The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday (October 15) affirmed the right to educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities, rejecting rigid, blanket standards that could potentially bar candidates from admission based on the level of disability.
The judgment emphasized the positive obligations of the State, educational institutions and other bodies to create an enabling environment for persons with disabilities (PWDs).
A bench of Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Arvind Kumar and KV Vishwanathan also made it clear that benchmarks alone should not automatically exclude individuals from eligibility in educational programmes. The ruling directed that disability assessment boards should go beyond mere percentage of disability and assess the extent to which a specific disability may affect a person’s ability to pursue a course or career. This approach ensures a more nuanced and individualized assessment, which is in line with the goals of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.
This decision has far-reaching implications on the educational and regulatory framework, encouraging a progressive change and ensuring that institutions evaluate candidates on the basis of their potential rather than their limitations. The judgment not only highlighted the principle of reasonable accommodation but also clarified the importance of equity and inclusive education in achieving an accessible society.
Understanding Fair Housing:
The 2016 RPWD Act, which is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, aims to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of PWDs. The Act is comprehensive, covering areas such as health care, education, employment and access to public places, with a particular focus on fair housing.
In the context of disability rights, reasonable accommodation refers to necessary and reasonable modifications and adjustments, made without undue burden, to ensure that a person with a disability can participate fully and equally in society. The 2016 Act defines reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y), which requires modifications that enable PwDs to exercise their rights on par with non-disabled peers.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court is taken from the case Vikash Kumar vs UPSC (2021), which states that reasonable accommodation reflects the duty of the state to provide additional support to persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodation should not be limited to material assistance or tangible support; Rather, it should involve structural adjustments that enable PwD to engage meaningfully in social, educational and occupational contexts.
In the judgment the Supreme Court also cited Lord Denning’s statement that laws should be interpreted in a way that supports their intended purpose. For reasonable accommodation, this means a flexible approach that respects the inherent dignity of PwD. This holistic understanding of appropriate adjustments emphasizes the importance of individual assessment and support, moving beyond a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
The decision is based on several important Supreme Court cases, notably State of Gujarat v. Ambika Mills (1974), which addressed over-inclusive classifications, and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (2023), which addressed a one-size-fits-all approach to disability. Criticized all viewpoints. These precedents match the apex court’s current stance on the need for contextual and individual assessment of disability rather than a monolithic approach.
It highlighted that reasonable accommodation should not be understood only as the provision of assistive devices and other tangible substances that will assist persons with disabilities. “If the mandate of the law is to ensure the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society and if the whole idea is to exclude conditions that prevent their full and effective participation as equal members of society, then a broader interpretation of the concept is appropriate. “Adjustments that will further the objective of the RPWD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy are essential,” it underlined.
Principle of Equality and its Relevance to Disability Rights:
At the heart of the Court’s decision is the principle of equality, specifically enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The bench said that equality for persons with disabilities is not just about preventing discrimination, but about ensuring affirmative action and support that allows full participation in all aspects of life.
It relied on the top court’s previous judgment in Jija Ghosh and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2016), which had held that equality implies more than non-discrimination. This involves actively removing social barriers and creating conditions that enable PwD to enjoy opportunities on an equal footing. “Equality implies not only preventing discrimination (for example, protecting individuals against unfavorable treatment by enforcing anti-discrimination laws), but also eliminating discrimination against groups suffering from systematic discrimination in society. In concrete terms, this means adopting the notions of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable adjustment,” the judgment said.
Rejecting “facial similarity” in cases involving PwDs, the top court said courts are bound to examine whether there is any dangerous violation of Article 14 under the cloak of similarity. It cited Khandige Sham Bhat and others vs. Agricultural Income Tax. Adhikari, Kasaragod, and others (1963) say: “Although a law may at first glance appear to treat all persons falling within a class alike, if in fact it treats similarly situated persons or property acts unequally, then it can be said that the law is in violation of the equality clause.
In the judgment, the Supreme Court took this understanding forward by emphasizing that equality demands sensitivity and flexibility, especially in the educational context. The bench highlighted that disability assessment boards should not rely on rigid limitations, which may inadvertently deprive persons with disabilities of their right to education and vocational development.
Importance of inclusive education in promoting equal opportunity:
The judgment written by Justice Vishwanathan also elaborates on the role of inclusive education – the cornerstone of the RPWD Act. Inclusive education, as defined by Section 2(m) of the Act, refers to a system where students with and without disabilities learn together, with adjustments made to accommodate different learning needs. The court emphasized that inclusive education is essential for persons with disabilities to achieve social and economic inclusion and participate effectively in society.
Citing the case Avani Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2023), which held that an inclusive educational environment is important for the realization of the right to education, the court declared that the mere existence of benchmark disability would render a candidate eligible for the course. cannot be disqualified from. Application for.
This approach reflects a paradigm shift, moving from mere integration to a more inclusive, adaptive system that respects the unique abilities and challenges of each individual.
While the Court acknowledged the barriers that exist in implementing inclusive education, such as inadequate resources and infrastructure, it also highlighted the legal and moral imperative to overcome these barriers.
“There should be a view from the government, the state machinery, regulatory bodies and also the private sector into the matter as to how one can best accommodate and provide opportunities to candidates with disability. The approach should not be to disqualify candidates and make it difficult for them to pursue and achieve their educational goals,” it noted. The ruling encouraged educational institutions to provide reasonable accommodations such as assistive technology, modified curriculum and flexible examination methods.
A step towards an inclusive society:
The judgment has far-reaching implications for the educational and regulatory framework in the country as it has directed regulatory bodies like the NMC to modify rules that automatically exclude persons with certain disabilities. This decision encourages a progressive change, ensuring that institutions evaluate candidates based on their potential rather than their limitations. This could pave the way for new policies that will advocate inclusivity, aligning India’s educational standards with international disability rights norms.
Additionally, the implications of this judgment may extend beyond educational institutions to establishing a broader framework for the interpretation of disability rights and setting a precedent for other sectors such as employment, health care and public services. By emphasizing individual assessment over rigid criteria, the judgment acknowledged that disability is not a uniform experience and that each person may require different types of support.
The decision underlined the positive responsibilities of the State, educational institutions and other bodies to create an enabling environment for persons with disabilities, thereby promoting their full and effective participation in society.
This decision can serve as a guiding principle for policy reform, encouraging the public and private sectors to adopt more inclusive practices. For educational institutions, this could mean increased funding and resources for assistive technologies, accessible infrastructure and training programs to create awareness and competency in inclusive education.
It cited the 2014 judgment in the Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs Union of India case in which the apex court called for a proactive approach to addressing the needs of people with disabilities, emphasizing that the government and society should respond to disability accommodation. Must adopt a -oriented, supportive attitude. The judgment said, “The approach and attitude of the executive in the matter of providing relief to persons with disabilities should be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or sluggish.”
The Supreme Court judgment on reasonable accommodation is an important milestone in India’s journey towards inclusivity and equality for persons with disabilities. By interpreting the RPWD Act as promoting a flexible, supportive approach, the top court has reinforced the importance of individual support and an inclusive educational framework. This decision lays the foundation for a more compassionate society that respects the inherent dignity and autonomy of each individual, recognizing that disability rights are, fundamentally, human rights.
