Summary
In long-running public interest proceedings on implementation of disability law and conditions in State-run homes for persons with cognitive disabilities (beginning with Asha Kiran, Delhi), the Supreme Court directed a nationwide monitoring exercise, 'Project Ability Empowerment', by eight National Law Universities with the Advisory Group Expert Panel, covering all care institutions and RPwD Act implementation, funded by the Union and States. It also called on the Union of India to explain whether meritorious candidates with disabilities who score above the unreserved cut-off are given upward movement, noting that denial of it defeats reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act.
Issues
- What further directions were needed to secure compliance by the Union, States and Union Territories with the disability statutes and earlier directions concerning State-run institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities.
- Whether a nationwide monitoring of care institutions should be ordered on the applicants' request, and on what parameters and through which bodies.
- Whether persons with disabilities scoring above the unreserved cut-off should receive upward movement so that reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act reaches those most in need.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3 and 5, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Noted as guaranteeing equality and life with dignity and the right to live in the community; they framed the rights-based standard against which institutions are to be monitored. (¶¶ 18, 27)
- Section 34, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Given a purposive reading: denying upward movement to meritorious candidates with disabilities makes them occupy reserved posts, displacing lower-scoring disabled candidates and defeating the purpose of reservation; the Union was asked to explain the measures taken. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 53)
- Sections 40 to 46 (Chapter V), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Referred to as laying down accessibility standards for the built environment, transport, ICT and public services, which the monitoring exercise must audit. (¶¶ 27, 29)
- Section 19, Mental Healthcare Act, 2017Noted as recognising the right to community living and prohibiting prolonged institutionalisation without justification; compliance is part of the monitoring. (¶¶ 18, 27)
- Articles 14, 19 and 21, Constitution of IndiaRead as guaranteeing substantive equality with reasonable accommodation, accessible movement and communication, and a life of dignity for persons with disabilities, especially those institutionalised. (¶¶ 27, 35, 49)
- Article 16(4), Constitution of IndiaContrasted: social reservation under it allows meritorious reserved candidates to move to the unreserved category, a benefit the Court found persons with disabilities are presently denied. (¶¶ 50, 52)
Held
- Disability rights are to be read into Articles 14, 19 and 21: Article 14 requires substantive equality including reasonable accommodation and removal of systemic barriers, Article 19 requires accessible formats, transport and communication, and Article 21 secures dignity as an entitlement; monitoring of institutions must test autonomy, equality and dignity and not mere administrative compliance. (¶ 35)
- The dignity of persons with disabilities, particularly institutionalised persons with high support needs, cannot depend on productivity or capacity; the Court cautioned against framing persons with disabilities as a 'discrete and insular minority' or as 'assets, not liabilities', since equality is anchored in dignity and the right to belong. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- The monitoring panel should apply the full range of international instruments, including the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC and CEDAW, and not only the UNCRPD. (¶ 26)
- Monitoring of all care institutions, State-run or private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities, and of RPwD Act implementation, was entrusted to eight named National Law Universities by region under 'Project Ability Empowerment', together with the Advisory Group Expert Panel, covering resident profiling and care plans, healthcare, exit pathways, accessibility audits, education and vocational training, grievance mechanisms, legal compliance, staffing, transparency, online dashboards and Aadhaar enrolment; these areas are indicative, not exhaustive. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38)
- District Magistrates, District Legal Services Authorities, State departments, State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment must cooperate; Chief Secretaries must designate a Nodal Officer not below Secretary rank; expenses are to be shared equally by the Union department and the State social justice departments, with an interim fund of Rs. 25 lakhs to each NLU. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Denying upward movement to a candidate with disability who scores above the unreserved cut-off amounts to hostile discrimination and defeats the purpose of Section 34; the Union of India must explain what measures it has taken to provide such upward movement, and the same principle must apply to promotions. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53)
Result
IA No. 130117 of 2018 disposed of with directions: monitoring to begin within four weeks and a consolidated report within six months; Union of India to respond on upward movement on 14.10.2025; matters listed on 13.03.2026 to receive the report.