# Reena Banerjee and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1101
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/reena-banerjee-and-another-v-government-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others-38730
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

The present case concerns the implementation of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with the prolonged
institutionalisation. The lack of access to education, health, and
community life for persons residing in State-run care institution/
homes, must be viewed through the expansive constitutional lens.
Whether the institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality,
and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the
Indian Constitution.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Appointment
of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru,
to undertake a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care
institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities -
Directions issued:
Held: The monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of
the "Project Ability Empowerment" and shall be undertaken by eight
National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union
Territories, as under: 1) National Law School of India University,
Bengaluru, covering the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
and Andhra Pradesh and Union Territories of Puducherry and
Lakshadweep Islands; 2) National Law University, Delhi, covering
the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh; 3) Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Punjab, covering the States of Punjab,
Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Union Territories of
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; 4) National Law University, Jodhpur,
covering the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat and Union Territory
of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; 5) National Law
* Author
856
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
University and Judicial Academy, Assam, covering the States of
Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur,
and Mizoram; 6) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,
Lucknow, covering the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh; 7) West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences, Kolkata, covering the States of West Bengal, Sikkim,
Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha and Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands; 8) Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai,
covering the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Telangana - These
institutions, in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and
other experts associated with the present report, shall undertake
extensive monitoring of all care institutions, whether state-run or
private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities - The monitoring
shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD
Act. [Para 36]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention
to certain key areas such as Resident Profiling, Care and
Rehabilitation:
Held: i) A comprehensive mapping of residents should be
undertaken, covering each individual residing in institutions for
persons with cognitive disabilities - The purpose of individualised
profiling is to facilitate better care planning, identify residents who
no longer require institutional care, and develop feasible exit or
reintegration strategies wherever appropriate - In this context, the
preparation of an Individual Care Plan, on the lines contemplated
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, may be considered for the 'Project Ability Empowerment' to
ensure that care and rehabilitation are tailored to the unique needs of
each resident; ii) Due consideration must be paid to the availability,
adequacy, and regularity of healthcare and therapeutic services
provided/available within these institutions - The monitoring group
should document whether residents have access to general health
check-ups, emergency medical services, psychiatric consultations,
and therapeutic interventions, including physiotherapy, occupational
therapy, and speech therapy - Special consideration sho

## Text

_Characters 0–39,793 of 91,384. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39793 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 855 : 2025 INSC 1101
Reena Banerjee and Another
v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
(I.A. No. 130117 of 2018)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016)
12 September 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present case concerns the implementation of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with the prolonged
institutionalisation. The lack of access to education, health, and
community life for persons residing in State-run care institution/
homes, must be viewed through the expansive constitutional lens.
Whether the institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality,
and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the
Indian Constitution.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Appointment
of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru,
to undertake a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care
institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities -
Directions issued:
Held: The monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of
the "Project Ability Empowerment" and shall be undertaken by eight
National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union
Territories, as under: 1) National Law School of India University,
Bengaluru, covering the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
and Andhra Pradesh and Union Territories of Puducherry and
Lakshadweep Islands; 2) National Law University, Delhi, covering
the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh; 3) Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Punjab, covering the States of Punjab,
Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Union Territories of
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; 4) National Law University, Jodhpur,
covering the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat and Union Territory
of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; 5) National Law
* Author
856
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
University and Judicial Academy, Assam, covering the States of
Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur,
and Mizoram; 6) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,
Lucknow, covering the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh; 7) West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences, Kolkata, covering the States of West Bengal, Sikkim,
Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha and Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands; 8) Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai,
covering the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Telangana - These
institutions, in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and
other experts associated with the present report, shall undertake
extensive monitoring of all care institutions, whether state-run or
private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities - The monitoring
shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD
Act. [Para 36]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention
to certain key areas such as Resident Profiling, Care and
Rehabilitation:
Held: i) A comprehensive mapping of residents should be
undertaken, covering each individual residing in institutions for
persons with cognitive disabilities - The purpose of individualised
profiling is to facilitate better care planning, identify residents who
no longer require institutional care, and develop feasible exit or
reintegration strategies wherever appropriate - In this context, the
preparation of an Individual Care Plan, on the lines contemplated
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, may be considered for the 'Project Ability Empowerment' to
ensure that care and rehabilitation are tailored to the unique needs of
each resident; ii) Due consideration must be paid to the availability,
adequacy, and regularity of healthcare and therapeutic services
provided/available within these institutions - The monitoring group
should document whether residents have access to general health
check-ups, emergency medical services, psychiatric consultations,
and therapeutic interventions, including physiotherapy, occupational
therapy, and speech therapy - Special consideration should be
given to the use and review of psychiatric medications, and whether
treatment plans are personalised and subject to periodic professional
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
857
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
review; iii) The monitoring shall study exit pathways and mechanisms
for community integration - This includes efforts made by the
institution to trace families of residents, assess the possibility of
family reunification, prepare aftercare plans, and facilitate transfer
to community-based alternatives such as group homes, supported
living arrangements, or foster care. [Para 37(i)(ii)(iii)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention
to certain key areas such as Accessibility, Infrastructure and
Education:
Held: 1) The exercise must include a detailed accessibility and
infrastructure audit - This shall involve evaluating the physical
environment of the institutions, including living quarters, bathrooms,
recreational areas, kitchens, and corridors, in light of the
Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility -
This audit should also examine accessibility of transport to and
from the institution, and whether appropriate assistive technologies
and mobility aids are available and in working condition;
2) The monitoring should assess the educational and vocational
opportunities available to residents, including children and adults -
The exercise must record whether school-aged children are enrolled
in nearby schools, be it mainstream, special, or National Institute of
Open Schooling with institutional support, and whether adults have
access to skill training or life skills education - The availability of
teaching staff, curriculum delivery methods, accessibility of learning
materials, and integration of recreational or creative learning
opportunities must be evaluated. [Para 37(iv)(v)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Rights, Protection and Compliance:
Held: 1) The concerned team members of the 'Project Ability
Empowerment' shall examine institutional policies and grievance
redressal mechanisms, including whether residents are aware of
and able to exercise their rights, and whether there are systems in
place for receiving, addressing, and following up on complaints of
858
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
abuse, neglect, or rights violations - This should include a review of
the policy on use of restraints, behaviour management strategies,
and access to legal aid; 2) The monitoring exercise must include
a review of compliance with legal and policy mandates, including
past directions of this Court and provisions of the RPwD Act and
the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - This should cover aspects such
as appointment of protection officers, registration of institutions
under the RPwD Act, and adherence to inspection protocols.
[Para 37(vi)(vii)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Staffing, Resources and Institutional
Accountability:
Held: 1) Due Attention must be given to resource availability,
particularly the strength, training, and qualifications of caregiving
and professional staff - The concerned team of the 'Project Ability
Empowerment' shall examine the staffing ratios, working hours,
payment structures, and professional support provided to doctors,
nurses, therapists, and other personnel - Recommendations on
staff enhancement, training modules, and financial allocations
may also be drawn from this data; 2) The report must review
the institution's data systems, transparency mechanisms, and
public accountability - This includes examining the systems for
resident record-keeping, maintaining of medical files, publication
of inspection reports, and compliance with obligations to report to
statutory authorities - The availability of public information and
responsiveness to RTI applications, or other information requests,
should also be noted. [Para 37(viii)(ix)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Documentation and Welfare Access:
Held: 1) The 'Project Ability Empowerment' team, after assessing
the feasibility and rationale, may consider recommending that all
State-run institutions housing persons with disabilities maintain
an official online presence, including a dedicated website with an
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
859
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
institutional dashboard - Such a dashboard shall provide essential
information regarding the institution's functioning, facilities, staffing,
and compliance with applicable legal standards, while strictly
upholding the privacy and confidentiality rights of all residents; 2)
While undertaking the monitoring and assessment exercise, the
concerned team members of the 'Project Ability Empowerment'
shall also examine the feasibility and steps required to ensure that
all persons with disabilities residing in State-run care institutions,
such as Asha Kiran Home and similar facilities, are duly enrolled
under the Aadhaar scheme - Many residents continue to lack
Aadhaar Card and other essential identity documentation, resulting
in exclusion from welfare schemes and social security benefits -
The monitoring team may assess the institutional mechanisms
necessary for on-site enrolment, coordination with the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), and the appointment of
nodal officers to facilitate documentation. [Para 37(x)(xi)]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.34 - The
aspect of the reservation to persons with disabilities under
the RPwD Act - Positive interpretation of 'reservation':
Held: The constitutional mandate of substantive equality, as
embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21, requires a nuanced and contextsensitive approach which not only removes systemic barriers
but also ensures that affirmative action measures are applied
in a manner that truly benefits those for whom they are actually
intended - In furtherance of this objective, and in order to ensure
that the mandate of Section 34 is implemented in its true spirit -
It is essential to address a very important facet of reservation to
the persons with disabilities and the grave discrimination being
faced by them - The latter category of persons is entitled to
social reservation u/Art. 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which
provides an upward movement in case the person belonging to
such reserved category performs well in the evaluation process
and stands higher in merit above the cut-off for the unreserved
category - Such a meritorious candidate would automatically move
up to the unreserved category, thereby leaving the reserved seat
vacant to be occupied by a candidate from the reserved category
who scored less in the evaluation process - It is a matter of grave
concern that the same treatment is not provided to persons with
disabilities protected under the RPwD Act, who, in spite of standing
860
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
higher in merit, are denied such upward movement - This defeats
the very purpose of reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act -
Having regard to the above, this Court considers it appropriate to
require the Union of India to explain whether appropriate measures
have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious
candidates applying against the post/s reserved for persons with
disabilities, in case such candidate secures more than the cut-off
for the unreserved category - The same principle must also be
applied to promotions. [Paras 49, 50, 51, 53]
Case Law Cited
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India [2017] 12 SCR 827 : Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 243 of 2005; Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service
Commission [2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370; Kabir
Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1025 - relied on.
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638 : (2016) 7 SCC
761; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 :
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [2006]
Supp. 7 SCR 336 : (2006) 8 SCC 212 - referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Nationwide monitoring of all
State-run care institutions; Cognitive disabilities; Project Ability
Empowerment; National Law School of India University; Resident
Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation; Accessibility, Infrastructure and
Education; Rights, Protection and Compliance; Staffing, Resources
and Institutional Accountability; Documentation and Welfare
Access; Reservation to persons with disabilities under the RPwD
Act; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD); Convention on Rights of Child (CRC).
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
861
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 130117
of 2018
In
Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2012 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 8229 of 2011
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Manik Gupta, Satya Mitra, Ms. Manali
Singhal, Santosh Sachin, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. Aanchal Kapur,
Deepak Singh Rawat, Tejasvi Kumar, Ambar Qamaruddin.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ms. S. Pathak, Anil Shrivastav, Alok
Sangwan, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.Gs.,
Prashant Kumar, D. S. Mahra, Gulshan Kumar Bajwa, Nirnimesh
Dube, Ms. Meenakshi S. Kamble, Amit Kumar Chawla, Mahi
Pal Singh, Varun Varma, Ms. Manisha Chawla, Zawed Raza,
Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Ashok Kumar Singh, Aman Prasad,
Milind Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Raju Sonkar, Arjun
Garg, Shibashish Misra, Ms. Sushma Suri, Praveen Swarup,
Manvinder Singh, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha,
Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Charan Jeet Sidhu, Ms. Yamini Sharma,
T. V. George, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Shree Pal
Singh, Abhishek Chaudhary, C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose,
Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ashok Mathur, Abhijit Sengupta, Ramesh Babu
M. R., P. V. Yogeswaran, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh,
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan Dutta, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ms. Diksha Rai, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat Wali, V. N.
Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli,
Prakash Jadhav, Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan, Ashwini Kumar,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal,
Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Vishal Agrawal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Anuvrat Sharma, R.R.Rajesh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Amit Sharma-b,
Ms.Rekha Pandey, Saransh Kumar, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, M.K.
862
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Maroria, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Jagjit
Singh Chhabra, G. Prakash, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Kanu Agrawal,
Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vinayak Sharma, Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, Harish Pandey, Shashwat Parihar, Shreekant
Neelappa Terdal, K. V. Mohan, Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Avni Shrivastav,
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, R. Sathish, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, M/s K J John
And Co, Ms. Diva Singh, Devendra Singh, Avinash Poddar, Ankit,
Sudarshan Lamba, Aaditya Dixit, Saransh Kumar, Gopal Singh,
Satish Vig, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Upendra
Mishra, P.S. Negi, T.k. Nayak, Aditya S. Pandey, Aditya Kumar,
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna,
Narendra Kumar, Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Sarthak Raizada Ga, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Shashank Shekhar,
Siddhant Sharma, Ms. Osheen Bhat, Kunal Mimani, Abhinav
Rana, Shantanu Sagar, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Mrs. Divya
Mishra, Ashish K Singh, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,
Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti Saraf,
Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Ms. Rachna Gandhi,
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee,
Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Abhiram Bannur, Pusa
Mallesh, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal,
Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Raghvendra
Kumar, Karan Sharma, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Aswathi M.k.,
T. R. B. Sivakumar, K. V. Vijayakumar, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri,
Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gowtham
Polanki, Sewa Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms.
Pooja Singh, Ms. Astha Sharma, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi
Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Gaurang Bhushan, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit
Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Shikhar Narwal, S. Som, Aman
Dev Sharma, Fateh Singh, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Aman Gautam,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Manish Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Manish
Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Ms. Shalini Singh, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Sahil
Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam
Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Sewa Singh, Ms. Sugandha Anand,
Bhargava Ravikumar, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Rushab
Aggarwal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan,
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
863
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Ashwini Kumar, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Pooja
Singh, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Aman Gautam, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D. Singh,
Ms. Aswathi M.k., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Guntur
Prabhakar, Shree Pal Singh, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Kanu Agrawal,
Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vineet Singh, Vinayak
Sharma, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Harish Pandey, Shashwat Parihar,
Vinayak Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, T. R. B. Sivakumar,
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
IA NO(S). 130117 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11938 OF 2016
Table of Contents*
A. Introduction .........................................................................
3
B. Background .........................................................................
7
I.
Writ Petition ..................................................................
8
II. Special Leave Petition (Now Civil Appeal) ................ 13
D. Advisory Group Expert Panel Report and its
Recommendations............................................................... 19
E. International Legal Framework on Disability Rights and
Accessibility.......................................................................... 29
F
Indian Framework on Disability Rights and
Accessibility ........................................................................ 34
G. Direction(s) and Conclusion: - .......................................... 46
Part I. Resident Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation ......... 49
Part II. Accessibility, Infrastructure and Education ........ 51
Part III. Rights, Protection and Compliance .................... 53
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
864
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Part IV: Staffing, Resources and Institutional
Accountability ..................................................................... 54
Part V. Documentation and Welfare Access .................... 55
Part VI. Reservation ............................................................ 60
A.
Introduction
1.
Disability represents a fundamental aspect of human diversity that
transcends medical definitions to encompass critical questions of
constitutional democracy and social justice. The concept of disability
exposes the gap between constitutional promises and lived reality.
When legal systems treat disability as a medical problem requiring
accommodation rather than a form of human diversity deserving equal
participation, they expose their own weaknesses and limitations.
Rather than viewing disability as a deficit requiring correction, the
law must recognise it as a lens that reveals the true nature of legal,
social, and institutional frameworks, illuminating whether they embrace
human diversity or create barriers that exclude certain members of
society, i.e., those who have been discriminated against by providence
or those who have suffered the disability factor during their lifetime.
2.
The experiences of persons with disabilities demonstrate whether
democratic institutions genuinely serve all citizens or whether they
are designed around narrow assumptions about human capacity
and participation. The principle of accessibility and reasonable
accommodation emerges as a fundamental constitutional principle,
not merely a technical requirement, but a measure of democratic
inclusivity that determines whether all citizens can exercise their
constitutional rights meaningfully. When physical spaces, digital
platforms, information systems, procedural frameworks, and
public hiring lack accessibility, they effectively deny constitutional
guarantees of equal participation to persons with disabilities. The
absence of accessible design in public institutions, judicial processes,
educational systems, and civic spaces constitutes a systemic barrier
that transforms constitutional rights into hollow promises. When
systems fail to prioritise accessibility from their inception, they reveal
fundamental flaws in their conception of citizenship and equality.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
865
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
3.
The jurisprudential understanding of disability rights in India and
around the world has evolved beyond traditional medical models
to the social model, encompassing broader questions of equality,
accessibility, and institutional design that strike at the heart of
constitutional governance. The lived experiences of persons with
disabilities within legal systems serve as a litmus test for constitutional
democracy, raising questions if our institutions are structured to
facilitate meaningful participation by all citizens or whether they
maintain barriers that effectively deny constitutional rights to persons
with disabilities.
4.
The present litigation arises from two cases, one a Writ Petition
instituted in 1998 and another a Special Leave Petition filed in
2012 [Later, Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016], seeking directions to
ensure comprehensive implementation of the statutory framework by
the Government of States and Union Territories under the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 19951 and protection of the persons with cognitive
disability2 in a government-run care institution, respectively. On 26th
March 2014, this Court rendered a judgment in the Writ Petition,
issuing directions to all the States and Union Territories to ensure full
implementation of the 1995 Act. Likewise, on 8th December, 2018,
this Court, in the Civil Appeal, issued directions to all the States and
Union Territories for the protection of persons with cognitive disability
in State-run institutions all over the country. The Court appointed an
Advisory Group Expert Panel and other Experts to assess the situation
on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with
accessibility standards for PWDs. The States and Union Territories
have filed their Compliance Reports. We shall consider the Report
submitted by the Advisory Group Expert Panel and other Experts
and delineate upon the next steps to be taken.
5.
In the present matter, this Court is called upon not merely to adjudicate
upon the rights of persons with disabilities, but to uphold and advance
the constitutional vision of an inclusive society that recognizes every
individual, regardless of their disability, as an equal participant in
1
Hereinafter referred to as '1995 Act.'
2
"Cognitive disabilities" herein is used as an umbrella term that refers to a broad range of conditions that
include intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, severe, persistent mental illness, brain injury,
stroke, and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
866
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the nation's civic, cultural, economic, and constitutional framework.
This judicial responsibility extends beyond the immediate parties to
encompass the broader constitutional obligation to ensure that the
promise of equality and dignity reaches all citizens. We now proceed to
examine the specific facts giving rise to the present proceedings, the
contentions advanced by the parties, and the appropriate directions
necessary to vindicate the constitutional guarantees and ensure
compliance with statutory obligations.
B.
Background
6.
The present litigation undertaken in the public interest, encompassing
two petitions, was instituted to seek judicial intervention for
addressing systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities,
ensuring enforcement of statutory safeguards, and facilitating the
effective realization of constitutional guarantees such as equality,
non-discrimination, and dignity. At the time of its institution, the
applicable legal framework was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
However, during the course of the proceedings, the law underwent an
overhaul with the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 20163, which now governs the field.
I.
Writ Petition
7.
The Petitioner, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, is a charitable
trust and a non-governmental organisation working for the promotion
of human rights, gender justice, and persons with disabilities. In
1998, the Foundation instituted a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No.116/1998]
before this Court seeking the implementation of the provisions of the
1995 Act. The prayers made in the petition included: (i) a direction
for effective implementation of the 1995 Act; (ii) a mandate for
reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties
and colleges of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the
1995 Act; and (iii) a declaration that the denial of appointment to
persons with visual disability in such identified posts, violates their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15, read with
Article 41 of the Constitution of India.
3
Hereinafter referred to as 'RPwD Act.'
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
867
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
8.
In its judgment dated 26th March 2014, delivered by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice (then) R.M. Lodha, this Court unequivocally provided that
the 1995 Act must not remain a mere paper enactment, but must be
implemented in both letter and spirit. The Court criticised the continued
inaction and lethargy in its implementation on the part of the Union,
the State Governments, Union Territories, and other authorities, even
18 years (approximately) after the 1995 Act had been enacted. The
judgment underlined that as a welfare state, our democracy must
adopt a liberal and proactive approach in addressing the needs of
persons with disability and ensure their equal opportunity and dignity.
The Court mandated all concerned authorities of the Union of India
and all the States and Union Territories, and other relevant authorities
to fully implement the 1995 Act, including the reservation provisions
under Section 33 of the 1995 Act, by the end of 2014. The Union
of India, along with all States and Union Territories, was directed to
file compliance affidavits, and the matter was deferred for receiving
the compliance report. However, a majority of the States and Union
Territories failed to furnish the requisite data and did not submit their
compliance affidavits within the stipulated timeframe.
9.
This Court issued several orders, from time to time, directing the
States and Union Territories to provide the requisite information with
details of the status of implementation and compliance. This Court
vide Order dated 6th March 2020, noted that some of the States had
partially complied, whereas many others remained non-compliant
with the provisions of the RPwD Act. This Court directed all the State
Governments to file their respective compliance affidavit.
10. On 3rd December, 2024, when the matter was placed before the
Court, it was noted that all the States and Union Territories had
purportedly filed their affidavits. However, upon careful consideration
of the summary chart, it emerged that several States and Union
Territories in fact had failed to either file the requisite affidavits or
were deficient. The Court took strong exception to this discrepancy
and opined that such a lackadaisical approach towards compliance
with statutory mandate and judicial directions was wholly unacceptable
and demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards the administration
of justice. The relevant observations from the above order are
reproduced hereinbelow: -
"In course of today's deliberation, it is noted that there is
no participation by the learned counsel from the States/
868
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Union Territories of Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu & Kashmir.
The chart indicates that Andaman & Nicobar Island,
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Lakshadweep, Odisha,
Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand,
have fully complied with the provisions of the Act. For those
States which have failed to comply partly, the deficient
measures are indicated in the chart section-wise. The
learned counsel representing these States and Union
Territories accordingly assure that necessary steps for full
compliance of the provisions of the Act will be done and
the process would be supervised.
In her turn, Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the States/Union Territories should
have a designated Nodal Officer to be nominated by the
Chief Secretary, to ensure complete compliance with the
provisions of the Act.
Having regard to the above, the deficient States/Union
Territories are granted time until 17.02.2025 to file their
respective response/affidavits, on the further steps
that have been taken for complete compliance of the
provisions of the Act. To ensure that the process is
effective, the Chief Secretary of each State/Union
Territory will designate a senior officer, to supervise
the process of compliance of the provisions of the
Act, within their respective jurisdiction."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Manifestly, the States and Union Territories were granted a final
opportunity to submit the complete information in the stipulated format
within three weeks. This Court directed that the Chief Secretaries
of States and Union Territories shall designate a senior officer to
supervise the process of compliance with the provisions of the
RPwD Act within their respective jurisdictions, and the lagging States/
Union Territories were granted time until 17th February, 2025 to file
their respective responses/affidavits detailing the further steps that
have been taken for complete compliance with the provisions of the
RPwD Act. This Court also recorded the prayers in an interlocutory
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
869
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
application seeking inter alia, enforcement of mandatory reservation
for persons with visual disabilities in teaching posts and compliance
with the RPwD Act and directions issued by this Court by Central
and State Universities; establishment of a monitoring committee for
disability-inclusive recruitment; and mandatory public disclosure of
reservation rosters on university websites.
II.
Special Leave Petition (Now Civil Appeal)
12. The appellant, Reena Banerjee, filed an Intervention Application in
a disposed of suo moto Writ Petition [W.P. (C) No. 5621 of 2012]
before the High Court of Delhi, concerning the rights of children
with cognitive disability in institutional care, seeking various reliefs
including inquiries into deaths at observation homes, accountability
of authorities, and improvements in conditions. However, the Delhi
High Court directed that the Intervention Application be delinked and
registered as a fresh Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 8229 of 2011]. The
matter focused on the pitiable and pathetic condition at Asha Kiran,
a state-run care institution in New Delhi, for persons with cognitive
disability. The applicant therein, relying on media Reports, highlighted
grave concerns, including overcrowding, inadequate medical care,
and abuse, particularly of female residents in the Asha Kiran Home.
The High Court treated the case non-adversarially and directed
the Delhi Government to take reformative measures. In response,
the Government submitted an action plan including appointing a
medically qualified administrator, setting up a Governing Council
led by a noted social worker, and initiating infrastructural and policy
reforms to address systemic failures and improve the welfare of Asha
Kiran's residents. Aggrieved by the inadequate directions issued by
the Delhi High Court to address the custodial deaths and abuse at
Asha Kiran, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition [now, Civil
Appeal No. 11938 of 2016] before this Court, seeking independent
oversight and effective remedies to ensure accountability and
protection of the residents' rights.
13. By Order dated 10th February, 2015, this Court noted deficiencies
at the Asha Kiran Home for persons with cognitive disability and
directed urgent measures, including vocational training, inclusive
education, and medical care. Recognizing that the deficiencies at
Asha Kiran Home reflected a larger, systemic failure in the care and
treatment of persons with cognitive disability across the country, this
870
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court vide Order dated 26th March, 2015, took a significant step by
impleading the Union of India, all State Governments, and Union
Territories in the matter. The Court emphasized that the provisions
of the 1995 Act, must be uniformly and effectively implemented
nationwide. It stressed that the responsibility to uphold the dignity,
rights, and integration of persons with disabilities lies at all levels of
government, not just the Government of NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, it
directed the concerned authorities, including the Principal Secretaries
of Health and Social Welfare Departments, to respond with concrete
measures to be taken in their jurisdictions and to align with the
broader objective of ensuring equal opportunities and protection for
persons with disabilities throughout the country.
14. By a judgment dated 8th December, 2016, this Court, speaking
through Hon'ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (then), noted the serious
issues highlighted by the appellants, including inadequate medical
care, overcrowding, poor hygiene, and abuse of residents in the
state-run institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities. This Court,
while affirming the directions of the High Court of Delhi regarding the
Asha Kiran Home, implicitly endorsed a model that States and Union
Territories should consider for similar institutions. The Court issued
certain directions to all States and Union Territories in the management
and reform of state-run homes for persons with cognitive disabilities
and other residents. These directions included the appointment
of a competent administrator with a medical and administrative
background to oversee such institutions, and the establishment of a
robust Governing Council comprising experts in rehabilitation, gender
studies, human rights, and social empowerment. The Governing
Council was empowered to make binding decisions for the welfare,
health, and protection of all the residents, and was assigned the task
of decongesting these state-run institutions, facilitating rehabilitation
and restoration of residents to their families or foster care, and
promoting mainstreaming in society wherever possible. The Court
also directed that staff of these state-run institutions be properly
trained and sensitized, infrastructure be upgraded to national and
international standards, and residents be segregated for better care
according to the severity of their disabilities.
15. Additionally, an Advisory Group Expert Panel was to be constituted for
ongoing technical and academic support. The Union of India, along
with all States and Union Territories, was directed to file compliance
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
871
Reena Banerjee and Another v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
affidavits. However, the majority of the States and Union Territories
failed to furnish the requisite information and did not submit their
compliance affidavits within the stipulated timeframe.
16. This Court issued several orders, from time to time, directing the
States and Union Territories to provide the requisite information with
details of the status of completion and compliance Reports. On 13th
August, 2018, when the matter was placed before a three-judge
Bench, it was noted that only three states so far have furnished
the compliance Reports, despite a year having passed. The Court
directed the States/Union Territories to file the compliance Report with
the Central Advisory Board, with a copy to the appellant's counsel.
The relevant observations of the Order dated 13th August, 2018, are
reproduced hereinbelow: -
"Rather than burdening the record of this case with
compliance affidavits from every State and U.T.
Administration, we direct the State Governments and U.
T. Administrations to file a compliance Report with the
Central Advisory Board else well as to the learn. counsel
for the petitioners within three weeks from today as a last
opportunity failing which heavy costs will be imposed.
An agreed statement in the form of a chart should be
placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioners
after going through the compliance Reports so that we
can conveniently consider the issue of compliance of the
order passed by this Court."
Thereafter, vide Order dated 17th September, 2018, the matter was
tagged with the above Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No.116 of 1998].
17. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the Civil Appeal4, the Advisory
Group Expert Panel and other Experts5 submitted their Status Reports
and Recommendations titled "Asha Kiran as Microcosm of What Ails
India's Care Support Structure: Thematic Recommendations." The
Report examines the status quo and suggests time-bound, rights4
Judgment/Order dated 2nd December, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.