LAW FOR ALL : Public-interest litigation seeking effective implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (now RPwD Act, 2016), enforcement of rights of persons with cognitive disabilities in State-run care institutions, and remedial directions to prevent neglect, abuse, overcrowding and unlawful institutionalisation; petition framed against systemic failures to give effect to accessibility, community living and care standards enshrined in domestic law and international instruments (notably the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India in 2007).

2025 INSC 1101.
Mehta J. (with Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ.) — Judgment dated 12th September, 2025.
Writ Petition (C) No.116 of 1998; Civil Appeal No.11938 of 2016; I.A. No.130117 of 2018 — consolidated proceedings concerning implementation of statutory and constitutional rights of persons with disabilities and protection of persons with cognitive disabilities in State-run care institutions (Asha Kiran and others).

HEADNOTE

Subject-matter — Public-interest litigation seeking effective implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (now RPwD Act, 2016), enforcement of rights of persons with cognitive disabilities in State-run care institutions, and remedial directions to prevent neglect, abuse, overcrowding and unlawful institutionalisation; petition framed against systemic failures to give effect to accessibility, community living and care standards enshrined in domestic law and international instruments (notably the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India in 2007).
Jurisprudential foundation — Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; RPwD Act (Sections 3, 5, 34, Chapters IV–V); Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Section 19); UNCRPD obligations; allied international human-rights treaties and Committee guidance on institutionalisation and community living.
Findings — Large-scale non-compliance by several States/UTs with statutory obligations and earlier judicial directions; identification of systemic defects at State-run care homes (overcrowding, inadequate medical/therapeutic care, lack of individualized care planning, absence of accessibility, deficient grievance redressal, inadequate documentation and welfare access, including Aadhaar enrolment).
Principles reiterated — Disability must be read through a rights-based and social model lens; accessibility and reasonable accommodation are constitutional requirements; institutionalisation must not substitute for community-based, rights-respecting alternatives; dignity, autonomy and substantive equality govern welfare and reservation measures for persons with disabilities.
Directions — (i) Nationwide monitoring exercise instituted under the name “Project Ability Empowerment”; (ii) monitoring to be carried out by eight designated National Law Universities (NLUs), each allocated specific States/UTs, working in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and other experts; (iii) monitoring to cover State-run and private institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities and implementation of RPwD/Mental Healthcare Act obligations.
Monitoring scope — Comprehensive resident profiling and Individual Care Plans; medical/therapeutic audits and medication review; decongestion and family-tracing/exit-path strategies; accessibility and infrastructural audit against Harmonised Guidelines; education and vocational inclusion; grievance redressal and protection safeguards; staffing, training and institutional accountability; documentation and Aadhaar enrolment; transparency and data systems (including institutional dashboards where feasible).
Institutional arrangements & resources — Each of the eight NLUs to receive an interim project fund of Rs. 25,00,000 (to be borne equally by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, MSJE, Government of India, and the respective State Social Justice Department); Chief Secretaries to designate Nodal Officers (not below Secretary) to liaise; District Magistrates/DLSAs and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities to facilitate access and coordination.
Time-limits & reporting — NLUs to commence work within four weeks of receipt of the order; consolidated report of the Project to be submitted within six months; matter listed for receiving the consolidated report on 13th March, 2026.
Reservation issue — Court notes absence, in practice, of “upward movement” for meritorious candidates with disabilities (migration to unreserved list when they score above the general cut-off); Union of India directed to explain the steps taken to implement upward movement in recruitments and promotions in favour of PwD candidates; response directed to be placed on record on 14th October, 2025.
Interim operational directions — States/UTs required to file compliance affidavits; Chief Secretaries to ensure logistical and administrative support; monitoring teams given liberty to refine parameters and add focal-points necessary for a comprehensive evidence-based report; immediate remedial measures for high-risk residents to be undertaken while long-term reforms are implemented.
Outcome & emphasis — The Court frames the monitoring exercise as a structural, rights-based intervention aimed at moving away from congregate institutional models towards community-based alternatives, ensuring that statutory protections translate into lived equality and dignity for persons with disabilities.
I.A. No.130117 of 2018 disposed of in terms of the directions recorded; consequential/separate listings indicated for compliance and receipt of reports.

2025 INSC 1101

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO(S). 130117 OF 2018

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11938 OF 2016

REENA BANERJEE

AND ANOTHER ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF NCT

OF DELHI AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 116 OF 1998

J U D G M E N T

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

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.

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

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.

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 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 nongovernmental 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.’

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/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 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 staterun 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 nonadversarially 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

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 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

4 Judgment/Order dated 2nd December, 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 11938 of

2016.

5 Comprising, Poonam Natarajan (Vidya Sagar, Tamil Nadu), Radhika

Alkazi (Astha, Delhi), Elizabeth Neuville & Geeta Modal (Keystone Institute

India, Delhi), Shabnam Aggarwal (Anandini, Delhi and Chandigarh),

Deepika Easwaran (The Banyan, Tamil Nadu, Kerala & Maharashtra),

Sudha Ramamoorthy (Special Educator), and Rajive Raturi (Consultant).

quo and suggests time-bound, rights-based reforms

grounded in both domestic and International Human

Rights Law.

D. Advisory Group Expert Panel Report and its

Recommendations

18. The Advisory Group Expert Panel Report

(‘Report’), firstly, outlines the legal framework

governing the rights of persons with disabilities. It

refers to Article 14 of the United Nations Convention

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities6, which

guarantees liberty and security of persons and

prohibits deprivation of liberty solely on the basis of

disability. The Report refers to Section 3 of the RPwD

Act, which ensures equality and life with dignity, and

Section 5, which confers the right to live in the

community. Reference is also made to Section 19 of

the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which reiterates the

right to community living and prohibits prolonged

institutionalisation in the absence of family or

community-based alternatives. The Report places

these provisions as the normative basis for its

assessment and recommendations.

6 Ratified by India in 2007.

19. The Report notices that residents of Asha Kiran

Home often arrive at the institution with complex

health and emotional needs. Many have experienced

homelessness, abandonment, or trauma and display

a range of impairments including, intellectual

disabilities, cerebral palsy, hearing or vision

impairments, and other cognitive disability

conditions. A significant number require regular

medication for epilepsy, psychiatric disorders,

respiratory infections, or chronic illnesses like

tuberculosis. The Report clarifies that Asha Kiran

Home is not a hospital and recommends that

healthcare must be framed within a comprehensive

plan that includes promotive, preventive,

therapeutic, and curative aspects. Preventive care is

identified as including adequate nutrition, clean

drinking water, hygiene, and appropriate bedding

and clothing to protect from seasonal illnesses. The

Report observes that overcrowding in the institution

has contributed to the spread of infections and

suggests decongestion as a key health intervention.

20. The comprehensive recommendations, submitted

by the Advisory Group Expert Panel, are summarised

below:

a) State-run institutions like Asha Kiran

Home, must conduct regular medical

screenings and adopt early detection protocols.

Staff should be trained to identify early signs of

health deterioration or behavioural crises, and

systems should be put in place for timely

referral to hospitals and access to emergency

care.

b) Psychiatric prescriptions must be subject

to periodic review and rationalisation. Caution

is advised against the undue medicalisation of

normative behaviours, and all medication

should be supplemented with therapeutic and

psychosocial support systems.

c) Multidisciplinary teams comprising

doctors, nurses, occupational and physical

therapists, speech and language professionals,

counsellors, and special educators should be

constituted. Professional coordination must be

ensured so that interventions are holistic,

structured, and avoid duplication, with

particular emphasis on residents with high

support needs.

d) Nutritionists and dieticians should

prepare group-specific diet plans. A Diet

Committee with active participation of

residents must be constituted. Cooking

facilities should be decentralised and meals

personalised in accordance with individual

needs, with residents encouraged to

participate in food preparation as part of

independent living and vocational skillbuilding.

e) All immobile residents must be assessed

by physiotherapists, speech therapists,

occupational therapists, and special

educators. Individualised therapy plans should

be drawn up, and appropriate assistive devices

such as wheelchairs, walkers, and supportive

seating must be provided. Staff should receive

training to support persons with high support

needs, while peer support and structured daily

engagement should be promoted.

f) Children with cognitive disability should

be enrolled in nearby government, private, or

special schools wherever possible, and those

unable to access such schools should be

enrolled in the National Institute of Open

Schooling with institutional support. Bridge

courses, after-school support, and adapted

teaching methodologies must be introduced,

while institutions should also provide

recreation rooms, learning corners, libraries,

and art-based educational spaces.

g) Vocational or livelihood plans must be

prepared for all adult residents. A Vocational

Manager should be appointed, and staff

trained to conduct skill-building programmes.

Domestic chores should be used to build

independence, while vocational units in areas

such as pottery, packaging, data entry, or

hospitality should be established. Community

resource mapping and collaborations with

employers should be undertaken, with training

aligned to the interests and abilities of each

resident.

h) All residents should be provided with

requisite identity and disability documentation

to access government welfare schemes. Social

workers must be appointed to facilitate

enrolment in pensions, health insurance,

ration, and skill development programmes.

Community-based models such as ‘Nalam’ and

‘Home Again’ should be considered for wider

adoption.

i) The ‘Home Again’ model of small group

living in community homes with personalised

support should be expanded. Admissions into

large state-run institutions should be

minimised, and priority should be accorded to

community-based living arrangements.

j) Institutional reform must proceed on a

three-pronged basis: first, comprehensive

institutional mapping of every resident to

develop individual care profiles and exit plans;

second, prevention of new admissions by

strengthening families through both

counselling and material support; and third,

structured exit pathways through family

reunification, foster or kinship care, or small

group homes.

k) Institutions should adopt participatory

governance models involving residents,

caregivers, community members, and civil

society. Participatory methods such as the

Most Significant Change technique and the

Open Dialogue model should be used for care

planning and conflict resolution. Internal

grievance mechanisms, regular visits by

external monitoring agencies, compliance with

the NALSA framework, and collaboration with

local police for family tracing and safety of

residents are also recommended.

21. In conclusion, the Advisory Group Expert Panel

underscores that the strategies suggested in the

Report are intended as transitional mechanisms to

move away from institutionalisation. It states that

large-scale congregate facilities should gradually be

replaced with community-based systems of care and

support for persons with cognitive disability. The

Report frames its recommendations as part of an

ongoing shift towards an inclusive, rights-based

framework that enables persons with disabilities to

live with dignity, autonomy, and support within the

community.

22. Following their observations and

recommendations, the Advisory Group Expert Panel,

while drawing reference from directions issued by

this Hon’ble Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of

India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of 2005, seek

reliefs in terms of a direction, concerning the

monitoring and implementation of legal and policy

mandates applicable to persons with intellectual and

psychosocial disabilities residing in State-run care

institutions. In Rajive Raturi (supra), this Court,

vide order dated 29th November 2023, had noted with

concern the continuing non-compliance by the

concerned authorities of the Union of India as well as

State(s), and Union Territories with the provisions of

the RPwD Act, particularly Sections 44 and 45. This

Court directed the Centre for Disability Studies at the

National Academy of Legal Studies and Research,

University of Law, Telangana, to undertake a

comprehensive, independent assessment and

prepare a report on the measures required to

operationalise the ‘Accessible India Campaign’ and

render public infrastructure, including government

buildings, transport systems, digital spaces, and

documents, fully accessible to persons with

disabilities. The Court further directed that such a

report be submitted within a period of six months.

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment was

directed to provide logistical support.

23. In light of the above, the applicants herein in

the present proceedings seek similar directions.

Specifically, they pray for the appointment of the

National Law School of India University, Bengaluru,

in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel

and other experts associated with the present report,

to jointly undertake a nationwide monitoring of all

State-run care institutions housing persons with

cognitive disabilities. The monitoring is proposed to

be carried out with reference to nine specified

parameters detailed in the Status Report filed before

this Court, along with other relevant considerations.

It is further prayed that the said team be directed to

submit a consolidated report within nine months.

Additionally, the applicants seek a direction to the

Union of India through the Ministry of Social Justice

and Empowerment to allocate and release requisite

financial and logistical resources to the appointed

panel, and to grant the panel liberty to determine

appropriate modalities for the execution of the

monitoring exercise, including engagement of

experts, field personnel, and coordination with States

and Union Territories.

24. We are of the opinion that before we take up the

prayers sought by the applicants, it would be

appropriate to place on record the framework, both

international and domestic, dealing with the rights of

persons with disabilities, particularly in the context

of institutional care, accessibility, and community

living. The jurisprudence in this area, spanning

international instruments and interpretation by

Indian Courts, forms the foundational basis on which

the proposed monitoring and recommendation

exercise must proceed.

E. International Legal Framework on Disability

Rights and Accessibility

25. While early international human rights treaties

did not explicitly mention persons with disabilities,

their foundational principles have been subsequently

interpreted to encompass the rights of all individuals,

including those with disabilities.

I. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR), adopted in 1948, enshrines the

foundational principles of equality, dignity,

and non-discrimination. Articles 1 and 2

categorically affirm that all human beings are

born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 25 recognises the right to an adequate

standard of living, encompassing health,

medical care, and necessary social services.

These provisions, though general in nature,

laid the normative groundwork for subsequent

international instruments that specifically

addressed the rights of persons with

disabilities, including matters concerning

institutional care and support.

II. The International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR) codifies civil liberties

equally applicable to persons with disabilities.

Among these are the right to life under Article

6, the right to freedom from torture or cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment under Article

7, and the right to liberty and security of a

person under Article 9. In General Comment

No. 35 on liberty and security of person, the

Human Rights Committee underscored the

necessity of ensuring that persons with

psychosocial or intellectual disabilities are not

subjected to arbitrary institutionalisation and

that adequate procedural safeguards are

provided.

III. The International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further

reinforces the rights of persons with disabilities

by recognising, inter alia, the right to work

under Article 6, the right to the highest

attainable standard of health under Article 12,

and the right to education under Article 13.

The ICESCR has clarified that these rights

impose an obligation on States to remove

physical, informational, and attitudinal

barriers that impede the full enjoyment of such

rights by persons with disabilities.

IV. Other core human rights treaties, including

the Convention Against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDAW), have been

interpreted to extend protection to women and

girls with disabilities, particularly in relation to

institutionalisation, autonomy, and freedom

from abuse. Though not disability-specific,

these treaties form an integral part of the

international legal framework safeguarding the

rights of persons with disabilities.

V. The most authoritative and specialised

instrument in this regard is the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities (UNCRPD), adopted in 2006 and

ratified by India in 2007. The Convention

marks a paradigm shift from the medical or

charitable model of disability to the human

rights and social model. It mandates that

persons with disabilities are entitled to the

enjoyment of all human rights and

fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with

others.

VI. Article 9 of the UNCRPD obliges participating

States to adopt measures ensuring

accessibility in respect of the physical

environment, transportation, information and

communication technologies, and other

facilities. Article 12 affirms equal recognition

before the law, Article 14 prohibits the

unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of liberty on

the basis of disability, Article 17 protects

personal integrity, while Article 19 guarantees

the right to live independently and to be

included in the community, and, thereby,

reiterating the principles of autonomy, legal

capacity, and informed consent, including

within institutional settings.

VII. The Convention on the Rights of the Child

(CRC) came into force in 1990 and was ratified

by India in 1992, provides additional

protections to children with disabilities. Article

23 specifically recognises their right to enjoy a

full and decent life in conditions that ensure

dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate

participation in the community. The

Committee on the Rights of the Child has

clarified that institutionalisation of children

with disabilities must be treated only as a

measure of last resort, with priority accorded

to family-based and community alternatives.

VIII.Other provisions of the CRC, including Article

12 on the right of the child to freely express

views in all matters affecting them, Article 19

on protection from neglect or negligent

treatment, and Article 28 on the right to

education, are equally applicable to children in

institutional care.

IX. Taken together, the UNCRPD and CRC impose

a clear and affirmative obligation upon State

parties to progressively realise the rights of

persons with disabilities, including children, to

live with dignity, autonomy, and inclusion in

society, while ensuring that institutional

settings are not converted into spaces of

neglect, exclusion, or denial of rights.

26. While the Advisory Group Expert Panel Report

primarily relies on the UNCRPD as its normative

anchor, it is imperative that the Advisory Group

Expert Panel and the Universities assigned to the

project adopt a more comprehensive approach. In

undertaking the monitoring and recommendation

exercise, the panel should consider the full spectrum

of international human rights instruments, such as

the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, and CEDAW,

which, when read collectively, affirm the interrelated

civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of

persons with disabilities. A holistic interpretation of

these treaties is essential to ensure that the

assessment captures not only accessibility and

institutional conditions but also the broader

guarantees of dignity, autonomy, equality, and

inclusion.

F. Indian Framework on Disability Rights and

Accessibility

27. India’s approach to disability rights has evolved

significantly from a charity-based and medical model

to a rights-based framework. This transformation has

been shaped by statutory enactments, constitutional

mandates, and progressive judicial interpretation.

I. The RPwD Act, enacted pursuant to India’s

obligations under the UNCRPD, constitutes the

primary legislation in this regard. It guarantees

substantive rights, including equality, nondiscrimination, community living, protection

from abuse, and access to education,

employment, and public services.

II. Section 3 of the RPwD Act affirms the principles

of equality and dignity for persons with

disabilities, mandating the State to take

proactive measures to eliminate discrimination.

III. Section 5 recognises the right of persons with

disabilities to live in the community and

prohibits any compulsion to reside in a

particular arrangement against their will.

IV. Section 34 stipulates provisions concerning the

reservation for persons with disabilities.

V. Chapter V of the RPWD Act, comprising

Sections 40 to 46, lays down detailed

accessibility standards to be implemented by

the appropriate governments in respect of the

built environment, transport, information and

communication technology, and public services.

VI. In parallel, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,

under Section 19, recognises the right to

community living for persons with mental

illness, prohibits prolonged institutionalisation

without medical justification, and casts a duty

upon the State to create alternative residential

and community-based support structures.

While the aforesaid statutory enactments provide the

legislative foundation for disability rights, the Indian

judiciary has played a pivotal role in their

interpretation, consistently invoking the

constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and

21 of the Constitution of India. Through such

interpretation, the judiciary has reframed disability

not merely as a medical condition but as a type of

structural disadvantage, thereby requiring active

redressal, protection, and inclusion within the

constitutional framework.

28. In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India7

, this Court

held that discrimination against persons with

disabilities violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, and affirmed that the right to

dignity is intrinsic to the right to life. The Court

underscored that the duty to accommodate the needs

of persons with disabilities flows from the

constitutional mandate of substantive equality and

non-discrimination.

29. In Rajive Raturi (supra), this Court considered

the inaccessibility of public infrastructure, transport

systems, and information platforms, and issued

binding directions to the Union and State

Governments to make buildings, transport system,

and websites accessible in conformity with Sections

44 and 45 of the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court noted

that the failure to ensure accessibility constitutes

systemic exclusion and infringes the equal protection

clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

“12. Accessibility refers to the design of

products, services, environments, and systems

to ensure that all individuals, including those

7 (2016) 7 SCC 761.

with disabilities, can access, use, and benefit

from them fully and independently. This

encompasses physical access, such as entry to

buildings and transport, as well as access to

information, communication, and digital

platforms. It is essential for promoting inclusion

and enabling participation in all aspects of

public life.

xxx

19. The right to accessibility is not a new or

separate human right, but rather an integral

part of existing human rights frameworks.

Accessibility is embedded within several

international human rights treaties, reinforcing

its foundational role in ensuring equality and

dignity for all individuals, including those with

disabilities. For example, access to the physical

environment and public transportation is

essential for the realisation of freedom of

movement, which is guaranteed under Article

13 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and Article 12 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Similarly, access to information and

communication is crucial for exercising the

right to freedom of opinion and expression, as

articulated in Article 19 of the UDHR. These

rights are foundational for enabling PWDs to

live independently, participate in society, and

enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others.

22. Accessibility is not merely a convenience,

but a fundamental requirement for enabling

individuals, particularly those with disabilities,

to exercise their rights fully and equally.

Without accessibility, individuals are effectively

excluded from many aspects of society, whether

that be education, employment, healthcare, or

participation in cultural and civic activities.

Accessibility ensures that persons with

disabilities are not marginalised but are instead

able to enjoy the same opportunities as

everyone else, making it an integral part of

ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity.

By embedding accessibility as a human right

within existing legal frameworks, it becomes

clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the

exercise of other rights.”

30. In Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service

Commission8, this Court made an important

contribution to Indian equality jurisprudence by

recognising that the principle of reasonable

accommodation must be responsive to the

individualised needs of persons with disabilities

rather than being confined to fixed or standardised

benchmarks. This Court held that equal opportunity

in employment processes cannot be achieved by

applying uniform rules without having regard to the

structural disadvantages that persons with

disabilities may face and emphasised that reasonable

accommodation is intrinsic to substantive equality

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The

relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced

hereinbelow:

8 (2021) 5 SCC 370.

“39. The RPwD Act 2016 is fundamentally

premised on the recognition that there are

many ways to be, none more ‘normal’ or

‘better’ than the other. It seeks to provide

the disabled a sense of comfort and

empowerment in their difference.

Recognizing the state of affairs created by

centuries of sequestering and discrimination

that this discrete and insular minority has faced

for no fault on its aims to provide them an even

platform to thrive, to flourish and offer their

unique contribution to the world. It is based on

the simple idea with profound implications that

each of us has: “unique powers to share with

the world and make it interesting and richer.”

By opening doors for them and attenuating the

barriers thwarting the realization of their full

potential, it seeks to ensure that they are no

longer treated as second class citizens.

40. It gives a powerful voice to the disabled

people who, by dint of the way their impairment

interacts with society, hitherto felt muted and

silenced. The Act tells them that they belong,

that they matter, that they are assets, not

liabilities and that they make us stronger,

not weaker….”

[Emphasis Supplied]

31. However, while Vikas Kumar (supra) aptly

foregrounds the need to remove systemic barriers

and affirms the constitutional commitment to nondiscrimination, certain conceptual framings within

the judgment require further reflection. The Court's

description of persons with disabilities as a “discrete

and insular minority”, though likely drawn from

equal protection jurisprudence, has the effect of

reinforcing a view of disability as exceptional or

peripheral. This formulation, while legally protective

in intent, risks positioning disability as an aberration

from the normative centre, thereby sustaining the

logic of segregation rather than normalisation. The

judgment in Vikas Kumar (supra) employs the

metaphor of persons with disability being “assets, not

liabilities.” While intended to combat stereotypes of

incapacity and dependence, such a framework

inadvertently re-inscribes ableist hierarchies by

framing value in terms of productivity or

performance. It implicitly affirms a binary wherein

disability must be redeemed through functionality,

rather than affirming inherent worth and dignity

regardless of ability or economic utility. In doing so,

it risks subordinating constitutional values of

personhood and autonomy to market-based metrics

of usefulness.

32. This concern is particularly salient in the

present context, when applied to the lived realities of

persons in State-run care institutions such as Asha

Kiran Home. The majority of the residents are

persons with support needs, whose disabilities are

profound and long-term. They may not fit neatly into

productivity-centric paradigms, and their rights must

not be measured by benchmarks of economic

contribution or rehabilitation “success.” The dignity

of persons with disability, especially those

institutionalised and forgotten, cannot be made

contingent upon their perceived ability to integrate,

perform, or comply with dominant norms of

independence. An equality framework premised on

contribution or performance may be inadequate to

secure their rights, especially when their exclusion is

not incidental but embedded within institutional

design. The danger lies in articulating inclusion

only through the language of exception or

achievement, rather than through structural

reconstitution of public spaces, services, and

norms to affirm disability as a legitimate and

constitutive part of human diversity. A truly

inclusive constitutional vision must move beyond

these binaries and recognise that the right to

equality is not contingent on capacity but

anchored in dignity, autonomy, and the right to

belong, on equal terms, in every domain of life.

33. In a recent pronouncement in Kabir Paharia v.

National Medical Commission & Ors.9, this Court

reiterated the constitutional and statutory mandate

to dismantle arbitrary barriers imposed on persons

with disabilities, particularly in access to higher

education and professional opportunities. The

petitioner therein, being a person with a benchmark

disability, challenged the denial of admission to the

MBBS course on the ground that the statutory

regulations failed to reasonably accommodate his

disability. This Court held that administrative

authorities had applied the eligibility criteria in a

rigid and exclusionary manner, and in doing so, had

failed to uphold the letter and spirit of the RPwD Act.

This Court disregarded the formalistic and medically

reductionist approaches to disability and emphasised

that institutions cannot rely on outdated or nonindividualised assessments to deny access to

fundamental rights. The relevant paragraphs of the

judgment are reproduced below:

“15. The constitutional promise of equality is not

merely formal but substantive, requiring the

State to take affirmative measures to ensure that

PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in

9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1025.

all spheres of life, including professional

education. We emphasize that reasonable

accommodation is not a matter of charity but a

fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16,

and 21 of our Constitution. When administrative

authorities create arbitrary barriers that exclude

qualified PwBD candidates, they not only violate

statutory provisions but also perpetuate the

historical injustice and stigmatisation. The

fundamental rights and the dignity of PwD and

PwBD candidates must be protected by ensuring

that assessment of their capabilities is

individualised, evidence-based, and free from

stereotypical assumptions that have no scientific

foundation.”

34. The above case stands as a reminder that

inclusive education requires administrative

flexibility, empathetic assessment, and legal

sensitivity to the evolving concept of equality for

persons with disabilities. It highlights how systemic

barriers, when codified through administrative

regulations or institutional inertia, can deny full

participation and constitutional personhood to

individuals with disabilities. In State-run care

institution settings such as Asha Kiran Home, the

absence of individualised care plans, educational

assessments, and therapeutic support replicates this

very exclusion in a more severe and structural form.

Kabir Paharia (supra) affirms that such denials are

not merely administrative lapses but constitutional

wrongs demanding active redress.

35. Taking into consideration the above-discussed

framework and rights-based jurisprudence of this

Court, it is clear that our constitutional courts have

consistently read the rights of persons with

disabilities into the broader constitutional

guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the

Constitution of India. Article 14 has been expanded

to include substantive equality, requiring not only

equal treatment but also reasonable accommodation

and removal of systemic barriers. Article 19,

particularly the right to freedom of expression and

movement, has been interpreted to mandate

accessible formats, transport, and communication.

Article 21 anchors the right to life with dignity,

recognising that dignity is not a privilege but an

entitlement, especially for those who are

institutionally marginalised. The present case,

concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act

along with the prolonged institutionalisation and lack

of access to education, health, and community life for

persons residing in State-run care

institution/homes, must therefore be viewed through

this expansive constitutional lens. The proposed

monitoring and assessment must not be limited to

administrative compliance but must engage with the

question of whether institutional structures respect

the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with

disabilities as guaranteed under the Indian

Constitution.

G. Direction(s) and Conclusion: -

36. During the course of arguments, learned

counsel for the applicant/s sought the 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. We are of the firm opinion that

the task of nationwide monitoring ought to be

distributed across different regions of the country for

greater reach and oversight so as to be effective.

Accordingly, we hereby direct that 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 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.

37. We are of the firm view that the proposed

monitoring and data collation exercise of the “Project

Ability Empowerment” must not only limit itself to

the 9 parameters identified in the Report, concerning

the physical and infrastructural conditions of staterun institutions housing persons with disabilities,

but also assess the extent to which such state-run

institutions adhere to the broader legal commitments

of autonomy, inclusion, and dignity. In this regard,

the Advisory Group Expert Panel and National Law

Universities (supra), conducting the exercise, shall

pay particular attention to certain key areas, which

are hereinafter indicated to guide the scope of their

compilation(s) and recommendation(s).

Part I. Resident Profiling, Care and

Rehabilitation

I. A comprehensive mapping of residents should

be undertaken, covering each individual

residing in institutions for persons with

cognitive disabilities. This mapping must

include, but not be limited to, information on

the resident’s age, gender, disability profile,

medical and psychiatric history, length of stay,

family background, language spoken,

education level, vocational skills, and

psychosocial needs. The purpose of this

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 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. The data

must reflect how many residents have exited

the institution in recent years, and the followup, if any, undertaken to ensure successful

reintegration.

Part II. Accessibility, Infrastructure and

Education

IV. 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. In addition,

the accessibility of communication channels,

such as sign language, pictorial instructions,

and accessible formats for persons with visual

or cognitive impairments, should also be

assessed.

V. 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. State-run

Institutions should be asked to demonstrate

how they are implementing the right to

education, functional literacy, and vocational

rehabilitation under the RPwD Act and the

National Education Policy, 2020.

Part III. Rights, Protection and Compliance

VI. 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 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. The existence and functioning of internal

complaints committees, residents' councils, or

any form of participatory governance should be

documented.

VII. 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.

Part IV: Staffing, Resources and Institutional

Accountability

VIII. 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.

IX. 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.

Part V. Documentation and Welfare Access

X. 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 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. The

dashboard and website shall be regularly

updated and may be monitored either by the

Secretary of the District Legal Services

Authority or the District Magistrate concerned,

and a periodic report shall be prepared and

submitted by the monitoring authority in

respect of the State-run institutions within

their jurisdiction.

XI. 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. Where found viable,

appropriate recommendations shall be made

so that every resident obtains an Aadhaar Card

and related identity documents, strictly

adhering to privacy safeguards and the

consent requirements prescribed by law.

38. The above key areas are not exhaustive but

indicative of the minimum areas of inquiry required.

The concerned members of the ‘Project Ability

Empowerment’ and Advisory Group Expert Panel,

shall be at liberty to identify additional focal points

that are considered necessary for the purpose of

producing a comprehensive and evidence-based

report. The compilation and findings should be

presented in a structured manner, along with

actionable recommendations for institutional

improvement, legal compliance, and gradual

transition toward community-based alternatives.

39. All District Magistrates/Collectors and

Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority

shall extend full cooperation to the monitoring teams

and ensure access to institutions within their

jurisdiction.

40. All State Governments and Union Territories,

through their respective Departments of Social

Justice/Disability Welfare/Women and Child

Development/Health & Family Welfare, shall provide

logistical and administrative support, including

access to records, facilities, and staff of the

institutions.

41. The State Commissioners for Persons with

Disabilities shall coordinate with the monitoring

teams to facilitate compliance with statutory

mandates and assist in data collation.

42. The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union

Territories shall designate a Nodal Officer, not below

the rank of Secretary in the concerned Department,

to liaise with the monitoring institutions and

Advisory Group Expert Panel.

43. The Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment, Government of India, shall extend

central coordination support, particularly in respect

of data consolidation and policy-level facilitation.

44. We are conscious that the resources ordinarily

available with the National Law Universities (supra)

may not be commensurate with the scale of the

monitoring exercise entrusted to them. Accordingly,

it is directed that all expenses incurred by the

monitoring teams of the NLUs (supra) in the course

of preparing and submitting their reports shall be

borne in equal proportion by the Department of

Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry

of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of

India, and the Social Justice Department of the

concerned States/Union Territories.

45. For the said purpose, the Union of India shall

provide an interim project fund to the tune of Rs. 25

lakhs each to the eight designated National Law

Universities (supra). The said amount shall be

remitted to the NLU concerned and will be marked in

a separate Head “Project Ability Empowerment”

46. The monitoring institutions shall commence

their work within four weeks from the date of receipt

of this order.

47. A detailed consolidated report of the “Project

Ability Empowerment” shall be submitted within

six months, with actionable recommendations for

systemic reforms and transition toward communitybased alternatives.

Part VI. Reservation

48. Considering the fact that, in the present matter,

we are also concerned with the aspect of the

reservation to persons with disabilities under the

RPwD Act, it is imperative to make a positive

interpretation of ‘reservation’ as provided under

Section 34 of the RPwD Act.

49. Disability is not a homogenous or monolithic

condition that can be compartmentalised into rigid or

uniform categories. The lived experiences, functional

limitations, and support needs of persons with

disabilities vary significantly depending upon the

nature, degree, and impact of the impairment, as well

as the environmental and social barriers they face.

The constitutional mandate of substantive equality,

as embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21, requires a

nuanced and context-sensitive 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. It must be recognised that a considerable

segment of persons with disabilities remains

historically and structurally deprived of

opportunities, trapped behind layers of social,

economic, and institutional barriers, and it is they

who must be placed at the centre of the constitutional

promise. The aim of state-driven welfare measures is

not simply to ensure formal equality, but to

dismantle barriers so that the most vulnerable and

genuinely disadvantaged can fully access the support

intended for them. Against this backdrop, provisions

such as Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates

reservation in employment for persons with

disabilities, assume crucial importance in translating

constitutional commitments and welfare objectives

into actionable opportunities.

50. In furtherance of this objective, and in order to

ensure that the mandate of Section 34 is

implemented in its true spirit, we feel it is essential

to address a very important facet of reservation to the

persons with disabilities and the grave discrimination

being faced by them, as they are the ones who have

been deprived by providence, as against the persons

who, face discrimination arising from the societal setup. The latter category of persons is entitled to social

reservation under Article 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.

51. However, we are informed and 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 higher in

merit, are denied such upward movement. The direct

consequence of not providing upward movement to

the meritorious candidate(s) applying under the

category of persons with disabilities would be that

even when a candidate with disability scores higher

than the cut-off for the unreserved category, such a

candidate would invariably occupy the reserved seat,

thereby denying the opportunity to a lower scoring

candidate with disability to make a claim on the

seat/post. In our view, this defeats the very purpose

of reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act and

constitutes a glaring example of hostile

discrimination against persons with disabilities and

requires urgent rectification. Such an interpretation

would ensure that the genuinely deserving

candidates with disability for whose benefit the

reservation was actually structured, i.e., those who,

owing to the compounded effect of disability and

deprivation, face the greatest obstacles, are not

deprived of their rightful opportunities. It safeguards

the purpose of reservation by ensuring that the seats

or posts earmarked for persons with disabilities

remain available to those whose degree of disability

and attendant barriers place them at a comparative

disadvantage and, therefore, entitle them to take a

better claim of benefits from affirmative action

measures.

52. This Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India10 held that reservation, as the measure of

affirmative action, operates not as a concession but

as a means of ensuring substantive equality. Further,

in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India11, it was affirmed

10 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.

11 (2006) 8 SCC 212.

that the principle of upward movement, whereby a

meritorious reserved category candidate securing

marks above the general cut-off is migrated to the

unreserved list, ensures both fairness and the

effective utilisation of reservations. Unfortunately,

persons with disabilities are presently not given the

benefit of upward movement.

53. Having regard to the above, we consider 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. Such consideration must be guided by

the overarching aim that the true and substantive

benefit of reservations reaches those most in need,

ensuring that no person with disability is ignored

from his rightful claim to the post, merely due to the

compounded barriers of poverty, stigma, and lack of

access. Such an exercise must be undertaken

keeping in view the constitutional promise of

equality, dignity, and inclusion, and ensuring that

the benefits of reservation are neither diluted nor

denied to those who genuinely require them.

54. Response to the above query shall be placed on

record by the Union of India on 14th October, 2025.

55. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the

Registrar of each of the above eight National Law

Universities, as well as to the Secretary, Department

of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India

and Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories,

for immediate compliance.

56. Accordingly, IA No. 130117 of 2018 (Application

for Directions) is disposed of, in the above terms.

57. List the matters on 13th March, 2026, for

receiving the detailed Consolidated Report.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 12, 2025.

LAW FOR ALL

LawforAll

Saturday, September 20, 2025