Holding

The Supreme Court held that a coordinated, multi‑university monitoring mechanism (Project Ability Empowerment) must be instituted to ensure full compliance with the RPwD Act and that reservation under Section 34 must include upward movement for meritorious persons with disabilities.

Summary

The petitioners, a charitable trust and an individual, sought enforcement of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 to improve conditions in state‑run care homes for persons with cognitive disabilities, citing overcrowding, inadequate health care, abuse and lack of education. The Court examined whether institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution and the RPwD Act, and considered the need for systematic monitoring and reform. Relying on international conventions, constitutional provisions and prior case law, the Court directed a nationwide monitoring project to be carried out by eight National Law Universities under the "Project Ability Empowerment". The directions cover resident profiling, health care, education, accessibility, staffing, grievance mechanisms, documentation, welfare access and reservation provisions. The Court also mandated upward movement for meritorious candidates under reservation and ordered the Union to explain compliance. The application for directions was disposed of with these comprehensive orders.

Issues considered

The adequacy of implementation of the RPwD Act, 2016 in state‑run care institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities.
Whether institutional structures respect the constitutional rights of autonomy, equality and dignity of persons with disabilities.
The appropriate mechanism for monitoring and enforcing compliance across all states and union territories.
The interpretation of reservation provisions under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, including upward movement of meritorious candidates.
The applicability of international disability rights instruments to domestic law.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(4), s. Article 19, s. Article 21
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017s. 19
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995s. 33
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 3, s. 34, s. 40, s. 41, s. 42, s. 43, s. 44, s. 45, s. 46, s. 5

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The present case concerns the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with the prolonged institutionalisation. The lack of access to education, health, and community life for persons residing homes, must be viewed through the expansive constitutional lens. Whether the institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Subjects

Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesNationwide monitoring of State‑run care institutionsCognitive disabilitiesProject Ability EmpowermentNational Law School of India UniversityResident Profiling, Care and RehabilitationAccessibility, Infrastructure and EducationRights, Protection and ComplianceStaffing, Resources and Institutional AccountabilityDocumentation and Welfare AccessReservation to persons with disabilities under the RPwD ActUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 855 : 2025 INSC 1101

Reena Banerjee and Another
v.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
(I.A. No. 130117 of 2018)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016)
12 September 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The present case concerns the implementation of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with the prolonged
institutionalisation. The lack of access to education, health, and
community life for persons residing in State-run care institution/
homes, must be viewed through the expansive constitutional lens.
Whether the institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality,
and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the
Indian Constitution.

Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Appointment
of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru,
to undertake a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care
institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities –
Directions issued:
Held: The monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of
the “Project Ability Empowerment” and shall be undertaken by eight
National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union
Territories, as under: 1) National Law School of India University,
Bengaluru, covering the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
and Andhra Pradesh and Union Territories of Puducherry and
Lakshadweep Islands; 2) National Law University, Delhi, covering
the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh; 3) Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Punjab, covering the States of Punjab,
Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Union Territories of
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; 4) National Law University, Jodhpur,
covering the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat and Union Territory
of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; 5) National Law
* Author
856 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

University and Judicial Academy, Assam, covering the States of
Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur,
and Mizoram; 6) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,
Lucknow, covering the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh; 7) West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences, Kolkata, covering the States of West Bengal, Sikkim,
Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha and Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands; 8) Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai,
covering the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Telangana – These
institutions, in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and
other experts associated with the present report, shall undertake
extensive monitoring of all care institutions, whether state-run or
private, housing persons with cognitive disabilities – The monitoring
shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD
Act. [Para 36]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention
to certain key areas such as Resident Profiling, Care and
Rehabilitation:
Held: i) A comprehensive mapping of residents should be
undertaken, covering each individual residing in institutions for
persons with cognitive disabilities – The purpose of individualised
profiling is to facilitate better care planning, identify residents who
no longer require institutional care, and develop feasible exit or
reintegration strategies wherever appropriate – In this context, the
preparation of an Individual Care Plan, on the lines contemplated
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, may be considered for the ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ to
ensure that care and rehabilitation are tailored to the unique needs of
each resident; ii) Due consideration must be paid to the availability,
adequacy, and regularity of healthcare and therapeutic services
provided/available within these institutions – The monitoring group
should document whether residents have access to general health
check-ups, emergency medical services, psychiatric consultations,
and therapeutic interventions, including physiotherapy, occupational
therapy, and speech therapy – Special consideration should be
given to the use and review of psychiatric medications, and whether
treatment plans are personalised and subject to periodic professional
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 857

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

review; iii) The monitoring shall study exit pathways and mechanisms
for community integration – This includes efforts made by the
institution to trace families of residents, assess the possibility of
family reunification, prepare aftercare plans, and facilitate transfer
to community-based alternatives such as group homes, supported
living arrangements, or foster care. [Para 37(i)(ii)(iii)]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention
to certain key areas such as Accessibility, Infrastructure and
Education:
Held: 1) The exercise must include a detailed accessibility and
infrastructure audit – This shall involve evaluating the physical
environment of the institutions, including living quarters, bathrooms,
recreational areas, kitchens, and corridors, in light of the
Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility –
This audit should also examine accessibility of transport to and
from the institution, and whether appropriate assistive technologies
and mobility aids are available and in working condition;
2) The monitoring should assess the educational and vocational
opportunities available to residents, including children and adults –
The exercise must record whether school-aged children are enrolled
in nearby schools, be it mainstream, special, or National Institute of
Open Schooling with institutional support, and whether adults have
access to skill training or life skills education – The availability of
teaching staff, curriculum delivery methods, accessibility of learning
materials, and integration of recreational or creative learning
opportunities must be evaluated. [Para 37(iv)(v)]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Rights, Protection and Compliance:
Held: 1) The concerned team members of the ‘Project Ability
Empowerment’ shall examine institutional policies and grievance
redressal mechanisms, including whether residents are aware of
and able to exercise their rights, and whether there are systems in
place for receiving, addressing, and following up on complaints of
858 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

abuse, neglect, or rights violations – This should include a review of
the policy on use of restraints, behaviour management strategies,
and access to legal aid; 2) The monitoring exercise must include
a review of compliance with legal and policy mandates, including
past directions of this Court and provisions of the RPwD Act and
the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – This should cover aspects such
as appointment of protection officers, registration of institutions
under the RPwD Act, and adherence to inspection protocols.
[Para 37(vi)(vii)]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Staffing, Resources and Institutional
Accountability:
Held: 1) Due Attention must be given to resource availability,
particularly the strength, training, and qualifications of caregiving
and professional staff – The concerned team of the ‘Project Ability
Empowerment’ shall examine the staffing ratios, working hours,
payment structures, and professional support provided to doctors,
nurses, therapists, and other personnel – Recommendations on
staff enhancement, training modules, and financial allocations
may also be drawn from this data; 2) The report must review
the institution’s data systems, transparency mechanisms, and
public accountability – This includes examining the systems for
resident record-keeping, maintaining of medical files, publication
of inspection reports, and compliance with obligations to report to
statutory authorities – The availability of public information and
responsiveness to RTI applications, or other information requests,
should also be noted. [Para 37(viii)(ix)]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – The Advisory
Group Expert Panel and National Law Universities, conducting
the proposed monitoring and data collation exercise of the
Project Ability Empowerment, shall pay particular attention to
certain key areas such as Documentation and Welfare Access:
Held: 1) The ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ team, after assessing
the feasibility and rationale, may consider recommending that all
State-run institutions housing persons with disabilities maintain
an official online presence, including a dedicated website with an
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 859

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

institutional dashboard – Such a dashboard shall provide essential
information regarding the institution’s functioning, facilities, staffing,
and compliance with applicable legal standards, while strictly
upholding the privacy and confidentiality rights of all residents; 2)
While undertaking the monitoring and assessment exercise, the
concerned team members of the ‘Project Ability Empowerment’
shall also examine the feasibility and steps required to ensure that
all persons with disabilities residing in State-run care institutions,
such as Asha Kiran Home and similar facilities, are duly enrolled
under the Aadhaar scheme – Many residents continue to lack
Aadhaar Card and other essential identity documentation, resulting
in exclusion from welfare schemes and social security benefits –
The monitoring team may assess the institutional mechanisms
necessary for on-site enrolment, coordination with the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), and the appointment of
nodal officers to facilitate documentation. [Para 37(x)(xi)]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.34 – The
aspect of the reservation to persons with disabilities under
the RPwD Act – Positive interpretation of ‘reservation’:

Held: The constitutional mandate of substantive equality, as
embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21, requires a nuanced and 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 – In furtherance of this objective, and in order to ensure
that the mandate of Section 34 is implemented in its true spirit –
It is essential to address a very important facet of reservation to
the persons with disabilities and the grave discrimination being
faced by them – The latter category of persons is entitled to
social reservation u/Art. 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which
provides an upward movement in case the person belonging to
such reserved category performs well in the evaluation process
and stands higher in merit above the cut-off for the unreserved
category – Such a meritorious candidate would automatically move
up to the unreserved category, thereby leaving the reserved seat
vacant to be occupied by a candidate from the reserved category
who scored less in the evaluation process – It is a matter of grave
concern that the same treatment is not provided to persons with
disabilities protected under the RPwD Act, who, in spite of standing
860 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

higher in merit, are denied such upward movement – This defeats
the very purpose of reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act –
Having regard to the above, this Court considers it appropriate to
require the Union of India to explain whether appropriate measures
have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious
candidates applying against the post/s reserved for persons with
disabilities, in case such candidate secures more than the cut-off
for the unreserved category – The same principle must also be
applied to promotions. [Paras 49, 50, 51, 53]

Case Law Cited
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India [2017] 12 SCR 827 : Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 243 of 2005; Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service
Commission [2021] 12 SCR 311 : (2021) 5 SCC 370; Kabir
Paharia v. National Medical Commission & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1025 – relied on.
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India [2016] 4 SCR 638 : (2016) 7 SCC
761; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 :
(1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217; M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [2006]
Supp. 7 SCR 336 : (2006) 8 SCC 212 – referred to.

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Nationwide monitoring of all
State-run care institutions; Cognitive disabilities; Project Ability
Empowerment; National Law School of India University; Resident
Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation; Accessibility, Infrastructure and
Education; Rights, Protection and Compliance; Staffing, Resources
and Institutional Accountability; Documentation and Welfare
Access; Reservation to persons with disabilities under the RPwD
Act; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD); Convention on Rights of Child (CRC).
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 861

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

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 130117
of 2018
In
Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2012 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 8229 of 2011
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Manik Gupta, Satya Mitra, Ms. Manali
Singhal, Santosh Sachin, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. Aanchal Kapur,
Deepak Singh Rawat, Tejasvi Kumar, Ambar Qamaruddin.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Ms. S. Pathak, Anil Shrivastav, Alok
Sangwan, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.Gs.,
Prashant Kumar, D. S. Mahra, Gulshan Kumar Bajwa, Nirnimesh
Dube, Ms. Meenakshi S. Kamble, Amit Kumar Chawla, Mahi
Pal Singh, Varun Varma, Ms. Manisha Chawla, Zawed Raza,
Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Ashok Kumar Singh, Aman Prasad,
Milind Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Raju Sonkar, Arjun
Garg, Shibashish Misra, Ms. Sushma Suri, Praveen Swarup,
Manvinder Singh, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha,
Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Charan Jeet Sidhu, Ms. Yamini Sharma,
T. V. George, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Shree Pal
Singh, Abhishek Chaudhary, C. K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose,
Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Ashok Mathur, Abhijit Sengupta, Ramesh Babu
M. R., P. V. Yogeswaran, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh,
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
Shuvodeep Roy, Saurabh Tripathi, Deepayan Dutta, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ms. Diksha Rai, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat Wali, V. N.
Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli,
Prakash Jadhav, Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan, Ashwini Kumar,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal,
Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Vishal Agrawal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Anuvrat Sharma, R.R.Rajesh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Amit Sharma-b,
Ms.Rekha Pandey, Saransh Kumar, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, M.K.
862 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Maroria, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Jagjit
Singh Chhabra, G. Prakash, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Kanu Agrawal,
Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vinayak Sharma, Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, Harish Pandey, Shashwat Parihar, Shreekant
Neelappa Terdal, K. V. Mohan, Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Avni Shrivastav,
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, R. Sathish, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, M/s K J John
And Co, Ms. Diva Singh, Devendra Singh, Avinash Poddar, Ankit,
Sudarshan Lamba, Aaditya Dixit, Saransh Kumar, Gopal Singh,
Satish Vig, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Upendra
Mishra, P.S. Negi, T.k. Nayak, Aditya S. Pandey, Aditya Kumar,
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna,
Narendra Kumar, Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Sarthak Raizada Ga, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Shashank Shekhar,
Siddhant Sharma, Ms. Osheen Bhat, Kunal Mimani, Abhinav
Rana, Shantanu Sagar, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Mrs. Divya
Mishra, Ashish K Singh, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,
Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti Saraf,
Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Ms. Rachna Gandhi,
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee,
Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Abhiram Bannur, Pusa
Mallesh, Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal,
Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Raghvendra
Kumar, Karan Sharma, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Aswathi M.k.,
T. R. B. Sivakumar, K. V. Vijayakumar, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri,
Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gowtham
Polanki, Sewa Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms.
Pooja Singh, Ms. Astha Sharma, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi
Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Gaurang Bhushan, Samar Vijay Singh, Sumit
Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Shikhar Narwal, S. Som, Aman
Dev Sharma, Fateh Singh, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Aman Gautam,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Manish Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Manish
Kumar, Kumar Saurav, Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Ms. Shalini Singh, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Sahil
Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam
Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Sewa Singh, Ms. Sugandha Anand,
Bhargava Ravikumar, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Rushab
Aggarwal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 863

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

Ashwini Kumar, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Pooja
Singh, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Aman Gautam, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D. Singh,
Ms. Aswathi M.k., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Guntur
Prabhakar, Shree Pal Singh, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Kanu Agrawal,
Varun Chugh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vineet Singh, Vinayak
Sharma, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Harish Pandey, Shashwat Parihar,
Vinayak Sharma, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, T. R. B. Sivakumar,
Tanmaya Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

IA NO(S). 130117 OF 2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 11938 OF 2016

Table of Contents*

A. Introduction ......................................................................... 3
B. Background ......................................................................... 7
I. Writ Petition .................................................................. 8
II. Special Leave Petition (Now Civil Appeal) ................ 13
D. A d v i s o r y G r o u p E x p e r t P a n e l R e p o r t a n d i t s
Recommendations............................................................... 19
E. International Legal Framework on Disability Rights and
Accessibility.......................................................................... 29
F Indian Framework on Disability Rights and
Accessibility ........................................................................ 34
G. Direction(s) and Conclusion: - .......................................... 46
Part I. Resident Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation ......... 49
Part II. Accessibility, Infrastructure and Education ........ 51
Part III. Rights, Protection and Compliance .................... 53
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
864 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

P a r t I V: S t a f f i n g , R e s o u r c e s a n d I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Accountability ..................................................................... 54
Part V. Documentation and Welfare Access .................... 55
Part VI. Reservation ............................................................ 60

A. Introduction

1. Disability represents a fundamental aspect of human diversity that
transcends medical definitions to encompass critical questions of
constitutional democracy and social justice. The concept of disability
exposes the gap between constitutional promises and lived reality.
When legal systems treat disability as a medical problem requiring
accommodation rather than a form of human diversity deserving equal
participation, they expose their own weaknesses and limitations.
Rather than viewing disability as a deficit requiring correction, the
law must recognise it as a lens that reveals the true nature of legal,
social, and institutional frameworks, illuminating whether they embrace
human diversity or create barriers that exclude certain members of
society, i.e., those who have been discriminated against by providence
or those who have suffered the disability factor during their lifetime.
2. The experiences of persons with disabilities demonstrate whether
democratic institutions genuinely serve all citizens or whether they
are designed around narrow assumptions about human capacity
and participation. The principle of accessibility and reasonable
accommodation emerges as a fundamental constitutional principle,
not merely a technical requirement, but a measure of democratic
inclusivity that determines whether all citizens can exercise their
constitutional rights meaningfully. When physical spaces, digital
platforms, information systems, procedural frameworks, and
public hiring lack accessibility, they effectively deny constitutional
guarantees of equal participation to persons with disabilities. The
absence of accessible design in public institutions, judicial processes,
educational systems, and civic spaces constitutes a systemic barrier
that transforms constitutional rights into hollow promises. When
systems fail to prioritise accessibility from their inception, they reveal
fundamental flaws in their conception of citizenship and equality.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 865

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

3. The jurisprudential understanding of disability rights in India and
around the world has evolved beyond traditional medical models
to the social model, encompassing broader questions of equality,
accessibility, and institutional design that strike at the heart of
constitutional governance. The lived experiences of persons with
disabilities within legal systems serve as a litmus test for constitutional
democracy, raising questions if our institutions are structured to
facilitate meaningful participation by all citizens or whether they
maintain barriers that effectively deny constitutional rights to persons
with disabilities.
4. The present litigation arises from two cases, one a Writ Petition
instituted in 1998 and another a Special Leave Petition filed in
2012 [Later, Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016], seeking directions to
ensure comprehensive implementation of the statutory framework by
the Government of States and Union Territories under the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 19951 and protection of the persons with cognitive
disability2 in a government-run care institution, respectively. On 26th
March 2014, this Court rendered a judgment in the Writ Petition,
issuing directions to all the States and Union Territories to ensure full
implementation of the 1995 Act. Likewise, on 8th December, 2018,
this Court, in the Civil Appeal, issued directions to all the States and
Union Territories for the protection of persons with cognitive disability
in State-run institutions all over the country. The Court appointed an
Advisory Group Expert Panel and other Experts to assess the situation
on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with
accessibility standards for PWDs. The States and Union Territories
have filed their Compliance Reports. We shall consider the Report
submitted by the Advisory Group Expert Panel and other Experts
and delineate upon the next steps to be taken.
5. In the present matter, this Court is called upon not merely to adjudicate
upon the rights of persons with disabilities, but to uphold and advance
the constitutional vision of an inclusive society that recognizes every
individual, regardless of their disability, as an equal participant in

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Act.’
2 “Cognitive disabilities” herein is used as an umbrella term that refers to a broad range of conditions that
include intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, severe, persistent mental illness, brain injury,
stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.
866 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the nation’s civic, cultural, economic, and constitutional framework.
This judicial responsibility extends beyond the immediate parties to
encompass the broader constitutional obligation to ensure that the
promise of equality and dignity reaches all citizens. We now proceed to
examine the specific facts giving rise to the present proceedings, the
contentions advanced by the parties, and the appropriate directions
necessary to vindicate the constitutional guarantees and ensure
compliance with statutory obligations.

B. Background
6. The present litigation undertaken in the public interest, encompassing
two petitions, was instituted to seek judicial intervention for
addressing systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities,
ensuring enforcement of statutory safeguards, and facilitating the
effective realization of constitutional guarantees such as equality,
non-discrimination, and dignity. At the time of its institution, the
applicable legal framework was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
However, during the course of the proceedings, the law underwent an
overhaul with the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 20163, which now governs the field.

I. Writ Petition
7. The Petitioner, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, is a charitable
trust and a non-governmental organisation working for the promotion
of human rights, gender justice, and persons with disabilities. In
1998, the Foundation instituted a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No.116/1998]
before this Court seeking the implementation of the provisions of the
1995 Act. The prayers made in the petition included: (i) a direction
for effective implementation of the 1995 Act; (ii) a mandate for
reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties
and colleges of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the
1995 Act; and (iii) a declaration that the denial of appointment to
persons with visual disability in such identified posts, violates their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15, read with
Article 41 of the Constitution of India.

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘RPwD Act.’
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 867

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

8. In its judgment dated 26th March 2014, delivered by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice (then) R.M. Lodha, this Court unequivocally provided that
the 1995 Act must not remain a mere paper enactment, but must be
implemented in both letter and spirit. The Court criticised the continued
inaction and lethargy in its implementation on the part of the Union,
the State Governments, Union Territories, and other authorities, even
18 years (approximately) after the 1995 Act had been enacted. The
judgment underlined that as a welfare state, our democracy must
adopt a liberal and proactive approach in addressing the needs of
persons with disability and ensure their equal opportunity and dignity.
The Court mandated all concerned authorities of the Union of India
and all the States and Union Territories, and other relevant authorities
to fully implement the 1995 Act, including the reservation provisions
under Section 33 of the 1995 Act, by the end of 2014. The Union
of India, along with all States and Union Territories, was directed to
file compliance affidavits, and the matter was deferred for receiving
the compliance report. However, a majority of the States and Union
Territories failed to furnish the requisite data and did not submit their
compliance affidavits within the stipulated timeframe.
9. This Court issued several orders, from time to time, directing the
States and Union Territories to provide the requisite information with
details of the status of implementation and compliance. This Court
vide Order dated 6th March 2020, noted that some of the States had
partially complied, whereas many others remained non-compliant
with the provisions of the RPwD Act. This Court directed all the State
Governments to file their respective compliance affidavit.
10. On 3rd December, 2024, when the matter was placed before the
Court, it was noted that all the States and Union Territories had
purportedly filed their affidavits. However, upon careful consideration
of the summary chart, it emerged that several States and Union
Territories in fact had failed to either file the requisite affidavits or
were deficient. The Court took strong exception to this discrepancy
and opined that such a lackadaisical approach towards compliance
with statutory mandate and judicial directions was wholly unacceptable
and demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards the administration
of justice. The relevant observations from the above order are
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“In course of today’s deliberation, it is noted that there is
no participation by the learned counsel from the States/
868 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Union Territories of Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu & Kashmir.
The chart indicates that Andaman & Nicobar Island,
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Lakshadweep, Odisha,
Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand,
have fully complied with the provisions of the Act. For those
States which have failed to comply partly, the deficient
measures are indicated in the chart section-wise. The
learned counsel representing these States and Union
Territories accordingly assure that necessary steps for full
compliance of the provisions of the Act will be done and
the process would be supervised.
In her turn, Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the States/Union Territories should
have a designated Nodal Officer to be nominated by the
Chief Secretary, to ensure complete compliance with the
provisions of the Act.
Having regard to the above, the deficient States/Union
Territories are granted time until 17.02.2025 to file their
respective response/affidavits, on the further steps
that have been taken for complete compliance of the
provisions of the Act. To ensure that the process is
effective, the Chief Secretary of each State/Union
Territory will designate a senior officer, to supervise
the process of compliance of the provisions of the
Act, within their respective jurisdiction.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

11. Manifestly, the States and Union Territories were granted a final
opportunity to submit the complete information in the stipulated format
within three weeks. This Court directed that the Chief Secretaries
of States and Union Territories shall designate a senior officer to
supervise the process of compliance with the provisions of the
RPwD Act within their respective jurisdictions, and the lagging States/
Union Territories were granted time until 17th February, 2025 to file
their respective responses/affidavits detailing the further steps that
have been taken for complete compliance with the provisions of the
RPwD Act. This Court also recorded the prayers in an interlocutory
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 869

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

application seeking inter alia, enforcement of mandatory reservation
for persons with visual disabilities in teaching posts and compliance
with the RPwD Act and directions issued by this Court by Central
and State Universities; establishment of a monitoring committee for
disability-inclusive recruitment; and mandatory public disclosure of
reservation rosters on university websites.

II. Special Leave Petition (Now Civil Appeal)
12. The appellant, Reena Banerjee, filed an Intervention Application in
a disposed of suo moto Writ Petition [W.P. (C) No. 5621 of 2012]
before the High Court of Delhi, concerning the rights of children
with cognitive disability in institutional care, seeking various reliefs
including inquiries into deaths at observation homes, accountability
of authorities, and improvements in conditions. However, the Delhi
High Court directed that the Intervention Application be delinked and
registered as a fresh Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No. 8229 of 2011]. The
matter focused on the pitiable and pathetic condition at Asha Kiran,
a state-run care institution in New Delhi, for persons with cognitive
disability. The applicant therein, relying on media Reports, highlighted
grave concerns, including overcrowding, inadequate medical care,
and abuse, particularly of female residents in the Asha Kiran Home.
The High Court treated the case non-adversarially and directed
the Delhi Government to take reformative measures. In response,
the Government submitted an action plan including appointing a
medically qualified administrator, setting up a Governing Council
led by a noted social worker, and initiating infrastructural and policy
reforms to address systemic failures and improve the welfare of Asha
Kiran’s residents. Aggrieved by the inadequate directions issued by
the Delhi High Court to address the custodial deaths and abuse at
Asha Kiran, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition [now, Civil
Appeal No. 11938 of 2016] before this Court, seeking independent
oversight and effective remedies to ensure accountability and
protection of the residents’ rights.
13. By Order dated 10th February, 2015, this Court noted deficiencies
at the Asha Kiran Home for persons with cognitive disability and
directed urgent measures, including vocational training, inclusive
education, and medical care. Recognizing that the deficiencies at
Asha Kiran Home reflected a larger, systemic failure in the care and
treatment of persons with cognitive disability across the country, this
870 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court vide Order dated 26th March, 2015, took a significant step by
impleading the Union of India, all State Governments, and Union
Territories in the matter. The Court emphasized that the provisions
of the 1995 Act, must be uniformly and effectively implemented
nationwide. It stressed that the responsibility to uphold the dignity,
rights, and integration of persons with disabilities lies at all levels of
government, not just the Government of NCT of Delhi. Accordingly, it
directed the concerned authorities, including the Principal Secretaries
of Health and Social Welfare Departments, to respond with concrete
measures to be taken in their jurisdictions and to align with the
broader objective of ensuring equal opportunities and protection for
persons with disabilities throughout the country.
14. By a judgment dated 8th December, 2016, this Court, speaking
through Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (then), noted the serious
issues highlighted by the appellants, including inadequate medical
care, overcrowding, poor hygiene, and abuse of residents in the
state-run institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities. This Court,
while affirming the directions of the High Court of Delhi regarding the
Asha Kiran Home, implicitly endorsed a model that States and Union
Territories should consider for similar institutions. The Court issued
certain directions to all States and Union Territories in the management
and reform of state-run homes for persons with cognitive disabilities
and other residents. These directions included the appointment
of a competent administrator with a medical and administrative
background to oversee such institutions, and the establishment of a
robust Governing Council comprising experts in rehabilitation, gender
studies, human rights, and social empowerment. The Governing
Council was empowered to make binding decisions for the welfare,
health, and protection of all the residents, and was assigned the task
of decongesting these state-run institutions, facilitating rehabilitation
and restoration of residents to their families or foster care, and
promoting mainstreaming in society wherever possible. The Court
also directed that staff of these state-run institutions be properly
trained and sensitized, infrastructure be upgraded to national and
international standards, and residents be segregated for better care
according to the severity of their disabilities.
15. Additionally, an Advisory Group Expert Panel was to be constituted for
ongoing technical and academic support. The Union of India, along
with all States and Union Territories, was directed to file compliance
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 871

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

affidavits. However, the majority of the States and Union Territories
failed to furnish the requisite information and did not submit their
compliance affidavits within the stipulated timeframe.
16. This Court issued several orders, from time to time, directing the
States and Union Territories to provide the requisite information with
details of the status of completion and compliance Reports. On 13th
August, 2018, when the matter was placed before a three-judge
Bench, it was noted that only three states so far have furnished
the compliance Reports, despite a year having passed. The Court
directed the States/Union Territories to file the compliance Report with
the Central Advisory Board, with a copy to the appellant’s counsel.
The relevant observations of the Order dated 13th August, 2018, are
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“Rather than burdening the record of this case with
compliance affidavits from every State and U.T.
Administration, we direct the State Governments and U.
T. Administrations to file a compliance Report with the
Central Advisory Board else well as to the learn. counsel
for the petitioners within three weeks from today as a last
opportunity failing which heavy costs will be imposed.
An agreed statement in the form of a chart should be
placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioners
after going through the compliance Reports so that we
can conveniently consider the issue of compliance of the
order passed by this Court.”
Thereafter, vide Order dated 17th September, 2018, the matter was
tagged with the above Writ Petition [W.P.(C) No.116 of 1998].
17. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the Civil Appeal4, the Advisory
Group Expert Panel and other Experts5 submitted their Status Reports
and Recommendations titled “Asha Kiran as Microcosm of What Ails
India’s Care Support Structure: Thematic Recommendations.” The
Report examines the status quo and suggests time-bound, rights-

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).
872 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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:

6 Ratified by India in 2007.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 873

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

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 skill-building.
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.
874 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 875

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

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
876 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 877

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

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
878 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 879

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

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, non-
discrimination, 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.
880 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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

7 (2016) 7 SCC 761.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 881

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

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:
“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

8 (2021) 5 SCC 370.
882 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 non-discrimination, 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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 883

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

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 non-
individualised assessments to deny access to fundamental rights.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:

9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1025.
884 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“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 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 885

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

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.
886 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 state-run 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 887

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

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 follow-up, 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.
888 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 889

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

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
890 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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,
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 891

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

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 community-based
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
892 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 set-up. 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 893

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

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 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.

10 (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217.
11 (2006) 8 SCC 212.
894 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan