Private Schools Bound By Obligations Under RPwD Act, Must Provide 'Reasonable Accommodation' To Disabled Students: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday 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. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that “inclusive education” can be achieved with “reasonable accommodation” of children with disabilities, adding that the latter requires necessary and appropriate modification and adjustment to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy and exercise their rights equally with others.The Court said that the mandate contained in Section 16 of the RPwD Act is not confined to only funded educational institutions, but extends to institutions “recognized” by the Government or the local bodies.“Accordingly, applicability of Section 16 of the RPwD Act to a completely private and non-funded educational institutions cannot be denied on any count. One of the mandates to educational institutions as contained in Section 16 (vi) of the RPwD Act is that institution shall detect specific learning disability in children and shall take suitable pedagogical and other measures to overcome them,” the Court said. “Accordingly, it thus, becomes incumbent upon the appellant/school not only to detect and recognise the learning disabilities of the child but also to take suitable pedagogical and other measures so that such a child is able to overcome such learning disabilities,” it added.The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by GD Goenka Public School challenging a single judge order granting relief to a child with “mild autism” who sought readmission in class 1 or any of the age appropriate class in terms of Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.The single judge had directed the school to re-admit the child in Class-I or in an age-appropriate class as a fee paying student and allowed her to attend the school with the assistance of a parent appointed shadow teacher.Upholding the single judge ruling, the Court did not appreciate the approach of the school in denying admission to the child, adding that it was in complete violation of various mandates embodied in RPwD Act, which also denies the child her rights available under the enactment.“Such an approach is contrary to the concept of “inclusive education” as defined in Section 2(m) of RPwD Act, which means a system of education where students with an and without disability learn together and system of teaching and learning is suitably adopted to meet the needs of different types of students with disabilities,” the Court said.Further, the Court said that it does not have even an iota of doubt on the report submitted by the Court appointed Expert Committee and the note tendered by its Chairperson to evaluate and assess the child. The Chairperson stated that earlier the therapeutic interventions of the child begin, the better will be the results and that the Committee had recommended presence of the shadow teacher despite only mild autism. This, as per the note, was for the reason that the child had not attended school until now and that the shadow teacher would support her in adjusting to the school environment while also facilitating her adjustment with the school with her peers and herself to one another. “For the discussion made and reasons given above, we are in complete agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein and find that the appeal is unmerited,” the Court said. “Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellant/school to ensure compliance of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge within two weeks from today,” it added.Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mrs. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh and Ms. Sabrina Singh, AdvsCounsel for Respondents: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Ashna Khan, Advs; Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC with Mr. Parvin Bansal and Ms. Aqsa, Advs. for IHBAS; Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC, GNCTD with Ms. Harshita Nathrani, AdvTitle: G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL v. AADRITI PATHAK & ANRCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1168Click here to read order

Private Schools Bound By Obligations Under RPwD Act, Must Provide 'Reasonable Accommodation' To Disabled Students: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags