Seven judgements on disability rights authored by D.Y. Chandrachud

On the occasion of his retirement earlier this month, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure in the Supreme Court has been analysed extensively by the media. The focus has been on his role in critical constitutional cases. However, Justice Chandrachud also played a singular role in the promotion and enforcement of the rights of persons with disabilities. It is well-known that he has a personal connection to the issue through his daughters, who both have a form of locomotor disability requiring them to use wheelchairs. 

During his two-year tenure as CJI, Justice Chandrachud spearheaded a number of initiatives to ameliorate the lives and experiences of persons with disabilities. He formed an Accessibility Committee to bring the premises of the Supreme Court in compliance with best practices. The Court’s Centre for Research & Planning also collected data from the High Courts and District Courts on the state of accessibility and issued recommendations on making courts disability-friendly. Justice Chandrachud commissioned the “Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities”, a resource which addresses stereotypes and provides guidance on the appropriate language for use in legal documents, orders and judgements.  

Here, we take a look at some of the significant judgements on the rights of persons with disabilities authored by Justice Chandrachud. 

1. Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission | 11 February 2021

On reasonable accommodation 

The case arose from the denial of a scribe for the appellant, who was an aspirant in the 2018 Civil Services Examination. The appellant had a condition called dysgraphia or writer’s cramp. However, they were not a “person with benchmark disability” i.e. having an assessment of more than 40 percent disability as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPD Act”). Since the candidate did not have a benchmark disability and was not entitled to any seats reserved under the disability category, the facility for the scribe was denied. 

Justice Chandrachud authored this judgement which clarified the meaning and scope of ‘reasonable accommodation’ under the RPD Act and the constitutional framework. ‘Reasonable accommodation’, which is defined under Section 2(y) of the Act, means the provision of practical modifications and adjustments which enable individuals with disabilities to participate and enjoy their rights equally with others. The denial of reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities amounts to discrimination under Section 3. Justice Chandrachud noted that 

“…for a person with disability, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to equality, the six freedoms and the right to life under Article 21 will ring hollow if they are not given this additional support that helps make these rights real and meaningful for them. Reasonable accommodation is the instrumentality … to enable the disabled to enjoy the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination.” 

He held that the concept of benchmark disability, which was used to determine entitlement to reservation or certain special schemes, could not be used as a threshold to determine reasonable accommodation. The State could not restrict the rights which were available to all persons with disabilities to only a few. Accordingly, the appellant’s right to use a scribe for the CSE in any future attempts was upheld. 

2. Patan Jamal Vali v State of Andhra Pradesh | 27 April 2021

On women with disabilities & access to justice

This was a criminal appeal by the accused who was convicted of committing rape on a woman with complete visual impairment and who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. He was also convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. The accused attempted to discredit the victim’s testimony on the ground that her disability prevented her from being an eyewitness. He challenged his conviction under the Atrocities Act on the ground that his crime was not on the basis of caste. 

In the judgement, Justice Chandrachud undertook a detailed exposition on the concept of intersectionality, highlighting how the challenges and vulnerabilities faced by women were amplified when combined with those resulting from disability. He held that the victim was in a uniquely disadvantaged position, and while caste may not have been a factor, the accused took advantage of her impairment and familiarity with her family to commit the crime. 

Accordingly, the accused’s conviction under the Atrocities Act was overturned but his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (Rape) was upheld and his sentence remained unchanged. Justice Chandrachud also opined on the need for courts to be cognizant of the biases and stigma faced by persons with disability and to not perpetuate them by failing to give equal weight to their testimony. 

3. Avni Prakash v National Testing Agency | 23 November 2021

On reasonable accommodation

In a set of similar facts to Vikash Kumar, the petitioner, a person with writer’s cramp, was denied the one hour of compensatory time provided to persons with disabilities while appearing for the NEET-UG examination. 

Justice Chandrachud held that the actions of the testing authorities constituted a “tragedy of errors” which violated the petitioner’s right to reasonable accommodation and their rights to education and non-discrimination. He highlighted the lack of awareness and training of the authorities who not only were unaware of the legal provisions but did not treat the petitioner with due sensitivity. The Court called out the confusing manner in which the NEET Bulletin 2021 had been drafted, and directed that the “rights and entitlements available” under the RPD Act are “clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity.” 

4. Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India | 17 December 2021

On psycho-social disabilities

This case was an appeal filed by an employee of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had acquired a serious mental illness during his service. Due to some incidents where his behaviour was called into question, the CRPF initiated various disciplinary proceedings against him. He was also assessed by the government hospital and certified as having a permanent disability, based on which he was declared unfit for duty. 

The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct was discriminatory. In his judgement, Justice Chandrachud delved into the notion of mental disability and held that disability was a social construct, not merely a medical one, dependent on the interplay between a mental impairment and societal barriers. This judgement recognises that disability itself is an evolving concept and a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be used to identify disability, particularly in cases of mental disability. 

Justice Chandrachud recognised that the appellant was entitled to reasonable accommodation since his disability made him more vulnerable to engaging in behaviour that was considered inappropriate or unbecoming, as compared to his able-bodied counterparts. Therefore, any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would be violative of the right to non-discrimination under the RPD Act. He allowed the appeal and directed the CRPF to reassign the appellant to an alternative suitable post with the same pay and benefits. 

5. Nipun Malhotra v Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited | 8 July 2024

On the respectful portrayal of persons with disabilities

The petitioner, an activist and person with disability, filed a PIL against the producers of the Bollywood film Aankh Micholi for its derogatory portrayal of persons with disabilities. The petitioner claimed that the comedy film’s ridiculing of characters with disabilities went on to reinforce misconceptions, prejudices and biases. He prayed for a disability expert to be included in the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its advisory panels and sought compensation, including punitive damages, from Sony Pictures. 

In his judgement, Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the battle between the protection of the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to dignity of persons with disability under Article 21. He noted that a determining factor for assessing the fitness of a film for the public is the overall message of the film and the context of the speech—the identity of the speaker of the derogatory speech, its target, linguistic connotations and the overall impact on human dignity. 

Chief Justice Chandrachud held that any speech which entrenched harmful stereotypes is opposed to the dignity of persons with disabilities. However, he also stated that there is a need to differentiate between “disability humour”, which serves to understand or give an alternative point of view, and “disabling humour”, which denigrates persons with disabilities. 

Ultimately, Chief Justice Chandrachud did not specifically consider the derogatory speech in the movie, concluding that courts must adopt an approach of minimal interference in the decisions of expert bodies like the CBFC. It held that in appropriate cases, a stereotypical or disparaging portrayal could be justified by the overall message of the film. The CBFC’s certification of Aankh Micholi implied that its overall message complied with the RPD Act. He therefore declined to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner.  

Instead, he issued a non-binding guidance on the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, urging filmmakers to adopt inclusive language, accurate representation of medical conditions, avoid stereotypes and include persons with disability in the creative process. The reluctance to provide a clear legal framework for when “disabling humour” would fall outside the remit of Article 19(2) could leave marginalised groups without adequate redress for such cases in the future. 

6. Om Rathod v The Director General of Health Services | 25 October 2024

On eligibility of persons with disabilities for MBBS courses 

The appellant, who had a lower limb myopathy exceeding 80 percent, had achieved a rank in NEET-UG for admission to the MBBS programme but was denied a seat after a medical assessment. The candidate challenged the findings of the medical boards, arguing that they did not include experts on disability, and the process failed to account for his functional capacity. 

In the pursuit of medical education for persons with disabilities, the Courts have placed unquestioning reliance on the opinions of medical boards which assess the percentage of disability of a candidate in order to determine eligibility. In Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v Union of India and Others (2023), Justice Ravindra Bhat challenged this notion and proposed that medical boards take into account medical and scientific advances. He also urged boards to take into account the reasonable accommodations that could be made for persons with disabilities in the form of assistive devices and aids. The decision signalled a shift towards prioritising the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in the medical profession.

In this case, Chief Justice Chandrachud went further by providing guidelines for medical assessment boards to comply with the RPD Act and assess the actual functional capacity of candidates. The Court appointed Dr. Satendra Singh, a medical professional and person with disability, to reassess the candidate. The judgement drew attention to the sharp distinction between the approaches of the AIIMS panels and Dr. Singh’s, which included functional assessments, interacting with the appellant to understand their limitations and barriers, and suggesting safe accommodations. The assessment by Dr. Singh held the appellant eligible to pursue the MBBS with assistive devices.

Chief Justice Chandrachud noted the issue of “overmedicalization of disabled bodies by the assessment boards”. He further observed that an approach which focuses more on disability than ability amounts to a denial of the right to reasonable accommodation and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 

Consequently, he directed the respondent to issue fresh guidelines on the eligibility of PWDs to medical courses in line with contemporary disability advancements and court decisions. Further, he directed that assessment boards would have to include doctors or health practitioners who have disabilities themselves. 

7. Rajive Raturi v Union of India | 8 November 2024

On accessibility to roads and public infrastructure 

In 2005, Rajive Raturi filed a PIL seeking proper and adequate access for persons with disabilities, especially visually impaired persons, to public places, roads and transport. On 15 December 2017, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to accessibility was integral to the right to life, dignity and freedom of movement. The Court directed the states and Union Territories to implement an 11-point action plan to bring public infrastructure in line with the accessibility standards in the RPD Act. 

However, continued state inaction had rendered the directions meaningless. The Court, noting the non-compliance of the order, had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR to prepare a comprehensive report on the measures required to make public spaces fully accessible. 

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud issued this latest judgement on completion of the report. The judgement reiterates the rights of persons with disabilities to accessible spaces under both the Constitution and the RPD Act and notes the principles of accessibility that must be considered by authorities. 

Significantly, Chief Justice Chandrachud, alerted by the NALSAR-CDS Report, found that Rule 15(1) of the Rules to the RPD Act, 2016 was ultra vires since it prescribed guidelines for accessibility as being recommendatory instead of mandatory. Justice Chandrachud found that this went against the scheme and intent of the RPD Act. He directed the states and UTs to strictly enforce the existing RPD Act and Rules and consider the recommendations of the NALSAR-CDS Report to further improve accessibility standards. 

Nithya Rhea Rajshekhar is a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Law and Policy Research, where she focuses on research and advocacy on disability rights and the rights of other marginalised groups. She practised public interest litigation in Delhi and Bangalore, having assisted Senior Advocates Anand Grover and Jayna Kothari.