From Policy to Practice: Recent Supreme Court Judgments on Disability Rights Lapses Several Supreme Court judgements in 2025 and before that have placed renewed focus on the state’s failure on implementing Disability Rights

13, Jun 2025 | CJP Team

Recent Supreme Court judgments in 2025, and before that in 2024, have placed renewed focus on the state’s failures in implementing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. With mounting non-compliance across multiple states and union territories, these rulings now compel authorities to operationalize statutory mandates that have been long overdue. These developments sharply highlight the need to adopt the inclusive, rights-based vision outlined in the Supreme Court’s 2024 Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities, which aims to transform the language and practice of justice for persons with disabilities (hereafter, referred to as PwDs).

Union of India v. Rohitash Kumar Sharma, 2025

This case was an appeal of an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) decision awarding disability pension to Rohitash Kumar Sharma, a retired Radio Fitter who served in the Indian Air Force. Heard by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, the case involved Sharma developing severe obstructive sleep apnea after 20+ years of service in challenging locations. The government denied his pension, claiming it stemmed from obesity and didn’t meet the disability percentage. The AFT found inconsistencies in the medical board’s findings and granted him disability pay.

The Supreme Court condemned the government’s appeal, noting the stay on the AFT order had lapsed within three weeks and was no longer in effect. It ordered the Union to pay Sharma’s pension, subject to the appeal’s outcome. The Court criticized routine government appeals against AFT orders, highlighting that the AFT bench, comprising a High Court judge and a former senior military officer, can be trusted to give a valid judgment. Drawing from tax litigation policies that restrict excessive appeals, the Court encouraged the Union to adopt a similar “benevolent litigation policy.” The Union government’s consideration in implementing this policy is scheduled for a hearing on 11 September 2025.

In Re- Recruitment of Judicial Services v. Registrar General of MP, 2025

In a landmark judgment dated March 3, 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan addressed the exclusion of PwDs from judicial recruitment in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, arising from three civil appeals and two suo moto writ petitions. One suo moto petition challenged the 2023 amendment to Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which removed reservations for visually impaired candidates based on medical advice doubting their judicial competence. Another petition highlighted the non-implementation of horizontal reservation under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, as nine PwD posts were reserved, but no separate cut-offs were declared.

The three civil appeals included: 

(i) Ayush Yardi v. State of MP: The 2023 amendment to Rule 7 of the MP Judicial Service Rules, requiring 3 years’ bar practice or 70% marks on the first attempt, was challenged as discriminatory, especially without PwD relaxations. 

(ii) Alok Singh v. State of MP: a candidate with 40% low vision was excluded despite a better score due to low interview cut-off rules without any relaxations for PwDs. 

(iii) Manvendra Singh Rathore & Alisha Khan v. High Court of Rajasthan: the petitioners contested why only 11 PwDs were called for mains instead of the expected 135 (15 times the 9 vacancies).

The Court, in this case, distinguished eligibility (e.g., LLB degree/ other such requirements) from suitability, ruling that PwDs can’t be excluded after meeting eligibility. It reaffirmed the RPwD Act, 2016 as a super-statute under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 and backed the UNCRPD framework (that people with disabilities should be given reasonable accommodations instead of sticking to strict medical specifications). It held that facially neutral rules like 70% in the first attempt led to indirect discrimination under Article 14, and stressed the need for reasonable accommodations over rigid medical criteria.

The findings and outcomes are as follows, as laid down by the Supreme Court in this case:

Supreme Court’s Key Conclusions:

• Visually impaired candidates are eligible and cannot be declared unsuitable.
• Rule 6A (MP) was struck down for violating right to equality.
• Proviso to Rule 7 (MP) imposing extra criteria on PwDs struck down to that extent.
• Relaxations are permissible to fill PwD vacancies.
• Separate cut-offs for visually impaired candidates are mandatory.
• No distinction to be made between PwDs and PwBDs in employment rights. (PwBDs referring to persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act)

Outcomes:

• • Previous High Court orders and exam notifications imposing these conditions set aside.
  • Excluded PwD candidates are now entitled to consideration in future selections with separate merit lists.

• SC directed recruitment authorities to complete the process within three months.

This judgment has been disposed of without any compliance hearing. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued a revised result on 30 April 2025 in compliance with the judgment.

Recent Supreme Court judgments in 2025 have placed renewed focus on the state’s failures in implementing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. With mounting non-compliance across multiple states and union territories, these rulings now compel authorities to operationalize statutory mandates that have been long overdue. These developments sharply highlight the need to adopt the inclusive, rights-based vision outlined in the Supreme Court’s 2024 Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities, which aims to transform the language and practice of justice for persons with disabilities (hereafter, referred to as PwDs).

Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India, 2024

A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala dealt with serious lapses in the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereafter referred to as RPwD Act), in a petition filed by the “Together We Can” forum seeking effective enforcement of the Act.

The Court noted that States like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and the Union Territory of Ladakh had failed to make rules under Section 101, and many States/UTs had not constituted District Level Committees as required by Section 72. Despite advisories, compliance was lacking. The Court directed defaulting States to establish these committees and emphasized setting up Special Courts, Medical Assessment Boards, State Disability Funds (Section 88), and appointing Independent Commissioners (Section 79). States were also ordered to identify their State Commissioners and file compliance affidavits.

The Court further observed that the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities had not filed the required status report and granted one last opportunity to the Union Government to comply. However, no such status report has been filed to date.

Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. UOI, 2024

This case involved an appeal from a Bombay High Court judgment denying interim relief to a NEET (UG) 2024 applicant with 44–45% permanent speech and language disability (Hypernasality with Misarticulation). A Supreme Court bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan heard the case. Despite having a provisional rank of 42091 and qualifying under the PwD and OBC categories, Omkar was declared ineligible for MBBS admission by the Disability Assessment Board under Clause 4.2 of the NMC Guidelines. This was based solely on his quantified disability, though he held a certified benchmark disability under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, (a disability specified in the Act with at least 40% impairment, recognized for legal benefits).

The Supreme Court ordered a fresh medical evaluation at Maulana Azad Medical College, which found his impairment would not hinder him from pursuing medicine. The Court then granted interim relief allowing Omkar to participate in the counselling process, pending final orders.

The Supreme Court in its judgment stressed that the State must provide inclusive education, equal opportunities, and appropriate reasonable accommodations under Article 41 of the Constitution, (Directive Principle ensuring the State provides public assistance and social welfare in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement) and the RPwD Act. The NMC Guidelines, Appendix H-I, were criticized for creating an exclusionary framework disqualifying those with disabilities greater than 40%, and also those with less than 40%, leaving no PwDs eligible. As a result, the Court ruled, that “over-inclusion” takes place wherein all with 40% or more impairment are assumed unfit without considering their true abilities. Since it treats everyone equally on the surface but results in unequal consequences, this was considered “indirect discrimination,” violating Article 14. The Court emphasized that the definition of “reasonable accommodation” in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act should be liberally construed to include both legal interpretation and physical accommodation.

The SC therefore issued the following directives:

• Quantified disability alone (40% or more) does not disqualify a candidate from admission to educational courses.
• Eligibility depends on the Disability Assessment Board’s opinion on whether the disability prevents the candidate from pursuing the course.
• The Disability Assessment Board must explicitly state whether the disability will or will not come in the way of pursuing the course.
• If the Board concludes a candidate is not eligible, it must provide clear reasons for the decision.
• NMC should revise its guidelines. Pending new regulations by the NMC, the Disability Assessment Boards should follow the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s guidelines dated 25.01.2024.
• Candidates denied admission by the Board’s negative opinion can challenge the decision through judicial review in courts.

As of now, although the Supreme Court in this case has ordered a revision of the NMC guidelines, no official update has been issued.

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, 2024

In a key ruling, a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra addressed failures in ensuring accessibility for PwDs. The case, filed by visually impaired activist Rajive Raturi in 2005, demanded accessible public infrastructure. In 2017, the Court ordered compliance reports with 11 action points, but, facing continued non-compliance, it asked the Union to file affidavits. It also called for improved accessibility for visually impaired lawyers in all High Courts.

The Court directed NALSAR-CDS, under Professor Amita Dhanda, to review public infrastructure, documents, websites, and services. The report revealed major gaps in political accessibility, employment, sports, emotional relationships, courts, prisons, healthcare, and education. The Court reaffirmed the Social Model of disability (which posits that individuals are disabled due to society’s failure to eliminate structural barriers rather than their impairments) and emphasized universal design and adaptation of existing systems. It distinguished between reasonable accommodation (ex-nunc, individual) and accessibility (ex-ante, systemic).

The Court also held that Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules, which prescribes discretionary rules, violated Section 40 of the Act, which mandates the establishment of non-negotiable rules, noting that vague wording used in the rules, like “may” and “recommend” were weakening the enforceability of the RPwD Act,

The Court issued the following directives:

• The Union must revise Rule 15(1) within 3 months to clearly distinguish mandatory rules from mere guidelines.
• The revision must be done in consultation with NALSAR-CDS and disability rights stakeholders.
• New mandatory rules must reflect universal design, digital accessibility, and cover all disabilities.
• Existing voluntary efforts like the Accessible India Campaign may continue, but must not replace mandatory enforcement.
• Post-revision, States and local authorities must enforce Sections 44–46 and 89 (they mandate accessibility in transport, ICT, and public infrastructure, and impose penalties for non-compliance), including withholding building completion certificates.

Following this judgment, the government has formed a Committee to look into the suggested changes in the law. This Committee has asked for six more months to complete its work and file a report with the Court, this matter is listed for further hearing in September this year.

The Supreme Court’s Handbook on Persons with Disabilities, 2024

On September 28, 2024, the then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, launched the Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities of the Supreme Court of India. The handbook marks a major shift in the Court’s understanding of Persons with Disabilities (hereafter, referred to as PwDs), showing a strong resolve to change both court orders and societal perceptions. It stresses the need for judicial language and judgments to be responsive to diverse experiences of disability and to recognize intersectionality, as to how disability intersects with gender, caste, and class.

It signals a shift in language and offers practical suggestions for clarity, specificity, and accommodation. It advocates agency, for example, it prefers using “this person uses a wheelchair” instead of “confined to a wheelchair.” Such choices promote dignity. A progressive view of mental disability is present, discarding stereotypes like “unsoundness of mind” and encouraging assessing mental capacity case-by-case, based on credible expert evidence and legal protections. This reflects a move from stigma toward dignity.

The handbook contests the concept of traditional mental incapacity by affirming that people with disabilities have equal legal rights to inherit and acquire property, with limits only through legally recognized “unsoundness of mind.” It aligns with international and national principles of dignity and liberty. It also addresses vulnerabilities during pregnancy and imprisonment, advocating safeguards, accommodations, and access to education and training for inmates with disabilities.

This handbook argues for safeguards such as inclusive communication modes like Braille, sign language, assistive tech, and flexible strategies. It also promotes reasonable accommodations such as scribes, extra exam time, counselling, and positive measures. The handbook, therefore, reinforces the government’s obligation to provide free education and reservations, capturing the Supreme Court’s transformative vision.

Redefining Disability Rights

The evolution of the Supreme Court’s disability rights jurisprudence marks a clear movement toward a social model of disability. The social model of disability has been consistently integrated into the Court’s reasoning, evident in its consideration of the reasonable accommodation standard in In Re: Recruitment of Judicial Services, and Omkar Ramchandra Gond, where professionalism and ability are considered factors over arbitrary thresholds, by limiting the significance of medical standards and value a nuanced understanding of individualized evaluation and reasonable accommodation. The Rajive Raturi case, begins to solidify the operationalization of the social model by distinguishing accessibility as an obligation to all and accommodation as a right to an individual, confirming that it is communication and infrastructural barriers standing in the way of full participation rather than the disability itself.

To make the State establish the institutional arrangements for true inclusion, the Seema Girija Lal case, stressed the enabling role of bureaucratic sloth. Even in the Rohitash Sharma case, the Court made the case that it was procedural strictness that denied dignity to disabled ex-servicemen rather than the incapacity of the individual: a reminder of the importance of enabling and humane policies. Overall, these decisions shift the focus of responsibility for accountability from the individual to the State and society and reformulate legal principles from welfare to empowerment. The Court has paved the road for true inclusive and participatory democracy, which frames disability as a rights agenda rather than a charity-based one by abolishing the restrictive medical model and incorporating the social model into the Constitutional interpretation.

Image Courtesy: barandbench.com

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Akhila Pujari)