Topic
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, establishes legal protections and affirmative rights for persons with disabilities in employment, education, and public services under Indian law.
The Calcutta High Court set aside HPCL’s withdrawal of LOI and forfeiture of ₹20,000 deposit, holding it violated RPWD Act 2016’s reasonable accommodation and directing reconsideration of petitioner request to substitute a disabled applicant in 8 weeks.
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam rules that transfers issued as disciplinary action-without formal proceedings-violate service law principles. The judgment reinforces that administrative grounds cannot mask punitive intent, protecting employees from arbitrary relocations under the guise of routine transfers.
Himachal Pradesh High Court invalidated the state recruitment law for violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, directing regularization of disabled employees from their original appointment date. The ruling reinforces the supremacy of central disability rights legislation over conflicting state laws, impacting all similarly placed employees.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that transferring a teacher with permanent locomotor disability to a location exacerbating his physical hardship violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The judgment mandates that public employers must prioritize accommodation over administrative convenience, setting a critical precedent for disability-inclusive public service policies.
Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces that unfilled vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act must be carried forward to succeeding recruitment years. If no suitable candidate is found, interchange among the five disability categories is mandatory before appointing a non-disabled person. The ruling ensures statutory compliance with reservation provisions and protects employment rights of disabled candidates.
The Delhi High Court holds that requiring physically present IHBAS medical evaluations for severely incapacitated patients violates the RPWD Act’s mandate of reasonable accommodation. Private treating doctors’ reports must be accepted as legally sufficient, ensuring dignity and access to justice for those with irreversible cognitive and physical disabilities.
The Supreme Court has mandated that every prison in India must implement accessible infrastructure, provide assistive devices, and ensure inclusive education for prisoners with benchmark disabilities under Section 89 of the RPwD Act, 2016. It also requires independent, accessible grievance redressal systems and enhanced visitation rights, transforming custodial rights from aspirational to enforceable constitutional obligations.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that disciplinary proceedings under Section 91 of the RPwD Act cannot be initiated based on a disputed disability assessment unless the individual is first re-evaluated by PGI.M.E.R. This establishes a due process safeguard for government employees, ensuring no punitive action can proceed without an independent, authoritative medical review.
Chhattisgarh High Court reinforces that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, only designated Medical Boards-not revenue officers-have the authority to assess or invalidate disability certificates. Retrospective invalidation based on subsequent medical tests violates natural justice and jurisdictional limits, protecting persons with disabilities from arbitrary administrative actions.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that disability certificates issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 carry statutory validity and need not be proved by examining the issuing doctor unless their genuineness is specifically disputed. This streamlines compensation claims in motor accident cases by reducing evidentiary burdens on claimants.
Calcutta High Court rules that a valid disability certificate issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, cannot be disregarded by a general medical fitness assessment for government jobs. The court emphasized that appointment cannot be denied based on perceived disability percentage if a statutory certificate exists, reinforcing the primacy of statutory certification in public employment.
Supreme Court rules that the 2021 DEPwD notification explicitly includes mental illness and specific learning disability under the RPwD Act's reservation for Group C Auditor posts, invalidating administrative exclusions. The judgment mandates appointment or creation of supernumerary posts if vacancies are filled, reinforcing disability rights in public employment.
Kerala High Court dismisses review petitions filed by State Government, holding that review cannot reargue merits already decided in writ appeals under CPC.
Kerala High Court holds that persons with benchmark disabilities cannot claim dual reservation in promotion and transfer quotas under RPwD Act, 2016. Clarifies statutory interpretation of Section 34.