1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 292 OF 2006
DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 997 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Three issues are raised in this petition which is filed in public
interest, for the benefit of persons suffering from ‘disabililty’ as per the
definition contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 1995’) which now stands repealed and is
replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’). The first issue related to the
2
non-implementation of 3% reservation of seats in educational institutions
as provided in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 32 of
the Disabilities Act, 2016. Second equally important issue raised in this
petition, which is intimately connected with the first issue, is to provide
proper access to orthopaedic disabled persons so that they are able to
freely move in the educational institution and access the facilities. Third
issue pertains to pedagogy i.e. making adequate provisions and facilities
of teaching for disabled persons, depending upon the nature of their
disability, to enable them to undertake their studies effectively.
We may state at the outset that though the petition as originally
filed had confined these issues only to law colleges. In view of the fact
that these issues are of seminal importance, this Court decided to
extend the coverage by encompassing all educational institutions.
2) As can be discerned from the number assigned to this writ petition, it
was filed in the year 2006 and, thus, is pending for eleven years. The
reason was that this Court has been calling for the status report(s) from
the respondents/Government Authorities from time to time about the
implementation of the Disabilities Act insofar as provisions relating to the
aforesaid aspects are concerned. Since the matter was ripe for passing
final orders and directions, we deemed it proper to hear the counsel for
the parties at length so that the writ petition is disposed of by giving final
directions in this behalf.
3
(I) Re: 3% Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions
3) Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 reads as under:
“Section 39 : All Government educational institutions and
other educational institutions receiving aid from the
Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent
seat for persons with disabilities.”
4) As per this provision, all Government educational institutions as well as
other educational institutions which are receiving aid from the
Government are supposed to reserve seats for the benefit of persons
with disabilities, which reservation shall not be less than 3%. Thus, 3%
of the seats is the minimum reservation and it can be even more than
3%. This provision had come up for discussion before this Court in All
Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of
Kerala1
and the Court issued following directions therein:
“We...hold that Section 39 deals with the reservation of
seats for persons with disabilities in government
educational institutions as well as educational institutions
receiving aid from the government, and necessarily
therefore the provison thereof must be complied with.”
5) Disabilities Act, 2016 makes more exhaustive provisions insofar as
providing of educational facilities to the persons with disabilities is
concerned. Section 31 confers right to free education upon children with
benchmark disabilities who are between the age of 6 to 18 years. This
provision is made notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of
1 2002 (7) Scale 198
4
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 32
makes provisions for reservation in higher educational institutions.
Section 34 provides for reservation in employment. Since, we are
concerned with reservation of seats in educational institutions and as
Section 32 directly deals with the same, we reproduce that provision
hereunder:
“32. (1) All Government institutions of higher education
and other higher education institutions receiving aid from
the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent.
seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given
an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in
institutions of higher education.”
6) The educational institutions covered by this provision are not only the
Government institutions of higher education but all those higher
education institutions which are receiving aid from the Government.
Other pertinent aspect is that the extent of reservation is increased from
3% under Disabilities Act, 1995 to 5% under this Disabilities Act, 2016.
One more important improvement made in Disabilities Act, 2016 over
the earlier Act is that such provisions are made for ‘persons with bench
mark disabilities’. This expression is defined in Section 2(r) which reads
as under:
“Section 2(r) “person with benchmark disability” means a
person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified
disability where specified disability has not been defined
in measurable terms and includes a person with disability
where specified disability has been defined in measurable
5
terms, as certified by the certifying authority.”
7) It, thus, hardly needs to be emphasised that such educational institutions
are bound to reserve seats from persons suffering from disability.
Notwithstanding the same, grievance of the petitioner is that the
educational institutions have not been adhering thereto.
8) No doubt, some progress is made in this behalf after the filing of this
present petition and monitoring of the case by this Court, there is a need
for complying with this provision to full extent. Accordingly, we direct
that all those institutions which are covered by the obligations provided
under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the
provisions of Section 32 while making admission of students in
educational courses of higher education each year. To this end, they
shall submit list of the number of disabled persons admitted in each
course every year to the Chief Commissioner and/or the State
Commissioner (as the case may be). It will also be the duty of the Chief
Commissioner as well as the State Commissioner to enquire as to
whether these educational institutions have fulfilled the aforesaid
obligation. Needless to mention, appropriate consequential action
against those educational institutions, as provided under Section 89 of
the Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as other provisions, shall be initiated
against defaulting institutions.
6
(II) & (III) Re: Provision for accessibility as well as facilities
9) In another judgment pronounced today itself in the case of Rajive
Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2005 with Anr.),
this very Bench has given detailed directions for making appropriate
provisions for accessibility of handicapped persons, though the scope of
that petition was confined to persons suffering from visual impairment.
However, various aspects discussed and directions given for making
suitable provisions in this behalf would benefit persons suffering from
other disabilities as well. Therefore, the position of law discussed in
detail in the said judgment and the directions issued therein need not be
repeated for the sake of brevity. We would, however, recapitulate
following provisions contained in Disabilities Act, 2016:
Section 2(i) - ‘establishment includes a Government establishment and
private establishment”
Section 2(k) - ‘Government establishment’ means a corporation
established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a
body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local
authority or a Government company as defined in section 2 of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes a Department of the
Government.
7
Section 2(v) - “private establishment” means a company, firm,
cooperative or other society, associations, trust, agency, institution,
organisation, union, factory or such other establishment as the
appropriate Government may, by notification, specify; (w) “public
building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by
the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational
purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious,
cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law
enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or
platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways;
Section 2(w) - “public building” means a Government or private building,
used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for
educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities,
public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities,
medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or
judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or
terminus, airports or waterways;
Section 2(zd) - “transportation systems” includes road transport, rail
transport, air transport, water transport, para transit systems for the last
mile connectivity, road and street infrastructure, etc;
8
Section 2(ze) - “universal design” means the design of products,
environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to
the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or
specialised design and shall apply to assistive devices including
advanced technologies for particular group of persons with disabilities.
Section 2(b) - “appropriate Government” means,—
(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or
substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment Board
constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the Central
Government;
(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or
substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other
than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.
Section 16 mandates the appropriate Government and the local
authorities to endeavour that all educational institutions funded or
recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with
disabilities and towards that end shall make buildings, campus and
various facilities accessible.
Section 25(1)(b) mandates the appropriate Government and local
authority to take necessary measures for the persons with disabilities to
9
provide barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private
hospitals and other health care institutions and centres.
Section 40 mandates the Central Government to frame Rules and laying
down the standards of accessibility for physical environment,
transportation system, information & communication system and other
facilities & services to be provided to the public in urban and rural areas.
Rule 15 deals with accessibility standards for public buildings, passenger
bus transport and information and communication technology. As
regards public buildings, the accessibility standards prescribed under the
Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built
environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by
Ministry of Urban Development have been adopted. This implies that all
the public buildings are now required to conform to these standards.
10) It hardly needs to be emphasised that Disabilities Act is premised
on the fundamental idea that society creates the barriers and oppressive
structures which impede the capacities of person with disabilities.
Capability theorists like Martha Nussbaum are of the opinion that there
cannot be a different set of capacities or a different threshold of
capabilities for persons with disabilities. This raises the critical issue of
creating a level playing field whereby all citizens to have equality of fair
opportunities to enable them to realise their full potential and experience
10
well-being. To ensure the level playing field, it is not only essential to
give necessary education to the persons suffering from the disability, it is
also imperative to see that such education is imparted to them in a
fruitful manner. That can be achieved only if there is proper accessibility
to the buildings where the educational institution is housed as well as to
other facilities in the said building, namely, class rooms, library,
bathrooms etc. Without that physically handicapped persons would not
be able to avail and utilise the educational opportunity in full measure.
11) Various theories on different models of disability have emerged,
namely, the Social Model of Disability, the Medical Model of Disability,
the Rights Base Model of Disability, the Model of Ethical and
Philosophical Status, the Economic Model of Disability etc2
. It is not
necessary to delve into these different models of disabilities. However,
for the purpose of the present case, some comments are required on the
Social Model of Disability. The Social Model of Disability locates
disability as being socially constructed through the creation of artificial
attitudinal, organisational and environmental barriers. Impairment is
regarded as being a normal part of the human condition, with everyone
experiencing impairment differently and having different access needs.
Life is accepted as including negative experiences, and impairment may
2 For detailed discussion, see Theoretizing the Models of Disability Philosophical
Social and Medical Concepts-An Empirical Research based on existing Literature by Shanimon. S.
and Rateesh. K. Nair
11
be - but is not necessarily - one of them. Disabled people are defined as
being people who experience the unnecessary barriers created by
society within their daily life. Social Model of disability has gained ground
in the international debate. This views disability as a social construct and
emphasizes society's shortcomings, stigmatization and discrimination in
its reaction to persons with disability. It distinguishes between functional
impairments (disability) both of a physical and psychological nature, and
the loss of equal participation in social processes that only arises
through interaction with the social setting (handicap). These
developments have contributed to a new (WHO) model, which bears in
mind social as well as functional and individual factors in its
classification of health and health-related areas. Keeping in view the
above, proper facilities are need to be provided to differently-abled
persons while having higher education.
12) Insofar as the rights base approach is concerned, that has been
narrated in detail in Rajive Raturi’s judgment. We may add that a basic
underline assumption, which is well recognised, is that everyone can
learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable; and that,
accordingly, all disabled persons (from whatever disability they are
suffering) have right to get not only minimum education but higher
education as well. Not making adequate provisions to facilitate proper
education to such persons, therefore, would amount to discrimination.
12
Such requirement is to ensure that even a student with disability, after
proper education, will be able to lead an independent, economically self
sufficient, productive and fully participatory life. This rights-based
approach is an inclusive approach which class for the participation of all
groups of the population, including disadvantaged persons, in the
development process. Inclusive development builds on the idea of
‘Society for All’ in which all people are equally free to develop their
potential, contribute their skills and abilities for the common good and to
take up their entitlements to social services. It emphasises
strengthening the rights of the people with disabilities, and foster their
participation in all aspects of life. A disability is only actually a disability
when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do. A
lawyer can be just as effective in a wheelchair, as long as she has
access to the courtroom and the legal library, as well as to whatever
other places and material or equipment that are necessary for her to do
her job well. A person who can’t hear can be a master carpenter or the
head of a chemistry lab, if he can communicate with clients and
assistants. A person with mental illness can nonetheless be a brilliant
scholar or theorist3
. The aforesaid discussion amply justifies right of
access to students with disabilities to educational institutions in which
they are admitted.
3 We have a celebrated examples of John Nash, a noted mathematician who earned
laurels by getting noble prize and Stephen Hawkins.
13
13) It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that in the guidelines
for development grant to colleges framed by the University Grants
Commission (UGC), the UGC has specifically made provisions
concerning ‘schemes for persons with disabilities’. There is a specific
scheme in respect of Higher Education for Persons with Special Needs
(HEPSN). This HEPSN scheme has three components, namely,
(i) Establishment of Enabling Units for differently-abled persons. The
function of this unit as enumerated therein includes creating
awareness about the needs of differently-abled persons, and other
general issues concerning their learning. This special unit is to be
guaranteed by a faculty member to be nominated by the Head of
the Institution.
(ii) Component 2 of the scheme deals with providing access to
differently-abled persons. For this purpose, UGC agreed to make
a one-time grant of up to Rs.5 lakhs per college during the Plan
period. To enable these institutions to make special arrangements
in the environment for their mobility and independent functioning
and to ensure that all existing structures as well as future
construction projects in their campuses are made disabled friendly.
(iii) Third component deals with providing special equipment to
14
augment educational services for differently-abled persons. It
recognises that differently-abled persons require special aids and
appliances for their daily functioning and that the higher
educational institutes may need special learning and assessment
devices in this behalf. In addition, visually challenged students
need Readers. Thus, colleges are encourage to procure such
devices such as computers with screen reading software,
low-vision aids, scanners, mobility devices etc.
14) The petitioner had filed a compilation on February 22, 2016
containing suggestions, in the form of Guidelines, insofar as making
adequate infrastructure for providing proper access and also teaching
facilities (Pedagogy) for differently-abled persons are concerned:
(I) INFRASTRUCTURE
(a) University/College Campus
Barrier-free campus environment according to the provisions of
Section 45 and Section 46 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 and
further according to 2001 guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Planning a Barrier Free
Environment”. Some specific examples – where a building is of more
than 2 storeys, mandatory provision for lifts. Straight and barrier-free
paths, removal of obstacles such as plants, furniture or bicycles adjacent
15
to doors, entrances, on the steps or in corridors. Unnecessary interior
decoration of areas should be avoided where the same leads to
impairment of the mobility of disabled persons.
(b) On Campus Accommodation
Priority assignment of on-campus/college hostel accommodation.
Rooms assigned preferably on the ground floor. Suitable room and
bathroom modifications in hostel such as provision of ramps and special
fittings/adjustable furniture to facilitate mobility and comfort. Availability
of attendant/helper/ assistant, as required, to help the disabled student
with mobility and orientation in hostel. Special on-campus transportation
on as-needed basis. Where no on-campus accommodation is provided,
scheme for financial assistance to the disabled student for expenses for
off-campus accommodation and related requirements such as
helper/attendant, transport to/from campus, etc.
(c) Classroom
For visually impaired – Braille symbols at appropriate places in
classroom buildings to assist with orientation. Auditory signals in
elevators and lifts leading to classrooms. For students with low vision,
adequate lighting in the classroom via natural light or adequate provision
of bulbs, tube lights, etc. Provision for recording of lectures. Power
plug points for visually impaired students to fit in their aids and
16
appliances such as audio recorder, laptop, computer etc. Classroom
acoustics to be designed so that all audio communication is clearly
audible.
For orthopaedic impaired – Classrooms in locations accessible
to wheelchair users. Ramps in classroom buildings and adaptations in
toilets for wheelchair users and orthopaedic disabled persons. Seating
priority in classrooms with adequate space for wheelchair users to move
around. Avoidance of teaching platforms as being difficult to access for
orthopaedic impaired persons.
For hearing impaired – Clear and prominent signs indicating
locations of courses and classrooms to assist with orientation. Seating
for the hearing impaired student as well as a note-taker, located such
that lip movement of instructor and sign language interpreter can easily
be seen.
(d) Science Laboratories
Structure and layout modifications of the laboratories for safety
and comfort of the visually impaired and orthopaedic
impaired/wheelchair users. Use of Braille instruction sheets and tactile
visual material. Availability of assistants for help with laboratory
activities, particularly where some risk is involved, such as handling of
chemicals. Sigh language interpreters for hearing impaired.
17
(e) Libraries
For visually impaired students, Braille section and fully accessible
computer systems with scanning facilities, JAWS software and Braille
embossers for printing. For low vision students, large print books and
computers equipped with text enlarging software. Digital libraries.
Library cataloguing on computer with JAWS. Sign language interpreters
as required for hearing impaired.
(f) Pedagogy (Teaching)
For visually impaired – Course material in accessible formats
such as Braille, audio books and electronic formats such as e-files in
‘daisy’ format. Availability of readers, note takers, scribes. Suitable
curriculum modification and assistance esp. for
scientific/pictorial/graphical material and science laboratories.
Computers with screen reading software, accessible library and
reference materials. Availability of tape recorders/ digital voice
recorders.
For orthopaedic impaired – Note takers and scribes, as required,
especially for persons with upper limb impairment. Suitable curriculum
modification and assistance, especially in science laboratories.
18
For hearing impaired – Note takers for classroom and provision
of laptop/computer for note taking. Sign language interpreters for
communication support in seminars, meetings, discussions and at all
university/college functions. Suitable curriculum modification and
assistance for science laboratories. Sub-titling of classroom video
material. Technological support for any other necessary and appropriate
technology, including computer technology, to assist the hearing
impaired student with learning.
(g) Examination and Testing Modifications
Extension of time, use of reader/scribe, use of computer/laptop.
Availability of question papers in accessible formats, including large
print, Braille, audio, daisy format. Option of writing exams on computer
with screen reading software. Modification of pictorial and graphical
material for visually impaired.
(h) University/College Administration
Scribes, helpers and sign language interpreters for disabled
students in interactions with university/college administration, especially
for the admission process, meetings with staff/principal, on-campus
company recruitment interviews and communication with college officials
such as career counsellors, student counsellors, psychologists and any
other person attached to the university/college who provides services of
19
any type to the students. Special admissions window for disabled
students. Sensitivity training on disability to administrative and
pedagogic staff.
(i) Sports, Culture, Recreation and Leisure Facilities
Universities/colleges to ensure that cultural/recreational programs
take into account need of students with disabilities to provide for their full
participation in such programs. Some specific examples in sports:
running courses/tracks to be straight where visually impaired and
orthopaedic impaired students are participating. Special sporting events
to be conducted such as cricket for visually impaired and special events
according to para-olympic norms for orthopaedic impaired. International
norms to be modified where necessary to suit the needs of the disabled
students. Trainers to be sensitized towards disability and inclusion and
respective societies/associations to ensure that the information about
events/contests reaches the disabled students also. Similarly, cultural
activities with adequate modifications to be made available. For
example, disabled students to be enabled to take part in theatre, literary,
dance and music activities with the help of assistants. Hearing impaired
students to be provided with an interpreter for sports and cultural
activities of various types.
15) Based on the aforesaid suggestions, the petitioner made written
20
submissions on February 22, 2016, seeking following directions:
“(a) For an order directing the UGC to carry out an
inspection of the 3% reservation record of respondent
Nos. 11, 12 and 13 to ensure that 3% reservation for
persons with disabilities are complied with, including the
backlog.
(b) For an order directing the UGC to inspect all
institutions of higher education to ensure that these
institutions are made disabled friendly and make a report
to the Central Executive Committee and the State
Executive Committees who will, in turn, ensure that the
institutions are made disabled friendly.
(c) For an order directing the UGC to consider the
“Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities
in Universities/Colleges” submitted by the petitioner
pursuant to the order of this Court dated December 09,
2010 and after making such changes as deemed fit, to
issue directions to all institutions of higher education,
including law colleges, for compliance within a specified
period.”
16) After coming into force the Disabilities Act, 2016, further directions
are sought in tune with the provisions contained in the said Act, in the
following manner:
“(d) For an order directing the Central Government
under Section 40 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 to frame
the rules for persons with disabilities laying down the
standards of accessibility for colleges, universities and
other higher educational institutions, including
pedagogical measures such as reasonable
accommodation, modifications and aids and appliances
for lectures, curricula, teaching materials, laboratories,
libraries, examinations, classrooms and hostels etc.
within six months from today; and for a direction to the
appropriate Governments to implement the said rules
within two years from the notification of the said Rules in
accordance with Section 46.
(e) For an order directing the Central Government to
take into consideration the Guidelines for Accessibility for
21
Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges, as
submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with this
Court’s order dated January 20, 2011, while framing the
Rules under Section 40 of the Act.
(f) For an order directing the Central Government to
create an audit template in conformity with the Rules for
accessibility in higher educational institutions referred to
in (m) above, and for a direction to the appropriate
Governments (Central and State Governments, UGC,
BCI) to conduct an audit of all higher educational
institutions within six months from today and to put all the
audit reports on a website.
(g) For an order directing the UGC, the Central and the
State Governments to invite applications from higher
educational institutions for funding under the various
schemes for accessibility and to release funds in
accordance thereof to facilitate accessibility measures in
the educational institutions.
(h) For an order directing all higher educational
institutions to make their institutions accessible in
accordance with the Act and the Rules within two years
of the notification of the rules; and for mandatory
formation in each institution of the Enabling Unit for
disabled students as per UGC scheme ‘HEPSN’ to
ensure monitoring and implementation of the standards
and guidelines contained in the Rules.
(i) For an order directing the Central and State Advisory
Boards to monitor the implementation of the Act and
Rules and the orders of this Court to ensure compliance.”
17) There cannot be any dispute that the suggestions given by the
petitioner, which are reproduced above, appear to be reasonable and
are worthy of implementation. However, at the same time, it would be
appropriate to consider the feasibility thereof particularly with regard to
the manner in which these can be implemented. This task can be
undertaken by the UGC. Likewise, the directions which are sought by
the petitioners are in consonance with the provisions contained in the
22
Disabilities Act, 2016. In these circumstances, we dispose of these writ
petitions with the following directions:
(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in the
educational institutions, we have already given directions in para 8
above that the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall
be complied with by all concerned educational institutions. In addition to
the directions mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law
colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those
institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational
institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be
within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of
such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are
complied with or not.
(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the form of
“Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in
Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC shall consider the
feasibility thereof by constituting a Committee in this behalf. In this
Committee, the UGC would be free to include persons from amongst
Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of
State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This
Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making provisions in
23
respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the
modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and
monitoring, etc. The Committee shall also lay down the time limits within
which such suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee
may also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each
educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for
taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as
for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert
Committee. This exercise shall be completed by June 30, 2018.
(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be
submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On receipt of the report, the matter
shall be placed before the Court.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2017
24
ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
(FOR JUDGMENT)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 292/2006
DISABLED RIGHT GROUP & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY : HON. A.K. SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.])
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 997/2013 (X)
Date : 15-12-2017 These petitions were called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Baijnath Patatel, Adv.
Ms. Sweta, Adv.
Ms. Romila, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR
Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok
Bhushan.
The writ petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:
25
(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in
the educational institutions, we have already given directions
in para 8 above that the provisions of Section 32 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016 shall be complied with by all concerned
educational institutions. In addition to the directions
mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law colleges
are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by
those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well.
Other educational institutions will notify the compliance,
each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of
the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such
educational institutions to verify as to whether the
provisions are complied with or not.
(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the
form of “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with
Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC
shall consider the feasibility thereof by constituting a
Committee in this behalf. In this Committee, the UGC would be
free to include persons from amongst Central Advisory Board,
State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State
Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This
Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making
provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and
would also suggest the modalities for implementing those
suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc. The Committee
shall also lay down the time limits within which such
26
suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee may
also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in
each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and
parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently
abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes
that would be devised by the Expert Committee. This exercise
shall be completed by June 30, 2018.
(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken
Report, shall be submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On
receipt of the report, the matter shall be placed before the
Court.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 292 OF 2006
DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 997 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Three issues are raised in this petition which is filed in public
interest, for the benefit of persons suffering from ‘disabililty’ as per the
definition contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 1995’) which now stands repealed and is
replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’). The first issue related to the
2
non-implementation of 3% reservation of seats in educational institutions
as provided in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 32 of
the Disabilities Act, 2016. Second equally important issue raised in this
petition, which is intimately connected with the first issue, is to provide
proper access to orthopaedic disabled persons so that they are able to
freely move in the educational institution and access the facilities. Third
issue pertains to pedagogy i.e. making adequate provisions and facilities
of teaching for disabled persons, depending upon the nature of their
disability, to enable them to undertake their studies effectively.
We may state at the outset that though the petition as originally
filed had confined these issues only to law colleges. In view of the fact
that these issues are of seminal importance, this Court decided to
extend the coverage by encompassing all educational institutions.
2) As can be discerned from the number assigned to this writ petition, it
was filed in the year 2006 and, thus, is pending for eleven years. The
reason was that this Court has been calling for the status report(s) from
the respondents/Government Authorities from time to time about the
implementation of the Disabilities Act insofar as provisions relating to the
aforesaid aspects are concerned. Since the matter was ripe for passing
final orders and directions, we deemed it proper to hear the counsel for
the parties at length so that the writ petition is disposed of by giving final
directions in this behalf.
3
(I) Re: 3% Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions
3) Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 reads as under:
“Section 39 : All Government educational institutions and
other educational institutions receiving aid from the
Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent
seat for persons with disabilities.”
4) As per this provision, all Government educational institutions as well as
other educational institutions which are receiving aid from the
Government are supposed to reserve seats for the benefit of persons
with disabilities, which reservation shall not be less than 3%. Thus, 3%
of the seats is the minimum reservation and it can be even more than
3%. This provision had come up for discussion before this Court in All
Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of
Kerala1
and the Court issued following directions therein:
“We...hold that Section 39 deals with the reservation of
seats for persons with disabilities in government
educational institutions as well as educational institutions
receiving aid from the government, and necessarily
therefore the provison thereof must be complied with.”
5) Disabilities Act, 2016 makes more exhaustive provisions insofar as
providing of educational facilities to the persons with disabilities is
concerned. Section 31 confers right to free education upon children with
benchmark disabilities who are between the age of 6 to 18 years. This
provision is made notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of
1 2002 (7) Scale 198
4
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Section 32
makes provisions for reservation in higher educational institutions.
Section 34 provides for reservation in employment. Since, we are
concerned with reservation of seats in educational institutions and as
Section 32 directly deals with the same, we reproduce that provision
hereunder:
“32. (1) All Government institutions of higher education
and other higher education institutions receiving aid from
the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent.
seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given
an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in
institutions of higher education.”
6) The educational institutions covered by this provision are not only the
Government institutions of higher education but all those higher
education institutions which are receiving aid from the Government.
Other pertinent aspect is that the extent of reservation is increased from
3% under Disabilities Act, 1995 to 5% under this Disabilities Act, 2016.
One more important improvement made in Disabilities Act, 2016 over
the earlier Act is that such provisions are made for ‘persons with bench
mark disabilities’. This expression is defined in Section 2(r) which reads
as under:
“Section 2(r) “person with benchmark disability” means a
person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified
disability where specified disability has not been defined
in measurable terms and includes a person with disability
where specified disability has been defined in measurable
5
terms, as certified by the certifying authority.”
7) It, thus, hardly needs to be emphasised that such educational institutions
are bound to reserve seats from persons suffering from disability.
Notwithstanding the same, grievance of the petitioner is that the
educational institutions have not been adhering thereto.
8) No doubt, some progress is made in this behalf after the filing of this
present petition and monitoring of the case by this Court, there is a need
for complying with this provision to full extent. Accordingly, we direct
that all those institutions which are covered by the obligations provided
under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the
provisions of Section 32 while making admission of students in
educational courses of higher education each year. To this end, they
shall submit list of the number of disabled persons admitted in each
course every year to the Chief Commissioner and/or the State
Commissioner (as the case may be). It will also be the duty of the Chief
Commissioner as well as the State Commissioner to enquire as to
whether these educational institutions have fulfilled the aforesaid
obligation. Needless to mention, appropriate consequential action
against those educational institutions, as provided under Section 89 of
the Disabilities Act, 2016 as well as other provisions, shall be initiated
against defaulting institutions.
6
(II) & (III) Re: Provision for accessibility as well as facilities
9) In another judgment pronounced today itself in the case of Rajive
Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2005 with Anr.),
this very Bench has given detailed directions for making appropriate
provisions for accessibility of handicapped persons, though the scope of
that petition was confined to persons suffering from visual impairment.
However, various aspects discussed and directions given for making
suitable provisions in this behalf would benefit persons suffering from
other disabilities as well. Therefore, the position of law discussed in
detail in the said judgment and the directions issued therein need not be
repeated for the sake of brevity. We would, however, recapitulate
following provisions contained in Disabilities Act, 2016:
Section 2(i) - ‘establishment includes a Government establishment and
private establishment”
Section 2(k) - ‘Government establishment’ means a corporation
established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a
body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a local
authority or a Government company as defined in section 2 of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes a Department of the
Government.
7
Section 2(v) - “private establishment” means a company, firm,
cooperative or other society, associations, trust, agency, institution,
organisation, union, factory or such other establishment as the
appropriate Government may, by notification, specify; (w) “public
building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by
the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational
purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious,
cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law
enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or
platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways;
Section 2(w) - “public building” means a Government or private building,
used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for
educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities,
public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities,
medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or
judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or
terminus, airports or waterways;
Section 2(zd) - “transportation systems” includes road transport, rail
transport, air transport, water transport, para transit systems for the last
mile connectivity, road and street infrastructure, etc;
8
Section 2(ze) - “universal design” means the design of products,
environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to
the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or
specialised design and shall apply to assistive devices including
advanced technologies for particular group of persons with disabilities.
Section 2(b) - “appropriate Government” means,—
(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or
substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment Board
constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the Central
Government;
(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or
substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other
than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.
Section 16 mandates the appropriate Government and the local
authorities to endeavour that all educational institutions funded or
recognised by them provide inclusive education to the children with
disabilities and towards that end shall make buildings, campus and
various facilities accessible.
Section 25(1)(b) mandates the appropriate Government and local
authority to take necessary measures for the persons with disabilities to
9
provide barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private
hospitals and other health care institutions and centres.
Section 40 mandates the Central Government to frame Rules and laying
down the standards of accessibility for physical environment,
transportation system, information & communication system and other
facilities & services to be provided to the public in urban and rural areas.
Rule 15 deals with accessibility standards for public buildings, passenger
bus transport and information and communication technology. As
regards public buildings, the accessibility standards prescribed under the
Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built
environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by
Ministry of Urban Development have been adopted. This implies that all
the public buildings are now required to conform to these standards.
10) It hardly needs to be emphasised that Disabilities Act is premised
on the fundamental idea that society creates the barriers and oppressive
structures which impede the capacities of person with disabilities.
Capability theorists like Martha Nussbaum are of the opinion that there
cannot be a different set of capacities or a different threshold of
capabilities for persons with disabilities. This raises the critical issue of
creating a level playing field whereby all citizens to have equality of fair
opportunities to enable them to realise their full potential and experience
10
well-being. To ensure the level playing field, it is not only essential to
give necessary education to the persons suffering from the disability, it is
also imperative to see that such education is imparted to them in a
fruitful manner. That can be achieved only if there is proper accessibility
to the buildings where the educational institution is housed as well as to
other facilities in the said building, namely, class rooms, library,
bathrooms etc. Without that physically handicapped persons would not
be able to avail and utilise the educational opportunity in full measure.
11) Various theories on different models of disability have emerged,
namely, the Social Model of Disability, the Medical Model of Disability,
the Rights Base Model of Disability, the Model of Ethical and
Philosophical Status, the Economic Model of Disability etc2
. It is not
necessary to delve into these different models of disabilities. However,
for the purpose of the present case, some comments are required on the
Social Model of Disability. The Social Model of Disability locates
disability as being socially constructed through the creation of artificial
attitudinal, organisational and environmental barriers. Impairment is
regarded as being a normal part of the human condition, with everyone
experiencing impairment differently and having different access needs.
Life is accepted as including negative experiences, and impairment may
2 For detailed discussion, see Theoretizing the Models of Disability Philosophical
Social and Medical Concepts-An Empirical Research based on existing Literature by Shanimon. S.
and Rateesh. K. Nair
11
be - but is not necessarily - one of them. Disabled people are defined as
being people who experience the unnecessary barriers created by
society within their daily life. Social Model of disability has gained ground
in the international debate. This views disability as a social construct and
emphasizes society's shortcomings, stigmatization and discrimination in
its reaction to persons with disability. It distinguishes between functional
impairments (disability) both of a physical and psychological nature, and
the loss of equal participation in social processes that only arises
through interaction with the social setting (handicap). These
developments have contributed to a new (WHO) model, which bears in
mind social as well as functional and individual factors in its
classification of health and health-related areas. Keeping in view the
above, proper facilities are need to be provided to differently-abled
persons while having higher education.
12) Insofar as the rights base approach is concerned, that has been
narrated in detail in Rajive Raturi’s judgment. We may add that a basic
underline assumption, which is well recognised, is that everyone can
learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable; and that,
accordingly, all disabled persons (from whatever disability they are
suffering) have right to get not only minimum education but higher
education as well. Not making adequate provisions to facilitate proper
education to such persons, therefore, would amount to discrimination.
12
Such requirement is to ensure that even a student with disability, after
proper education, will be able to lead an independent, economically self
sufficient, productive and fully participatory life. This rights-based
approach is an inclusive approach which class for the participation of all
groups of the population, including disadvantaged persons, in the
development process. Inclusive development builds on the idea of
‘Society for All’ in which all people are equally free to develop their
potential, contribute their skills and abilities for the common good and to
take up their entitlements to social services. It emphasises
strengthening the rights of the people with disabilities, and foster their
participation in all aspects of life. A disability is only actually a disability
when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do. A
lawyer can be just as effective in a wheelchair, as long as she has
access to the courtroom and the legal library, as well as to whatever
other places and material or equipment that are necessary for her to do
her job well. A person who can’t hear can be a master carpenter or the
head of a chemistry lab, if he can communicate with clients and
assistants. A person with mental illness can nonetheless be a brilliant
scholar or theorist3
. The aforesaid discussion amply justifies right of
access to students with disabilities to educational institutions in which
they are admitted.
3 We have a celebrated examples of John Nash, a noted mathematician who earned
laurels by getting noble prize and Stephen Hawkins.
13
13) It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that in the guidelines
for development grant to colleges framed by the University Grants
Commission (UGC), the UGC has specifically made provisions
concerning ‘schemes for persons with disabilities’. There is a specific
scheme in respect of Higher Education for Persons with Special Needs
(HEPSN). This HEPSN scheme has three components, namely,
(i) Establishment of Enabling Units for differently-abled persons. The
function of this unit as enumerated therein includes creating
awareness about the needs of differently-abled persons, and other
general issues concerning their learning. This special unit is to be
guaranteed by a faculty member to be nominated by the Head of
the Institution.
(ii) Component 2 of the scheme deals with providing access to
differently-abled persons. For this purpose, UGC agreed to make
a one-time grant of up to Rs.5 lakhs per college during the Plan
period. To enable these institutions to make special arrangements
in the environment for their mobility and independent functioning
and to ensure that all existing structures as well as future
construction projects in their campuses are made disabled friendly.
(iii) Third component deals with providing special equipment to
14
augment educational services for differently-abled persons. It
recognises that differently-abled persons require special aids and
appliances for their daily functioning and that the higher
educational institutes may need special learning and assessment
devices in this behalf. In addition, visually challenged students
need Readers. Thus, colleges are encourage to procure such
devices such as computers with screen reading software,
low-vision aids, scanners, mobility devices etc.
14) The petitioner had filed a compilation on February 22, 2016
containing suggestions, in the form of Guidelines, insofar as making
adequate infrastructure for providing proper access and also teaching
facilities (Pedagogy) for differently-abled persons are concerned:
(I) INFRASTRUCTURE
(a) University/College Campus
Barrier-free campus environment according to the provisions of
Section 45 and Section 46 of the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 and
further according to 2001 guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner
for Persons with Disabilities entitled “Planning a Barrier Free
Environment”. Some specific examples – where a building is of more
than 2 storeys, mandatory provision for lifts. Straight and barrier-free
paths, removal of obstacles such as plants, furniture or bicycles adjacent
15
to doors, entrances, on the steps or in corridors. Unnecessary interior
decoration of areas should be avoided where the same leads to
impairment of the mobility of disabled persons.
(b) On Campus Accommodation
Priority assignment of on-campus/college hostel accommodation.
Rooms assigned preferably on the ground floor. Suitable room and
bathroom modifications in hostel such as provision of ramps and special
fittings/adjustable furniture to facilitate mobility and comfort. Availability
of attendant/helper/ assistant, as required, to help the disabled student
with mobility and orientation in hostel. Special on-campus transportation
on as-needed basis. Where no on-campus accommodation is provided,
scheme for financial assistance to the disabled student for expenses for
off-campus accommodation and related requirements such as
helper/attendant, transport to/from campus, etc.
(c) Classroom
For visually impaired – Braille symbols at appropriate places in
classroom buildings to assist with orientation. Auditory signals in
elevators and lifts leading to classrooms. For students with low vision,
adequate lighting in the classroom via natural light or adequate provision
of bulbs, tube lights, etc. Provision for recording of lectures. Power
plug points for visually impaired students to fit in their aids and
16
appliances such as audio recorder, laptop, computer etc. Classroom
acoustics to be designed so that all audio communication is clearly
audible.
For orthopaedic impaired – Classrooms in locations accessible
to wheelchair users. Ramps in classroom buildings and adaptations in
toilets for wheelchair users and orthopaedic disabled persons. Seating
priority in classrooms with adequate space for wheelchair users to move
around. Avoidance of teaching platforms as being difficult to access for
orthopaedic impaired persons.
For hearing impaired – Clear and prominent signs indicating
locations of courses and classrooms to assist with orientation. Seating
for the hearing impaired student as well as a note-taker, located such
that lip movement of instructor and sign language interpreter can easily
be seen.
(d) Science Laboratories
Structure and layout modifications of the laboratories for safety
and comfort of the visually impaired and orthopaedic
impaired/wheelchair users. Use of Braille instruction sheets and tactile
visual material. Availability of assistants for help with laboratory
activities, particularly where some risk is involved, such as handling of
chemicals. Sigh language interpreters for hearing impaired.
17
(e) Libraries
For visually impaired students, Braille section and fully accessible
computer systems with scanning facilities, JAWS software and Braille
embossers for printing. For low vision students, large print books and
computers equipped with text enlarging software. Digital libraries.
Library cataloguing on computer with JAWS. Sign language interpreters
as required for hearing impaired.
(f) Pedagogy (Teaching)
For visually impaired – Course material in accessible formats
such as Braille, audio books and electronic formats such as e-files in
‘daisy’ format. Availability of readers, note takers, scribes. Suitable
curriculum modification and assistance esp. for
scientific/pictorial/graphical material and science laboratories.
Computers with screen reading software, accessible library and
reference materials. Availability of tape recorders/ digital voice
recorders.
For orthopaedic impaired – Note takers and scribes, as required,
especially for persons with upper limb impairment. Suitable curriculum
modification and assistance, especially in science laboratories.
18
For hearing impaired – Note takers for classroom and provision
of laptop/computer for note taking. Sign language interpreters for
communication support in seminars, meetings, discussions and at all
university/college functions. Suitable curriculum modification and
assistance for science laboratories. Sub-titling of classroom video
material. Technological support for any other necessary and appropriate
technology, including computer technology, to assist the hearing
impaired student with learning.
(g) Examination and Testing Modifications
Extension of time, use of reader/scribe, use of computer/laptop.
Availability of question papers in accessible formats, including large
print, Braille, audio, daisy format. Option of writing exams on computer
with screen reading software. Modification of pictorial and graphical
material for visually impaired.
(h) University/College Administration
Scribes, helpers and sign language interpreters for disabled
students in interactions with university/college administration, especially
for the admission process, meetings with staff/principal, on-campus
company recruitment interviews and communication with college officials
such as career counsellors, student counsellors, psychologists and any
other person attached to the university/college who provides services of
19
any type to the students. Special admissions window for disabled
students. Sensitivity training on disability to administrative and
pedagogic staff.
(i) Sports, Culture, Recreation and Leisure Facilities
Universities/colleges to ensure that cultural/recreational programs
take into account need of students with disabilities to provide for their full
participation in such programs. Some specific examples in sports:
running courses/tracks to be straight where visually impaired and
orthopaedic impaired students are participating. Special sporting events
to be conducted such as cricket for visually impaired and special events
according to para-olympic norms for orthopaedic impaired. International
norms to be modified where necessary to suit the needs of the disabled
students. Trainers to be sensitized towards disability and inclusion and
respective societies/associations to ensure that the information about
events/contests reaches the disabled students also. Similarly, cultural
activities with adequate modifications to be made available. For
example, disabled students to be enabled to take part in theatre, literary,
dance and music activities with the help of assistants. Hearing impaired
students to be provided with an interpreter for sports and cultural
activities of various types.
15) Based on the aforesaid suggestions, the petitioner made written
20
submissions on February 22, 2016, seeking following directions:
“(a) For an order directing the UGC to carry out an
inspection of the 3% reservation record of respondent
Nos. 11, 12 and 13 to ensure that 3% reservation for
persons with disabilities are complied with, including the
backlog.
(b) For an order directing the UGC to inspect all
institutions of higher education to ensure that these
institutions are made disabled friendly and make a report
to the Central Executive Committee and the State
Executive Committees who will, in turn, ensure that the
institutions are made disabled friendly.
(c) For an order directing the UGC to consider the
“Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities
in Universities/Colleges” submitted by the petitioner
pursuant to the order of this Court dated December 09,
2010 and after making such changes as deemed fit, to
issue directions to all institutions of higher education,
including law colleges, for compliance within a specified
period.”
16) After coming into force the Disabilities Act, 2016, further directions
are sought in tune with the provisions contained in the said Act, in the
following manner:
“(d) For an order directing the Central Government
under Section 40 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 to frame
the rules for persons with disabilities laying down the
standards of accessibility for colleges, universities and
other higher educational institutions, including
pedagogical measures such as reasonable
accommodation, modifications and aids and appliances
for lectures, curricula, teaching materials, laboratories,
libraries, examinations, classrooms and hostels etc.
within six months from today; and for a direction to the
appropriate Governments to implement the said rules
within two years from the notification of the said Rules in
accordance with Section 46.
(e) For an order directing the Central Government to
take into consideration the Guidelines for Accessibility for
21
Students with Disabilities in Universities/Colleges, as
submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with this
Court’s order dated January 20, 2011, while framing the
Rules under Section 40 of the Act.
(f) For an order directing the Central Government to
create an audit template in conformity with the Rules for
accessibility in higher educational institutions referred to
in (m) above, and for a direction to the appropriate
Governments (Central and State Governments, UGC,
BCI) to conduct an audit of all higher educational
institutions within six months from today and to put all the
audit reports on a website.
(g) For an order directing the UGC, the Central and the
State Governments to invite applications from higher
educational institutions for funding under the various
schemes for accessibility and to release funds in
accordance thereof to facilitate accessibility measures in
the educational institutions.
(h) For an order directing all higher educational
institutions to make their institutions accessible in
accordance with the Act and the Rules within two years
of the notification of the rules; and for mandatory
formation in each institution of the Enabling Unit for
disabled students as per UGC scheme ‘HEPSN’ to
ensure monitoring and implementation of the standards
and guidelines contained in the Rules.
(i) For an order directing the Central and State Advisory
Boards to monitor the implementation of the Act and
Rules and the orders of this Court to ensure compliance.”
17) There cannot be any dispute that the suggestions given by the
petitioner, which are reproduced above, appear to be reasonable and
are worthy of implementation. However, at the same time, it would be
appropriate to consider the feasibility thereof particularly with regard to
the manner in which these can be implemented. This task can be
undertaken by the UGC. Likewise, the directions which are sought by
the petitioners are in consonance with the provisions contained in the
22
Disabilities Act, 2016. In these circumstances, we dispose of these writ
petitions with the following directions:
(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in the
educational institutions, we have already given directions in para 8
above that the provisions of Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 shall
be complied with by all concerned educational institutions. In addition to
the directions mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law
colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those
institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational
institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be
within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of
such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are
complied with or not.
(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the form of
“Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with Disabilities in
Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC shall consider the
feasibility thereof by constituting a Committee in this behalf. In this
Committee, the UGC would be free to include persons from amongst
Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of
State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This
Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making provisions in
23
respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the
modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and
monitoring, etc. The Committee shall also lay down the time limits within
which such suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee
may also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each
educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for
taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as
for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert
Committee. This exercise shall be completed by June 30, 2018.
(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be
submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On receipt of the report, the matter
shall be placed before the Court.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2017
24
ITEM NO.1502 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
(FOR JUDGMENT)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 292/2006
DISABLED RIGHT GROUP & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY : HON. A.K. SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.])
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 997/2013 (X)
Date : 15-12-2017 These petitions were called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Baijnath Patatel, Adv.
Ms. Sweta, Adv.
Ms. Romila, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR
Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok
Bhushan.
The writ petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:
25
(i) While dealing with the issue of reservation of seats in
the educational institutions, we have already given directions
in para 8 above that the provisions of Section 32 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016 shall be complied with by all concerned
educational institutions. In addition to the directions
mentioned therein, we also direct that insofar as law colleges
are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by
those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well.
Other educational institutions will notify the compliance,
each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of
the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such
educational institutions to verify as to whether the
provisions are complied with or not.
(ii) Insofar as suggestions given by the petitioner in the
form of “Guidelines for Accessibility for Students with
Disabilities in Universities/Colleges” are concerned, the UGC
shall consider the feasibility thereof by constituting a
Committee in this behalf. In this Committee, the UGC would be
free to include persons from amongst Central Advisory Board,
State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State
Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. This
Committee shall undertake a detailed study for making
provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and
would also suggest the modalities for implementing those
suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc. The Committee
shall also lay down the time limits within which such
26
suggestions could be implemented. The Expert Committee may
also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in
each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and
parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently
abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes
that would be devised by the Expert Committee. This exercise
shall be completed by June 30, 2018.
(iii) Report in this behalf, as well as the Action Taken
Report, shall be submitted to this Court in July, 2018. On
receipt of the report, the matter shall be placed before the
Court.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
