The Delhi High Court set aside an order of the Special Court dated 15.12.2025 which had dismissed a complaint under Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), holding that the lower court erred by considering only allegations from 2012 and ignoring continued acts of harassment after the Act's commencement in April 2017. The Court emphasized that complaints under the RPwD Act must be evaluated comprehensively, particularly when allegations include incidents occurring after the statute came into force, to determine if such acts constitute 'atrocities' under the legislation.
Background & Facts
The Parties and Marriage
The petitioner, Vikas Gupta, is a person with 86% permanent locomotor disability. He married respondent No. 1, Ranjana Agarwal alias Gupta, on 14.04.2012. However, the parties have been living separately since 08.05.2012, having cohabited for barely a month. Both parties have been involved in multiple litigations, including a divorce decree passed by the Family Court, Lucknow on 21.08.2020 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which remains pending in appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
Allegations of Harassment and Disability-Based Abuse
The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 and her family members (mother, sisters, and brothers-in-law, collectively respondents No. 2 to 6) subjected him to harassment, humiliation, and intimidation on account of his disability. Specific allegations included:
- Being informed of a wrong date of birth for his wife (actual: 25.11.1977; stated in her biodata: 25.11.1987)
- Forced marriage without consent, with respondent No. 1 refusing to consummate the marriage
- Respondent No. 1 repeatedly addressing him as "langda" and stating "langde se shaadi karne ke baad meri zindagi kharab ho gayi"
- Mother of respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 2) visiting his house on 05.05.2012 for four days, after which respondent No. 1 left his company on 08.05.2012 taking all valuables and stridhan to her parental home in Lucknow
- Telephonic threats by respondents No. 2 to 6 after reaching Lucknow, demanding payment of Rs. 16 lakh or facing false dowry cases
- Scene created by respondents No. 2 to 6 at the petitioner's house on 29-30.07.2012, taking away remaining dowry articles
- Consistent passing of adverse remarks on his disability to cause mental pain
- Threats by respondent No. 1 that her influential brothers-in-law (jijas) would "teach him a lesson"
- Contacting police at his office to inquire about him
The Complaint and Police Proceedings
The petitioner filed a written complaint dated 04.10.2025 with the Station House Office, Police Station Seema Puri, Delhi (Annexure-2), alleging:
- Insulting, abusing, and passing adverse remarks on his disability by respondents in the presence of relatives and friends with the sole motive to extort money
- Visiting his office and neighborhood, and in-laws' house to malign reputation, goodwill, and image
- Making false complaints in writing, verbal, telephonically, and by visiting his employer to damage career prospects
- Writing defamatory letters to his employer to wreck personal vendetta and terminate services
- Calling him "langra" to cause mental agony
Additionally, the petitioner filed the subject complaint dated 10.11.2025 before the learned Special Court constituted under Section 84 of the RPwD Act, seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against respondents for insulting and humiliating him on account of his disability under Section 92 read with Section 84 of the RPwD Act.
Procedural History Before Special Court
- 10.11.2025: Subject complaint filed before Special Court under RPwD Act, 2016
- 15.12.2025: Learned Special Court dismissed the complaint (impugned order)
Revision Petition and Current Proceedings
- 12.01.2026: Notice issued in the revision petition
- 07.04.2026: Learned counsel for respondents entered appearance, sought time to file vakalatnama
- 07.04.2026: Parties referred to mediation with consent
- 20.05.2026: Mediation report placed before Court (noted "one of the Parties was not interested in the matter of mediation proceedings")
- 03.07.2026, 01.09.2026, 18.09.2026: Respondents remained unrepresented
- 09.03.2026: Affidavit of service filed by petitioner's counsel
- 18.09.2026: Judgment reserved
- 13.10.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Special Court erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 92 of the RPwD Act, 2016 by confining its consideration to allegations allegedly dating back to 2012 and failing to evaluate specific allegations of continued harassment occurring after the Act's commencement on 19.04.2017, particularly the incident on 05.07.2025 and ongoing acts such as office visits and defamatory letters to the employer, thereby not assessing whether such post-enactment conduct constitutes 'atrocities' under the statute.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that although the harassment commenced in 2012, it continued well after the RPwD Act came into force on 19.04.2017. He specifically drew attention to the police complaint dated 04.10.2025 and averred that even after filing the subject complaint, the respondents persisted in visiting the petitioner's office, writing defamatory letters to his employer to wreck his personal vendetta and terminate his services. He argued that acts committed after April 2017, such as the incident on 05.07.2025 where respondent No. 1, her mother, and sister created a scene at the house of the petitioner's married sister, would fall within the ambit of the RPwD Act as they occurred post-commencement.
For the Respondent
Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae and later for the respondents, submitted that the alleged acts dated back to 2012, prior to the enactment of the RPwD Act in 2016, and therefore fell outside its purview. She further contended that the petitioner had failed to provide specific particulars of the alleged incidents in his complaint, rendering it vague and generic, and that the Special Court was justified in dismissing it as an afterthought and an abuse of process given the long lapse of time and the parties' divorced status.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 was unsustainable as it failed to consider the complaint comprehensively. It noted that the Special Court had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that all allegations pertained only to the year 2012, despite clear averments in the complaint regarding continued acts, including a specific allegation of an incident on 05.07.2025. The Court emphasized that the RPwD Act, 2016 is intended to protect vulnerable sections of society from harassment on the ground of disability, and any evaluation of a complaint under Section 92 must consider the entirety of the allegations, particularly when they include incidents occurring after the statute's commencement.
"The learned Special Court has proceeded on the basis that all the allegations levelled by the petitioner relate to the year 2012. However, there were clear allegations of continued acts on the part of the respondents, including a specific allegation of an incident on 05.07.2025."
The Court found the Special Court's approach perfunctory and unjustifiable for ignoring annexures and specific details in the complaint, such as the police complaint dated 04.10.2025 and the allegation of respondents visiting the office to write defamatory letters to the employer. It stressed that to the extent the Special Court considered the complaint devoid of specific particulars, further details could have been called for, including by recording pre-summoning evidence. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the present petition and would not influence the Special Court's decision upon remand or be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 and remanded the proceedings to the learned Special Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail such remedy as may be available in law, including by instituting a fresh complaint if so advised. The petition was disposed of, with the Court making clear that its observations were only for deciding the present petition and would not affect the Special Court's proceedings on remand.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Timing Is Critical: Post-Enactment Conduct Falls Within RPwD Act Ambito
Practitioners must ensure that complaints under the RPwD Act, 2016 specifically allege and prove acts occurring after the Act's commencement date (19.04.2017) to bring them squarely within the statute's ambit. The judgment confirms that pre-enactment conduct alone may not suffice, but a mixture of pre- and post-enactment acts requires comprehensive evaluation, with post-enactment acts being independently actionable under Section 92 if they constitute 'atrocities'.
Comprehensive Consideration of Complaints Is Non-Negotiable
Courts and tribunals must evaluate disability harassment complaints holistically, refusing to compartmentalize allegations by time period when the complaint presents a continuum of conduct. Key takeaways:
- Ignore specific averments of continued harassment (e.g., office visits, defamatory letters to employer) at peril of having the order set aside
- Vagueness allegations can be cured by calling for particulars or directing pre-summoning evidence recording
- The statute's purpose to protect vulnerable sections demands a contextual reading of the complaint in its entirety
Remand Does Not Prejudice Merits or Influence Reconsideration
The judgment establishes a vital procedural safeguard: observations made while setting aside an order and remanding for fresh consideration are strictly confined to deciding the present petition and cannot be:
- Cited as binding on the lower court during reconsideration
- Construed as the appellate court's opinion on the case's merits
- Used to prejudice the parties' rights in subsequent proceedings
This preserves the integrity of the remand process and ensures the lower court applies the law afresh without appellate interference on substantive findings.
