Holding

All States and Union Territories must file compliance reports under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 within twelve weeks of the order.

Summary

The petitioners sought directions for the Union, State Governments and Union Territories to comply with the Supreme Court's earlier orders on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, noting that the Act had been repealed and replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court examined the legislative shift, emphasizing the need to give effect to the newer Act, which expands rights and obligations for persons with disabilities. It noted the incomplete compliance reports filed by various States and Union Territories under the 1995 Act. The Court held that the 2016 Act imposes fresh duties on the executive and that the earlier directives must be refreshed in light of the new law. Consequently, it directed all States and UTs to file compliance reports under the 2016 Act within twelve weeks, and ordered that these reports be shared with the parties. The order also directed the Registry to circulate the directions to the Chief Secretaries and Administrators and listed a further hearing date.

Issues considered

Whether the States and Union Territories are required to file compliance reports under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in lieu of the repealed 1995 Act.
Whether the earlier Supreme Court directions under the 1995 Act remain operative after the enactment of the 2016 Act.
What is the appropriate time‑frame for filing such compliance reports.
Scope of the obligations of the Central Government, State Governments and local authorities under the 2016 Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 41
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995s. 29, s. 30, s. 33, s. 34, s. 41, s. 44, s. 46, s. 47, s. 48, s. 49, s. 56, s. 68
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 1(2), s. 12, s. 16(d), s. 17, s. 18, s. 19, s. 24, s. 25, s. 2(c), s. 2(h), s. 2(k), s. 2(m), s. 2(p), s. 2(r), s. 2(s), s. 2(v), s. 2(zb), s. 31, s. 32, s. 33, s. 34, s. 35, s. 84, s. 85, s. 89, s. 90, s. 92, s. 93

Subjects

Disability RightsCompliance ReportingRights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016Implementation of StatutesInterlocutory ApplicationState ObligationsJudicial Directions

Judgment

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 723

HJSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(I.A. No.JO of2015)
In
B
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116of1998)
APRIL 25, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Persons with c
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 - Issuance of directions by this Court in
*Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs Union of India to State
'Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions of
the 1995 Act-Filing of IA to issue directions to Central Government,
State Government and Union Territories to comply with the said D
;udgment - Compliance report filed, however, compliance not
complete - Parliament, realizing the national need of the rights of
the persons under disability and commitment to the Convention of
the United Nations General Assembly, repealed the 1995 Act and
brought in 2016 Act- 2016 Act visualizes sea change and conceives E
of actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act -
Conferment of more rights on the disabled persons, more categories
added, and access to justice, free education, role of local authorities,
National fund and State fund jot persons with disabilities created -
In given circumstances, mandatory to scan the anatomy of significant
provisions of the Act and see that they are implemented - State F
Governments and· Union Territories to comply with the requirements
of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report within the stipulated
time.
Ad.iourning the matter, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Parliament, realizing the national need of G
the rights of the persons under disability and commitment to the
Convention of the United Nations General Assembly, repealed
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and brought in The Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The said 2016 Act has H
723
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A been brought ,into existence to give effect to the United Nation
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 2016 Act
visualizes a sea change and conceives of actualization of the
benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole grammar of
benefit has been changed for the better, and responsibilities of
B
many have been encompassed. In such a situation, it becomes
obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the
Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy
inherent within the framework of the legislation should be
implemented and not become a distant dream. Immediacy of action
c is the warrant. [Paras 8, 9](739-E-F; 740-F-G]
1.2 The 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient
features. More rights have been confened on the disabled
persons and more categories have been added. That apart, access
to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund
D and the State fund for persons with disabilities have been created.
The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and
requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with
disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities, educational
institutions and the companies. Emphasis is there on the special
court, speedy trial and special public prosecutor. The statute
E operates in a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the
rights and provide punishment for their violation. [Para 23] (746-
F-H]
1.3 Regard being had to the change in core aspects, the
States and the Union Territories are directed to file compliance
F report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within the
stipulated period. The States and the Union Territories must
realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown
and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, for
there is an accent on many a sphere with r~gard to the rights of
G the disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled
persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law
executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite
promptitude. The steps taken in this regard would be concretely
stated in the compliance report within the time stipulated. When
the States are directed, a duty is cast also on the States and its
II-.
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 725
QE INDIA AND ANOTHER

authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined A
and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms,
associations and establishments, institutions, are scrupulously
followed. The State Governments shall take immediate steps to
comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the
compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress
B
made. [Para 24) [747-A-D]
*Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of
India and Another [2014) 4 SCR 113 : 2014 (14) SCC
383; Union of India and Another v. National Federation
of the Blind and Others [2013] 9 SCR 1023 : 2013
(10) sec 772 - referred to. c
Case Law Reference
[2014] 4 SCR 113 referred to Para 1
[2013) 9 SCR 1023 referred to Para2
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : lnetrlocutary Application D
No.10of2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.116of1998.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Iqdia.
S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Mrs. V. Mohana, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Ad vs.,
Manali Singhal, Santosh Sachin, Ms. Vinita Sashidharan, Rohit Kaul,
Tejasvi Kumar, S. Sarfaraz Karim, Deepak Singh Rawat, Ambar E
Qamaruddin, Dr. Monika Gusain, Abhijit Sengupta, Pawan Shri Aggarwal,
Abhishek Chaudhary, Anil Kumar Tandale, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj
Biswas, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Anuvrat Sharma, Arjun
Garg, Arun K. Sinha, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Naresh Kumar Gaur,
M. N. Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Mathur, B. Balaji, C. D. Singh,
F
Ms. Sakshi Kakkru; Shaivali Choudhary, Soumitra G Chaudhuri, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, C. K. Sasi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, D. S. Mahra,
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Ms. Varsha Poddar, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.
L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Manu Srinath, Gulshan
Bajwa, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Kamlendra Mishra, K. V. Mohan,
M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Nimimesh Dube, P. N. Gupta, P. N. Ramalingam, G
Prashant Kumar, Praveen Swarup, Shikhar Garg, Ganesh Bapu,
P. V. Yogeswaran, Rajeev ·sharma, Raj iv Mehta, Raj iv Nanda,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Ranjan Mukherjee,
R. Sathish, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Satish Vig, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,
Sangram S. Saron, Shree Pal Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Sun ii Fernandes,
H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A Tapesh Kumar Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya
Pratap Singh, T. V. George, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
V. N. Ragh\lpathy, Ms. A. Subhashini, Bhupesh Narula,
K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. lndira, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. K. Enatoli
Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Ms. El ix
Ganmei, Z. H. Issac Raiding, PratapVenugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman,
B
Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalsyarasan, M/s. K. J. John
& Co., Ms. Niranjana Singh, Aviral Saxena, Sukrit Kapur, Ms. Monika,
Nitya Madhusoodanan, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Sumita Hazarika,
Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Susmita Lal, Pankaj Sinha, Ms. Rajkumari Banju,
M. Yogesh Kamm, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Maha Lakshmi, Pratap Sarathi,
c R. K. Rathore, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Raj Bahadur, Guntur Prabhakar,
Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Rekha Pandey, B. K. Prasad,
G. M. Kawoosa, M. ShoebAlam, Manoj R. Sinha, Mahaling Pandarge,
Nishant Rarnkantrao Katneshwarkar, S. UdayaKumar Sagar, Mrityunjai
Singh, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham,
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Amit Arora, Advs. for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, J, 1. The instant interlocutory application was
filed to issue directions to the Central Government, State Governments
and Union Territories to comply with the judgment rendered in Justice
Su11a11da Blw11dare Fo1111datio11 vs. U11io11 of India <111tl Anot/ier1•
E
In the said case,a three-Judge Bench took note of various orders passed
in the writ petition, especially the prayer for implementation of the
provisions ofthe Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the 1995 Act')
and for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled
F 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 Articl.e 41 of the Constitution of India and opined
that the 1995 Act is to be treated as an enactment for empowerment of
the persons under disability and further expressed its concern with regard
to the apathy shown by various State Governments and the
G
instrnmentalities of the States.
2. Sitting in a time-machine, we may make a fruitful reference to
the decision rendered in Union ofImlia mul Another versus National
Federation of tile Blind a11d Otllers1 • The Comt, in the said case,
1
(2014) 14 sec 383
H '(2013) 10 sec 112
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 727
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

after refeITing to Section 33 of the 1995 Act, which dealt with reservation A
of posts and adverting to various aspects, directed as follows:-
"In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the
reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is
necessary to issue the following directions:
(i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate B
order modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent
OMs consistent with this Court's Order within three months from
the date of passing of this judgment.
(ii) We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to compute
the number of vacancies available in all the "establishments" c
and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period
of three months from today and implement the same without
default.
(iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the
departments/public sector undertakings/Government companies D
declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation
for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of
non- obedience and Nodal Officer in depai1ment/public sector
undertakings/ Government companies, responsible for the proper
strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities,
E
be depai1mentally proceeded against for the default."
3. In the said case, the Court laying emphasis on the concept of
employmen_t, expressed thus:-
"Employment is a key factor in the empowern1ent and inclusion
of people with disabilities. It is an alanning reality that the disabled F
people are out of job not because their disability comes in the
way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers
that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many
disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They
are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own
G
lives and to the lives of their families and community.
The Union ofindia, the State Governments as well as the Union
Te1Titories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution
ofindia and under various International treaties relating to human
rights in general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A protect the rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was
enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have failed to get
required benefit until today."
4. In the case of the present petitioner, that is, Justice Swumda
Blumdare Foundation (szpra), the three-Judge Bench was concerned
B with the implementation of the 1995 Act. In that context, it observed as
under:-
"Be that as it may, 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 legislative policy.
c The Union, States, 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. In the matters of
providing relief to those who arc differently ab led, the approach
and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented
D 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 comprises of differently
E ab led citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of
equal oppo1iunity."
5. Proceeding further, it expressed its agony in the following
manner:-
"More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act came to be
F passed and yet we are confronted with the problem 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."
·6. After expression of the said anguish, the Court issued the
G following directions:-
"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.

H
JUSTrCE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 729
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DlPAK MISRA, J.)

The Secretary, Ministry Of Welfare, Government of India, the A
Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators of the Union
Territories, the Chief Commissioner of the Union of India and
the Commissioners of the State Governments and the Union
Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act in all
respects including with regard to visually disabled persons within
B
the above time."
7. It is submitted by Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel appearing
forthe petitioner that after the judgment was delivered, applications were
filed by the petitioner to file the compliance report. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has filed a revised convenience chart depicting compliance
of the 1995 Act. The final observations made by the learned counsel c
has been produced before us in a tabular chart. We think it appropriate
to reproduce the same:-
"FINAL OBSERVATIONS

S.No. Respondent Remarks/Obsrrvations w.r.t Compliance D
State Of The Act

1 UGC • Only an approximate 1/3ro of the seats for
the teaching & non-teaching staff have
been filed wherein the Act requires 3% of
the seats to be filed.
E
2 State of • Yet to comply with provisions ofS.29
Jharkhand (Teacher's training Institution) as it is not
been specified.
• S.30 (Comprehensive Education Scheme),
40 (Poverty Allevation Schemes) & 41
(Incentives to Employers) of the Act have
also not been complied with. F
• Complia nee of the provisions of S.44
(Non- Discrimination In Transport)- 46
(Non' Discrimination in the built
environment) has not been complied with.
• S. 49 (Financial Incentives to Universities
for Research) not complied with and the
same is still under consideration. G

• No compliance of S.68 (Social Security -
Unemployment Allowance) by the State.
The affidavit is silent about the
compliance ofS.68 (Unemployment
Allowance).
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R.

A 3 State of. • Affidavit is silent on the compliances of
Rajas than · S.28 (Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids),
31 (Amanuensis to Children with
Visual Impairment), 39 (Resetvation of
Seats), 48 (Research), 49 (Financial
1ncentives to Universities for Research)
& 67 (Social Security Programmes) of
B
the Act.
• Under the provisions ofS. 48
(Research) with regard to Research &
manpower Development no report or
Status Report has been brought out.
4 State of Punjab • No provisioning of incentives to
C. , employers to ensure 5 % of the
workforce be of PWDs. Non-
compliance ofS.41 (Incentives to
Empl.oyers).
• Non-compliance of S.28 (Assistive
Devices, Hearing Aids), 48 (Research)
& 49 (Financial Incentives to
D Universities for Research). Qua
Promotion.
5 State of Tamil • The compliance ofS. 49 (Financial
Naidu Incentives to Universities for Research)
has not been brought out by the State.
• The compliance ofS. 56 (Institution for
Persons with Severe Disabilities) not
E brought out by the State.
• The compliance of S. 66-68 (Socia I
Security Programmes) has not been
carried out by the State adequately as
. 110 clarity has been given on the
Rehabilitation Aspect. (only a limited
amount has been allocated for the
F rescue scheme and only persons
affected Leprosy and found begging are
accommodated in rehabilitation homes).
• Compliance ofS. 43 (Preferential
Allotment of Land) not specified.
6 STATE OF • State has not filed the affidavit in
KARNATAKA consonance to the Order dt. 26.4.2016
G as it remains silent on major issues w.r.t
the compliances of Sections 28
(Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids), 41
(Incentives to Employers), 48
(Research), 49 (Financial Incentives to··-
·Universities for Research), 66 & 67
(Social Security Programmes) of-the
H PWDAct.
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 731
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

7 STATE OF • "Slate Co-ordination Committee" have A
BIHAR not been reconstituted, thus non
compliance of S.13.
-
• Compliance of the provision of S.41 .
(Incentives to Employers) has not been
depicted.
• The affidavit is silent on the B
compliance of S.67 & 68 (Social
Securitv Pro<mlmmes) of the Act
8 UT of • Silent on S. 25(a)- 25(h) (Prevention
Puducherry and Early Detection), S. 27-30 (Non-
Formal Education), S. 38 (Schemes for
Emplo)111ent) - 41 (Incentives to c
Emplo)ers) & 43 (Preferential
Allotment of Land) .
• Further, the affidavit is silent on S. 44-
47 (Discrimiration w.r.t Transport and
Built Ins & Government Jobs), 48-49
(Research and Incentives to
Universities), 67-68 (Social Security) D
and even S. 73 (Government Rules). -
9 UT of • Provisions of S. 32 (Identification of
Andaman and Posts) are still at implementation stage
Nicobar Islands as the State has requested Heads of
various Departments for the
compliance of provisions of the E
Section.
• No compliance of S. 34 (Special
Emplo)111ent Exchange), fwtherno
compliance/action mken of S. 34-44
(Employinent and Benefit Related
Scliemes).
F
• Rules as prescribed under the -
p!'ovisions ofS. 73 (Government
Rules) are not framed.
10 NCTofDelhi • The affidavit is silent on the Special
., .. Employment Exchange under S. 34
(Special Employment Exchange) of
tre Act. G
• No Compliance ofS. 41 (Incentives to
Emplo)ers). State is not offering
incentives to private/public employers
to enmre that at least 5% of the work
force is composed of persons with
disabilities. H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 11 State of • In compliance ofS. 25{a) (Prevention
M anipur and Early Detection) of the PWD Act
it is stated that survey has not been
undertaken for detecting causes of
occurrence of disabilities sue to
constraints of experienced manpower
and infrastructure.
B
• Affidavit is silent on setting up special
employment exchange for PWDs as
required under S. 34 of the PWD Act.
• Affidavit admits non compliance of S.
41 (Incentives to Employers) of the
PWD Act.
c • Affidavit admits non compliance ofS.
42 (Aids and Appliances) of the PWD
Act due to non-availability offunds.
• Affidavit admits non compliance ofS •
67 (Social Secmity) of the PWDAct
due to lack of funds . .
12 UT of • Not complied with S. 41 (lncenti ves to
D Chandigarh Employers) and further no compliance
has been canicd in furtherance to S.
67-68 (Social Security) of the PWD
Act.
13 State of • Provisions ofS. 30 (Comprehensive
UP Education Scheme) qua restructure of
E curriculum are still under
consideration.
• Compliances under S. 41 (Incentives
to Employers) of the act are still under
consideration
14 State of • Compliance of the pmvisions ofS. 28
Tripura (Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids), 48
F & 49 (Research and Incentives to
Universities) w.r.t promotion of
research & manpower development
have not been brought out either in I

any way asper the mandate of the Act.
15 State of • Compliance of the provisions of S. 28
Gujarat (Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids) has
G not been brought out in the affidavit.
• No steps have been taken w.r. t tl1e
compliance of S. 40 (Poverty
Allevation Schemes) of the Act
• Compliance of the provisions ofS. 41
(lncentives to Employers) has not been
brought out.
H
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 733
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.)

A
16 State of : • Provisions ofS. 28 (Assistive
Assam Devices, Hearing Aids) have not been
complied with.
Compliance of the provisions ofS. 67
•
1

' (Social Security) has not been brought
out in the State affidavit as it is yet to B
be framed.
17 State of • Affidavit is silent on the
Arunachal implementation of other provisions pf
Pradesh the Act. .,
• Affidavit only speaks of Compliance
ofSections33 (Reservation of Posts), C
68 (Social Security) & 42 Aids and
A liances) of the Act.
18 State of Goa i • In Compliance under the provisions of
S. 28 (Assistive Devices, Hearing
Aids) of the Act. State Gov. is still in
the process of formulating schemes for D
education of children with special
needs through Directorate of
Education.
: • ftt1ther there have been no compliance
~ being carried out for the provisions
under the Sections 41 (Incentives to E
Employers), S. 43 (Preferential
Allotment of Land) - 45 (Non-
Discrimination in Road) of the Act.
' • The Affidavit is silent w.r.t the
implementaiion under Sections 48, 49 ,
((Research and Incentives to
F
Universities)), 56 ((Institution for
Persons with Severe Disabilities)) &
57 (Chief Commissioner of PWDs).
19 State of i • The affidavit is silent on the

Mcghalaya Compliances to be canied with the
various provisions of the PWD Act
exce t S. 39 (Rcse1vation of Seats). G
20 State of • No projects in the State have been
Sikkim taken under the provisions of S. 48
(Research).

H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 21 State of • Affidavit is silent on the provision
Chattisgarh regarding restructuring of curriculum
for the benefit of children with
disabilities, and provisioning of
amaneusis as mandated under S. 30-31
of the PWD Act.
• Affidavit is silent on compliance of
B
Section 44 qua non-discrimination in
transport.
Regarding provisioning of insumnce
schemes for PWDs the affidavit states
that there is no separate insurance
scheme for PW Ds. Employees with
c disabilities are covered under the
Group Insurance Schemes of the State.
22 State of Affidavit is not in compliance of the
Nagaland Order dt 26.04.2016, however the
earlier affidavit shows the following:-
, • Affidavit silent on formation of State
Co-ordination Committee and State
D Executive Committee as mandated
respectively under S. 13 and 19 of the
PWD Act, 1995
• Affidavit is silent on the
implementation of Preventive and
early detection measures as provided
in S. 25(a) - 25 (h).
E • Affidavit is silent on the
implementation of non-formal
education schemes or programmes,
research for designing and developing
new assistiye devices, teaching aids
etc., setting up of teacher training
institutions, transport facilities,
F provisioning of amanuensis etc as
mandated under S. 27-31.
• Affidavit is. silent on implementation
of provisions of S. 34-37 on furnishing
information to employment exchange
and S. 40-41 on maintenance of
records by the employers and
G vacancies to be reserved in poverty
· alleviation schemes.
• Affidavit is silent in implementation of
most of the provisions mandated under
S. 44, 47 for ensuring non-
' discrimination in transport, and govt
employment to PWDs.
H
... ,

JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 735
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

• Affidavit is silent on implementation A
ofS. 48-49 qua research and
manpower development initiatives.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
of S. 50-51 qua appointment of
competent authority.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
ofS. 56 qua establishment and B
maintenance of institutions for persons
with severe disabilities.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
of social security schemes as
mandated under S. 67-68.
• Affidavit is silent on formation of
rules under S. 73 by the appropriate
c
government for carrying out the
orovisions of PW D Act.
23 UT of Affidavit is not in compliance of the
Lakshadweep Order d t. 26.04.2016, however the
earlier affidavit shows the fo !lo wing :-
• Affidavit is silent on setting up of D
special schools as mandated under S.
26(b)-(d) of the PWD Act, 1995.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
ofS. 28 qua research for designing
and developing new assistive devices,
teaching aids etc.
• Affida\'.it is silent on implementation E
ofS. 31 on provision of amanuensis to
the students with visual impairment.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
of provisions of S. 41 qua incentives
to the employers to ensure 5 % of the
work force composed of person with
disabilities. F
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
ofS. 56 qua establishment and
maintenance of institutions for pers.ons
with severe disabilities.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
of social security i nsuranc.e schemes
for employees as mandated under S. G
67.
• Affidavit is silent on formation of
rules under S. 73 by the appropriate
government for carrying out the
provisions of PWD Act

H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 3 S.C.R.

A
24 State of Affidavit is not in complia't1ce of the
Uttrakhand Order dt. 26.04.2016, however the
earlier affidavit shows the following :-
• Though the Affidavit speaks of
compliance of provisions of S. 26-
31 but lot more requires to be done
B like, schemes for non forinal
education, vocational training
centres, research for designing and
developing new assistive devices,
curriculum restructuring, forum for
redressal of grievances of parents
of children with disabilities,
c ..
., '
provision of amanuensis etc.
Though the A ffida.vit speaks of
compliance of provisions of S. 32-
41 but lot more requires to be done
like provisioning of 3 %
reservation of seats in all
.. educational institutions, incentives
D to employers, schemes for
preferential allotment of land etc.
• Affidavit itself states that the
provisions of S. 48-49 & 56 are yet
to be complied with.

25 State of • In compliance of provision of S. 56
E Andhra establishment of a spinal injury
Pradesh centre at Visakhapatnam is under
consideration and establishment of
four hoines for destitute ages and
crippled is also under consideration.

26 State of • Establishment of special schools
F Madhya for visually, hearing and mentally
Pradesh impaired children is being
proposed in 41 districts of the
State. S. 26 (Free education to
Cw Os) has not been complied in
its entirety)

G
• No measures in compliance to S .
29 (Teachers Training Institution)
have not been complied.
• With regard to S. 30
(Comprehensive Education
· Scheme) the affidavit is silent on
the aspect of restructuring of the
curriculum.
H
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 737
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

• The affidavit his silent on S. 46 (Non- · A
Discrimination in the built
environment).
• The affidavit is silent on the
compliance on the Implementation of
provisions ofS. 47 (Discrimination in
Government Jobs).
B
• The affidavit is silent on the
implementation aspect of the S. 49
(Financial lncentives to Universities
for Research).
27 State of J&K • No affidavit has been filed in
compliance to Order dt. 26.04.2016.
However, the State earlier had filed an
affidavit wherein it was stated that the
c
PWD Act, 199 5 is not applicable to
the State of J&K.
28 State of West • Though the affidavit speaks on the
Bengal compliance of S. 26-31 of PWD Act,
1995 however lot more requires to be
done like vocational training facilities,
D
conducting special part time classes,
initiation of research for designing and
developing new assistive devices and
teaching aids, setting up of teacher's
training institution, etc.
• Affidavit is silent on compliance of
provisions of Sections 34 of PWD Act,
1995 For provisioning of special
E
employment exchange.
• Affidavit is silent on promotion of
research and manpower development,
. and appointment of competent
authority as mandated S. 48-50 of the
PWD Act, 1995.
• Affidavit is silent on implementation
F
ofS. 56 of the PWD Act, 1995
regarding establishment of institutions
with persons of severe disabilities:
29 UT ofDadra • The affidavit is silent on the
& Nagar Compliances w.r.t the Sections 31-32
Have Ii (Amanuensis to Children with Visual
Impairment) (Identification of Posts),
G
34-41 (Employment and Benefit
Related Schemes), 48-49 (Research)
& (Financial Incentives to Universities
for Research) , 56 ((Institution for
.
Persons with Severe Disabilities )f)an<f
66-68 (Social Security Programmes).
- H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A
30 State of • Affidavit is silent on provisioning of
Haryana · teacher's training institution for person
to teach children with disabilities as
mandated under S. 29 (Teacher's
training Institution) of the PWD Act.
B Affidavit is silent on initiation of
research for designing and developing
.,
new assistive devices and teaching
aids, setting up of teacher's training
institution etc. as mandated under S.
30-31 (Comprehensive Education
' Scheme) & (Amanuensis to Children
c with Visual Impairment) of the PWD
Act.
• In compliance ofS. 73 (Government
Rules) of the PWD Act Rules have yet
not been finalized .
31 .State of • Compliances have been carried out by
D Maharashtra the State Government.

32 Union • No compliances or reports have been
Territory of presented with regard to the provisions
Daman And of Sections 26-32 (Education and
Diu assistive devices for Children PWDs),
E 34-55 and 57-68. The affidavit is silent
w.r.t the aforementioned sections.
33 State of • The state has assured various measures
Kerala and various schemes but no status has
been presented on the
progress/implementation of the
projects made so far.
F
34 State of • Non-compliance of S.45 as the funds
Odhisha received have not been utilised.
• Non- compliance ofS. 49 as no action
has been carried out.
35 State of • In reference to compliance of Section
G Himachal 68 (Social Security Schemes) of the
Pradesh PWD Act state govt submits that of
such scheme is being implemented.
Only Disability Relief Allowance is
being provided to 41,961 persons with
disabilities.
I-I
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 739
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA,, J.] ·

A
36 State of 1 • S.41 (Incentives to Employers) not
Mizoram I
complied, due to financial constraints

37 State of • State submits that it is in the process
Telangana of forming various committees and
depa1tments as they have been divided
B
due to its bifurcation with the Andhra
Pradesh.
38 Department • Compliances with regard to S. 49
of Women (Financial Incentives to Universities
and Child for Research) & 66 (Social Security
Empower me Programmes) are still at the
nt implementation stage." c

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no
complete compliance of the judgments passed by this Court. She has
submitted that the reasons for non-compliance are the perceptible though D
all the States and Union Territories should have complied with the various
provisions of the 1995 Act.
8. It is necessary to mention here that we have reproduced the
tabular chart so that each State can know what the other States have
done and who has failed to comply and take steps on the path of complete E
compliance. Before they could do what the 1995 Act envisages, the
Parliament, realizing the national need of the rights of the persons under
disability and commitment to the Convention of the United Nations
General Assembly, repealed the 1995 Act and brought in The Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 20 l 6 Act'). The said
2016 Act has been brought into existence to give effect to the United F
Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. We think it appropriate
to reproduce the preamble of the Act:-
"An Act to give effect to the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters G
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the United Nations General Assembly adopted
its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on
the 13th day of December, 2006; ·
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Convention lays down the
following principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities,
(a) respectfor inherent dignity, individual autonomy including
the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of
persons;
B (b) non-discrimination;
(c) full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
(d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with
disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
c (e) equality ofopportunity;
f) accessibility;
(g) equality between men and women;
(h) respect for the.evolving capacities of children with disabilities
and resect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve
D their identities;
AND WHEREAS India is a signatory to the said Convention;
AND WHEREAS India ratified the said Convention on the 1"
day of October, 2007;
E AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary to implement the
Convention aforesaid.
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-seventh Year of the
Republic oflndia as follows:"
9. The.2016 Act visualizes a sea change and conceives of
F actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole
grammar of benefit has been changed for the better, and responsibilities
of many have been encompassed. In such a· situation, it becomes
obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and
see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within
the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become
G a distant dream. Immediacy of action is the WatTant.
I0. We may note with profit that sub-section (2) of Section l of
the 2016 Act stipulates that the said Act shall come into force on such
date as the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint.
H
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 741
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

11. Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union A
oflndia has filed the Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment dated 19'h April, 2017, which provides as
follows:- ·
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section
1 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of B
2016), the Central Government hereby appoints l 9'h day ofApril,
2017, as the date on which the said Act shall come into force."
Thus, the Act has come into force with effect from I 9'h April,
2017.
12. Sections 2('C ), 2(h), 2(k), 2(m), 2(v) and 2(zb) define "barrier", c
"discrimination''., ·Government establishment", "inclusive education",
"private establishment" and "Special Employment Exchange"
respectively. Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the preamble-of the 2016 Act and the
dictionary clause have expanded the horizon of the rights of the persons D
with disabilities.
13. In this context, Sections 2(p ), 2(r) and 2(s) are worthy of
reference. They read as under:-
"2(p) "local authority" means a Municipality or a Panchayat, as
defined in clause (e) and clause (f) of article. 243P of the E
Constitution; a Cantonment Board constituted under the
Cantonments Act, 2006; and any other authority established under·
an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature to administer the
civic affairs; r

2(r) "person with benclimark disability" means a person with F
not less than forty percent ofa specified disability where specified
· . disability has not been definec\.in.measurable terms and includes
a person with disability where specified disability has been defined
in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;
2( s) "persons with disability" means a person with long-term G
physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impainnent which, in
interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation
in society equally with others."

H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 14. Section 12 deals with access to justice. It reads as follows:-
! Access to _justice

(!)The appropriate Government shall ensure that persons with
disabilities are able to exercise the right to access any court,
tribunal, authority, commission or any other body havingjudicial
B or quasi-judicial or investigative powers without discrimination
on the basis of disability.
(2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to put in place
suitable support measures for persons with disabilities specially
those Jiving outside family and those disabled requiring high
c support for exercising legal rights.
(3) The National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal
Services Authorities constituted under the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (39of1987) shall make provisions including
reasonable accommodation to ensure that persons with disabilities
D have access to any scheme, programme, facility or service
offered by them equally with others."
(4) The appropriate Government shall take steps to -
(a) ensure that all their public documents are in accessible
formats;
E
(b) ensure that the filing departments, registry or any other
office of records are supplied with necessary equipment to
enable filing, storing and referring to the documents and
evidence in accessible formats;. and
F (c) make available all necessary facilities and equipment to
facilitate recording of testimonies, arguments or opinion given
by persons with disabilities in their preferred language and
means of communications."
15. Section I 6(d) deals with the duty of educational institutions.
G Section 17 Jays postulates for specific measures to promote and facilitate
inclusive education. Section 18 deals with the adult education and provides
that the appropriate government and the local authorities shall take
measures to promote, protect and ensure participation of persons with
disabilities in adult education and continuing education programmes
equally with others. Section 19 deals with vocational training and self-
H employment.
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 743
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK ·MISRA, J.]

16. Section 24 occurs in Chapter V, where the heading is 'social A
security, health, rehabilitation and recreation'. Section 25 deals with health
care. Section 31 deals with free education for children with benchmark
disabilities. Section 32 which deals with reservation in higher educational
institutions, reads as follows:-
"32. Reservation in higher educational institutions B
(!)All Government institutions of higher education and other
higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government
shall reserve not less than five per cent. Seats for persons with
benchmark disabilities.
(2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an c
upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of
higher education."
17. Section 33 deals with identification of posts for reservation
and Section 34 provides for reservation. Section 35 dealt with incentives
to employers in private sector. These provisions, being of significance, D
are reproduced below:-
"33. Identification of posts for reservation
The appropriate Government shall-
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by E
respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in
respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the
provisions of section 34;
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons ~
with benchmark disabilities for idyntification of such posts; and F
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval
not exceeding three years.
34. Reservation
(I) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every G
Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the
total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of
posts meantto be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities
of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with
benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per
H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d)
and (e), namely:-
(a) blindness and low vision;
(b) deaf and hard of hearing;
B (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured,
dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and
mental illness;
(e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a)
C to ( d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each
disabilities:
Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance
with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate
Government from time to time:
D
Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation
with the Chief Commissi01wr or the State Commissioner, as the
case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out
in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to
such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications
E exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of
this section.
(2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled
up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark
disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall
F be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in
the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with
benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by
interchange among the five categories and only when there is no
person with disability available for the post in that year, the
employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person,
G other than a person with disability:
Provided that ifthe nature of vacancies in an establishment is
such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the
vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with
the prior approval of the appropriate Government.
H
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 745
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

(3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide A
for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons
with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit.
35. Incentives to employers in private sector
The appropriate Govcrmnent and the local authorities shall, within
the limit of their economic capacity and development, provide B
incentives to emp toyer in private sector to ensure that at least
five per cent of their work force is composed of persons with
benchmark disability."
18. As. is noticeable, under the 1995 Act, the Parliament had shown
its concern and provided for reservation for many categories and this c
Court by various judgments had directed for implementation of the Act
and some States have implemented the provisions to a certain extent.
19. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of Section
84 that makes provision for creation of special court for speedy trial to
try the offences under the 20 l 6Act. Section 85 stipulates for appointment D
special public prosecutor. Thus, emphasis is on the special court, speedy
trial and special public prosecutor.
20. Under Chapter XVI, offences and penalties have been dealt
with. Section 89 provides for punishment for contravention of provisions
of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder. The said Section reads E
as follows:-
"89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or
rules or regulations made thereunder
Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act,
F
or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be
punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees
and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not
be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five
lakh rupees."
21. Section 90 deals with offences by companies. It is extracted G
hereunder:-
"90. Offences by companies
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person who at the time the offence was H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company
for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall
be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render
B any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if
he proves that the offence was co_mmitted without his knowledge
or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), where
c an offence under this Act has been committed by a company
and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the
company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
D be proceeded against and punished accordingly. State Fund for
persons with disabilities. Punishment for contravention of
provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section,-

E a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or
' other association ofindividuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."
22. Section 92 deals with punishment for offences of atrocities
and Section 93 provides for punishment for failure to furnish information.
F
23. We have referred to ce1iain provisions only to highlight that
the 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient features. As we
find, more rights have been conferred on the disabled persons and more
categories have been ad_ded. That apart,.access to justice, free education,
role of local authorities, National fund and the State fund for persons
G with disabilities have been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea
change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard
to the persons with disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities,
educational institutions and the companies. The statute operates in a
broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights and provide
punishment for their violation.
H
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 747
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

24. Regard being had to the change in core aspects, we think it A
apposite to direct all the States and the Union Territories to file compliance
report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within twelve
weeks hence. The States and the Union Territories must realize that
under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown and they are required
to actualize the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a
B
sphere with regard to the rights of the disabilities. When the law is so
concerned for the disabled persons and makes provision, it is the obligation
of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite
promptitude. The steps taken in this regard shall be concretely stated in
the compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing
the States, a duty is cast also on the States and its authorities to see that c
the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative
societies, companies, firms, associations and establishments, institutions,
are scrupulously followed. The State Governments shall take immediate
steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the
compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress made.
D
25. The compliance report to be filed by the States shall be supplied
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of
India as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor so
that they can assist the Court.
26. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order passed E
today to the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of
the Union Territories.
27. Let the matter be listed on 16'h August, 2017 .
.. _.....__ __ -~

Nidhi Jain Matter adjourned.

\