% or more disability in one leg” but were rejected on account of suffering from some other deformity in other leg/body part.
In doing so the court observed act of the State of denying appointment on this ground was bad in law.
Referring to the provisons of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2017 and Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 a division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur said:
"We find that the action(s) of appellant-State has resulted in exclusion of eligible and meritorious candidates belonging to the category of “persons with special abilities” and, therefore, the same is contrary to the purpose and object which the legislature intended to achieve by bringing these special beneficial enactments, that is, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and equality of opportunity".
Title: Shri Pankaj Vasita v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 107
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant appointment to the petitioner, who had 90% hearing impairment and had applied for the post of Safai Karamchari in 2018 but due to some software error was not considered for the draw of lots under the PwD category, resulting in his non-appointment.
Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner's appointment might appear unfair since he did not participate in the draw of lots for the post under PwD category, however, such were the vagaries of litigation in which sometimes candidates fetch fortuitous benefits.
“…this Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the draw of lots, and therefore, it may appear to be unfair that without participating in the draw of lots, he is being given benefit by virtue of the mandamus of this Court of being appointed on the post. Such are the vagaries of the litigation that sometimes, it results in fortuitous benefits in favour of the candidates as is the case herein, coupled with the fact that petitioner deserves humanitarian outlook being a disabled person.”
Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 2648428 Ex-Hav and Hony Nb/sub Raghbir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 151
The Rajasthan High Court upheld Armed Forces Tribunal's order which granted benefit of 'disability element of disability pension' to a defence personnel, holding that Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) didn't have expertise to question correctness of personnel's assessment conducted by Re-survey Medical Board (RSMB).
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma was hearing the Union's petition challenging the Tribunal's order which had directed to grant benefit of disability element of disability pension to the respondent with effect from 1998, for life.
Title: Dr. Deva Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 Live Law (Raj) 154
After over 2 decades, Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a visually impaired candidate who, despite being meritorious in the Examination, was not appointed under Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) but under State Accounts Service.
This was because the State had not considered him disabled enough for reservation under disabled category and he was also not considered medically fit under the general category either.
“I wish I had been more disabled — then perhaps the system would have seen me,” said Justice Sameer Jain at the outset in his order observing that these words reflect not a wish for greater suffering, but a bitter irony that in the "rigid, checkbox-driven machinery of the State's welfare framework, a person's lived experience of disability may fall through the cracks".
The court noted, "That the petitioner had successfully qualified all stages of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Examination conducted in the year 1999 and was placed at 360th position in the overall merit list. Subsequently, in the RAS Examinations held in the years 2001 and 2003, the petitioner once again qualified all stages and secured a significantly improved 21st rank in the merit list. The petitioner, in both the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS) Examinations conducted in the years 1999 and 2003, had appeared under the 'general category' and not under any reserved category, despite being eligible for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation and having a known medical condition of low vision".
Title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 245
Expressing displeasure at the State for its "insensitivity and apathy" in denying salary and service benefits to an 80% disabled employee, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to issue necessary order to all departments to identify disabled employees and grant them benefit under Clause 20(4) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal said,
"The aforesaid case is a classic case reflecting the insensitivity and apathy of the respondents towards the plight of a disabled person who has been denied benefit under the Act of 2016 by the respondents for last about five and a half year without any justification which frustrates the laud object of the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In the aforesaid factual context, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to issue necessary instruction/circular to all the Government Departments to identify such disabled employees, if any, and to extend them benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016 in its letter and spirit, immediately".
It was further opined that such act on part of the State to not provide benefits to the disabled government employee who was eligible under the Act also amounted to violation of his fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Title: Ankita Singodia v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court constituted an expert committee at AIIMS Delhi to examine an MBBS student who became blind after completing 2 years of the course, and recommend appropriate modalities and methodologies to enable her to complete the course.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that there were multiple people, in India and overseas, who became successful doctors despite visual impairment. It referred to Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and said that while framing the guidelines, Doctors with disabilities ought to have been considered.
“The competency of a Doctor with disability cannot be assumed, as unless it is experienced one may not understand the same.If a person with visual impairment is already a Doctor, it shall be possible for a blind person to be a Doctor. It seems to be a difficult struggle for these blind men to achieve what they want. Being blind need not destroy one's dreams.”
Title: Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. and other connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the special appeal challenging the 45% minimum qualifying marks for Physically Handicapped Category in the recruitment process of Veterinary Officer conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta upheld a single judge decision which found that the 45% qualifying criteria was incorporated after the decision of full Commission, and was also published on the official website of RPSC.
The Court held that irrespective of the fact that the condition was not mentioned in the advertisement for the post, since the advertisement had expressly directed the candidates to refer to the website for further instructions, it could not be said to be newly introduced.