JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATIONversusU.0.1. & ANR.

                     [2014] 4 S.C.R. 113

     JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION                          A
                              v.
                        U.0.1. & ANR.
           (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998)
                      MARCH 26, 2014
                                                                  B
  (R.M. LODHA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
              AND DIPAK MISRA JJ.]

      PERSONS          WITH      DISABILITIES         (EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECT/ON OF RIGHTS AND FULL                      C
PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995:
           . '


      Differently abled persons - Writ petition.with regard•to
visually disabled persons - Seeking reservations of 1% of
identified teaching posts in Universities and Colleges in terms   0
of the Act - Held:The beneficial provisions of the Act cannot
be allowed to remain only on paper for years and thereby
defeating the very purpose of such law and legislative policy
-- All those upon whom obligation has been cast under the
Act have to effectively implement it -- Role of governments       E
in such a matter has to be proactive -- Differently abled
citizens must be accorded best and special attention - This
is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity
- Pursuant to interim orders, UGC has acted in compliance
of the Act -- Central Government, State Governments and
Union Territories are directed to implement provisions of the     F
Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014 in all
respects including with regard to visually disabled persons.

     The petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998,
seeking, inter alia implementation of the provisions of the G
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the '199.5 Act'),
and reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in
the faculties and college of various Universities for usuaily
                             113                                 H
    114       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   disabled persons in terms of s. 33 of the 1995 Act. Initially,
    Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare
    and University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its
    Chairperson were impleaded as party respondents. The
    Court further ordered impleadment of the States, the
B   Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner for Persons
    with Disabilities, Ministry of So,cial J.ustice and
    Empowerment, Government of India and the
    Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of various
    States and Union Territories to be impleaded as party
C   respondents. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by
    the Court, U.G.C. was stated to have acte.d in compliance,
    of the 1995 Act. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the
    Union of India and the State Governments to file their
    responses in the form of affidavits. Some of the States
    filed their responses.
0
          Disposing of the petitions, the Court;

          HELD:

       More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act
E came to be passed and yet there are problems in its
  implementation. The 1995 Act has to be implemented in
  the letter and spirit. The beneficial provisions of the 1995
  Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years
  and thereby defeating the very purpose of such law and
F legislative policy. The Union, the States, the Union
  Territories and all those upon whom obligation has been
  cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively implement it.
  As a matter of fact, the role of the governments in the
  matter such as this has to be proactive. Differently abled
G citizens must be accorded best and special attention. This
  is true equality ·and effective conferment of equal
  opportunity. This Court, accordingly, directs the Central
  Government, the State Governments and the Union
  Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act
H
   JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v.                    115
                 U.0.1. & ANR.
 immediately and positively by the end of 2014 in all               A
 respects including with regard to visually disabled
 persons. [para 10, 11, 14 and 15] [118-H; 119-A-D, D-G;
 120-B]
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the           B
 Constitution of India.

      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998.
                                 WITH
 W.P. (C) No. 115 of 1998.                                          c
 W.P. (C) No. 430 of 2000.

 C.A. Nos. 6442 and 6443 of 1998.

       Suryanarayaria Singh, Addi. AAG, S.S. Shamshery,             D
· A.A.G., Ambar Qamaruddin, C.K. Sucharita, Aniruddha P.
  Mayee; Prashant Kumar, Rajiv Mehta, B. Balaji, Susmita Lal,
  Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Kumar Tandale,
  Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, T.V.
  George, Pragati Neekhra, Leena Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee,           E
  Gulshan Bajwa, Anil Shrivastav, P.V. Yogeswaran, Gopal
  Singh, P.N. Gupta, K.V. Mohan, Rachana Srivastava, Sunil
  Fernandes, P.N. Ramalingam, Abhijit Sengupta, Kamlendra
  Mishra, R. Sathish, Satish Vig, Praveen Swarup, Jagjit Singh
  Chhabra, V.N. Raghupathy, Balaji Srinivasan, Bansuri Swaraj,
                                                                    F
  Nirnimesh Dube, Hemantika Wahi, Sunita Sharma, B.P. Singh,
  D.S. Mahra, Arun K. Sinha, Sushma Suri, Ashok Mathur, Ranbir
  Singh Yadav, C.D. Singh, Sanjay Visen, Abhishek Chaudhary,
  Anil Katiyar, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Corporate Law Group,
  Niranjana Singh, Rajeev Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,           G
  D. Bharathi Reddy, Shibashish Misra, V.G. Pragasam,
  Balasubramaniam, K.V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, A. Subhashini,
  G. Prakash, Sumita Hazarika, Arun Mathur, Ashok S. Pillai, G.N.
  Reddy, Debojit, M. Bala Shivudu, Shreekant N. Terdal;Suchitra
  Atul Chitale, P. Parmeshwaran, T.V. Ratnam, Anil K. Jha, Gopal
  Prasad, V.D. Khanna, K. En:atoli Serna, Sbudhada                  H
    116       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   Deshpande, Amit Kumar, Anip Sachthey, Mohit Paul, Sandeep
    Singh, Harshvardhan Singh Rathore. Amit Sharma for the
    appearing Parties.
          Petitioner-In-Person (for WP (C) No. 430 of 2000).
B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          R.M. LODHA, J.
    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
       1. In this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner - a charitable
c trust, the prayers made are (i) for implementation of the
  provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
  Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short,
  '1995 Act'), (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the
  identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various
  Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act, and (iii)
D for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled
  persons in the faculties and college of various Universities in
  the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights
  guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 41 of the
  Constitution of India.
E
       2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (one) Union of India
  through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (two) University
  Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its Chairperson were
  impleaded as party respondents.
F       3. On 07.10.1998, the Court ordered impleadment of the
    States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly,
    respondent Nos. 3 to 34 were impleaded as party respondents.
      4. On 13.09.2001, the Court directed the Chief
  Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social
G Justice and Empowerment, Government of India to be
  impleaded as party respondent and consequently it has been
  impleaded as respondent No. 35.
      5 .. Then on 18.02.2009, the Court directed
  Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of various States
H and Union Territories to be impleaded as party respondents
 JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v.                         117
         U.0.1. & ANR. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
and consequently respondent Nos. 36 to 70 have been                    A
impleaded who are Commissioners for Persons with
Disabilities in different States and Union Territories.

    6. Certain interim orders have been passed by this Court
from time to time.                                                     B
    7. Insofar as U.G.C. (respondent No. 2) is concerned, the
Court was informed on 19.03.2002 through counter affidavit that
U.G.C. has acted in compliance of the 1995 Act. In paras 3, 6,
7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, it was stated :            c
    "3. It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of Section 32
    of the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities
    Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995, the
    appropriate government (Government of India) has                   D
    updated the list of identified posts. This list has been
    issued vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 178
    dated 30.6.2001. In this list, the posts of University-/College/
    School Teacher for the blind and low-vision have been
    listed at SI. No. 24-27 on page No. 592.                           E

    6. The Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities
    has taken cognizance of the arrangements provided by the
    University Grants Commission for persons with disabilities
    by way of extending 5% relaxation in cut off mark~.
    appearing in the NET for Junior Research Fellowship and            F
    Lectuership. Thus, the arrangement extended by UGC is
    in consonance with the policy stand taken by Govt. of India
    in so far as relaxation in minimum standard is concerned.
    Relaxation in standards has been favoured only when the
    candidates belonging to reserved categories are not                G
    available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the
    vacancies reserved for them.

    7. The relaxation extended to SC & ST candidates as per
    Maintenance of Standard 1998 of the Universities,
                                                                       H
    118        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.

A         provides for a 5% relaxation from 55 % to 50% in the
          marks obtained at Master's Degree. Since reservation for
          the disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts
          across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC &
          General. Therefore, all such blind/low-vision persons who
B         belonged to SC, ST vertical category would automatically
          enjoy the benefit of 5 % relaxation at the minimum
          qualifying marks obtained at Master's Degree level. Thus,
          only the blind and low vision belonging to OBC & General
          categories are deprived of the relaxation of 5 % marks at
c         masters' level.

          8. The blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons
          belonging to SC & ST category are in any case enjoying
          the benefit .of 5% relaxation in marks obtained at the
          master's level for appearjng in the NET examination
D         conducted by the UGC. By extending the same relaxation
          to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled
          at par with SC & ST disabled would bring parity amongst
          all persons with disabilities irrespective of their vertical
          categories."
E
        8. Thus, ins,ofar as U.G.C. is concerned, this Court in the
    order 19.03.2002 observed that nothing survives for
    consideration and the matter is disposed of as against U.G.C.

       9. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the Union of India
F and the State Governments to file their responses in the form
  of affidavits within a period of four weeks, failing which it was
  observed that the Court may be compelled to direct.personal
  appearance of the Chief Secretaries of the concerned States
  though the Court would like to avoid in making such a direction.
G Some of the States have filed t~eir responses and some have
  not.

       10. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions of the 1995
  Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years and
H thereby defeating the very purpose of such law and leQ,islative
 JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v.                        119
         U.0.1. & ANR. [RM. LODHA, J.]

policy. The Union, States, Union Territories and all those upon A
whom obligation has been cast under the 1995 Act have to
effectively implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the
governments in the matter such as this has to be proactive. In
the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled,
the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and B
relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern
for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their
life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy
of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best
and special attention to a section of our society which , C
comprises of differently abled citizens. This is true equality and
effective conferment of equal opportunity.

     11. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act
came to be passed and yet we are confronted with the problem
                                                                      0
of implementation of the 1995 Act in its letter and spirit by the
Union, States, Union Territories and other establishments to
which it is made applicable.

     12. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of
India, informs us that insofar as Union of India is concerned, it     E
has implemented the provisions of the 1995 Act and the
reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties
and college of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of
the 1995 Act has been done.
                                                                      F
     13. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be implemented in the
letter and spirit by the Central Government, State Governments
and Union Territories without any delay, if not implemented so
far.

    14. We, accordingly, direct the Central Government, State         G
Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions
of the 1995 Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014.

    15. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of
India, the Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators        H
    120        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   of Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner of the Union of
    India and the Commissioners of the State Governments and
    Union Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act
    in all respects including with regard to visually disabled persons
    within the above time.
B
           16. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

        Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 1998, Writ Petition (Civil)
    No. 430 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998 and Civil
    Appeal No. 6443 of 1998
c
    Writ Petitions and Appeals are disposed of in terms of the
    judgment passed today in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998.

           2. No costs.

D        3. Interlocutory Applications for intervention and
    impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442of1998, in view of
    the above, do not survive and they stand disposed of as such.

    R.P.                                      Petitions disposed .ef.