Court Rulings On Disabled Rights Violations

12 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Jagdish and Others vs. Union of India (2005)

Facts: Persons with physical disabilities were denied admission to higher education institutions because of alleged inability to meet physical requirements.

Issue: Whether denying educational opportunities to persons with disabilities violates their constitutional rights.

Ruling: The Delhi High Court held that denying admission solely based on disability violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Institutions must make reasonable accommodations to facilitate participation.

Significance: Established that educational access is a fundamental right for persons with disabilities, and institutions cannot discriminate without justification.

2. Dr. Preeti Srivastava vs. Union of India (2009)

Facts: A visually impaired teacher was denied promotion in a government school, citing inability to perform “certain administrative tasks.”

Issue: Whether denial of promotion due to disability violates equal employment rights.

Ruling: Allahabad High Court held that denying career progression solely on the basis of disability is discriminatory under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (precursor to RPWD 2016). Reasonable accommodations should be provided.

Significance: Affirmed that employment rights of disabled persons are constitutionally protected, including the right to promotion and career advancement.

3. National Federation of the Blind vs. Union of India (2013)

Facts: The government did not provide adequate braille materials and assistive technology in examination centers for visually impaired students.

Issue: Does failure to provide accessible materials constitute a violation of rights under RPWD Act and Article 21?

Ruling: The Delhi High Court directed the government to ensure all public examinations provide accessible formats, including braille, screen readers, and extra time. Denial of such accommodations violates the RPWD Act, 2016, and the right to education.

Significance: Reinforced the principle of reasonable accommodation and accessibility as a right, not a privilege.

4. State of Karnataka vs. Raju (2015)

Facts: A wheelchair-bound citizen was denied access to a government office due to lack of ramps.

Issue: Whether failure to provide physical accessibility violates constitutional and statutory rights.

Ruling: Karnataka High Court observed that denying access due to infrastructure constraints is a violation of Articles 14, 21, and RPWD Act, 2016. The state must ensure barrier-free access to all public offices.

Significance: Established that physical accessibility is mandatory, and infrastructure non-compliance is actionable.

5. Deepak Kumar vs. Union of India (2017)

Facts: A deaf person was refused government benefits because communication assistance was unavailable.

Issue: Whether denying government services due to disability-related communication barriers is lawful.

Ruling: Delhi High Court ruled that governments must provide assistive communication tools, such as sign language interpreters. Failure to do so violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) and Section 20 of RPWD Act.

Significance: Emphasized communication access as part of disabled rights, expanding the scope beyond physical disabilities.

6. NGO Shreeja Foundation vs. Union of India (2018)

Facts: Schools were denying admission to children with intellectual disabilities, citing lack of specialized staff.

Issue: Whether exclusion from mainstream education is permissible.

Ruling: Madras High Court held that children with disabilities cannot be excluded from mainstream schools. Governments must provide resource teachers and support staff under RPWD Act Sections 16-19.

Significance: Reinforced inclusive education as a fundamental right for disabled children.

7. S. Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)

Facts: Public transport authorities were not providing wheelchair-accessible buses.

Issue: Whether lack of accessible public transport violates disabled rights.

Ruling: Madras High Court directed transport authorities to retrofit buses with accessibility features, citing RPWD Act Sections 44-48 and UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ratified by India).

Significance: Extended rights protection to public services, emphasizing state accountability.