Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Supreme Court allows MBBS admission for disabled student, emphasizing functional assessment: Anmol vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 256 (21 February 2025)

/ B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 41, Functional Assessment, Judges, K.V. Viswanathan, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21st February, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 256 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can a medical aspirant be denied admission solely based on the percentage of disability, without a proper assessment of their functional capabilities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Anmol […]

Supreme Court allows MBBS admission for disabled student, emphasizing functional assessment: Anmol vs. Union of India (2025) INSC 256 (21 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court mandates equal facilities for all persons with disabilities in examinations: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (2025) INSC 142 (03 February 2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 19, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Inclusive Education, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(s)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether all persons with disabilities (PwD), not just those with benchmark disabilities (PwBD), are entitled to the same examination facilities, such as scribes and compensatory time.CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Disability Rights) Case Name: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 03 February 2025 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court mandates equal facilities for all persons with disabilities in examinations: Gulshan Kumar vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection & Ors. (2025) INSC 142 (03 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 858 (8 November 2024)

/ Accessibility Standards, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 40, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 44

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities Date of the Judgment: 8 November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 858 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J Can guidelines alone ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, or are mandatory rules necessary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 858 (8 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Ensures MBBS Admission for Disabled Student: Om Rathod vs. DGHS (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 2(y), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 32

Supreme Court Ensures MBBS Admission for Disabled Student: Om Rathod vs. DGHS (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person with a disability can be denied admission to an MBBS course based solely on a benchmark disability percentage, without assessing their functional competence and the potential of assistive devices. CASE TYPE: Disability Rights, Medical Education Case Name:

Supreme Court Ensures MBBS Admission for Disabled Student: Om Rathod vs. DGHS (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows MBBS Admission for Student with 44% Speech Disability: Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights, Inclusive Education, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 32

Supreme Court Allows MBBS Admission for Student with 44% Speech Disability: Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate with a benchmark disability exceeding 40% can be denied admission to a medical course solely based on the percentage of disability. CASE TYPE: Disability Law, Education Law Case Name: Omkar Ramchandra

Supreme Court Allows MBBS Admission for Student with 44% Speech Disability: Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. Union of India (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs TANGEDCO to Accommodate Colorblind Engineer: Mohamed Ibrahim vs. TANGEDCO (2023)

/ Disability Rights, Disability Rights with Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Employment, Reasonable Accommodation, Service Law, Service Law with Termination

Supreme Court directs TANGEDCO to Accommodate Colorblind Engineer: Mohamed Ibrahim vs. TANGEDCO (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person with mild color vision deficiency can be denied employment despite being qualified for the position. CASE TYPE: Service Law/Disability Rights Case Name: Mohamed Ibrahim vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors. [Judgment Date]: October 16, 2023

Supreme Court directs TANGEDCO to Accommodate Colorblind Engineer: Mohamed Ibrahim vs. TANGEDCO (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds CLAT Scribe Restrictions for Exam Integrity (2023)

/ Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disability Rights Law, Education Law, Examination Guidelines, J B Pardiwala, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 with Section 2(r), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 with Section 2(s), Scribe Restrictions

Supreme Court Upholds CLAT Scribe Restrictions for Exam Integrity (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether restrictions on scribes for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) are valid for candidates with disabilities. CASE TYPE: Disability Rights Law, Education Law Case Name: Arnab Roy vs. Consortium of National Law Universities & Anr. Judgment Date: 17 March 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds CLAT Scribe Restrictions for Exam Integrity (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision but Grants Relief to Student with Learning Disability: Naman Verma vs. The Director, IIT Bombay (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Disability Law, Judges, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision but Grants Relief to Student with Learning Disability LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a student with a learning disability, specifically Dyscalculia, is entitled to relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Disability Rights. Case Name: Naman Verma vs. The Director, The Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision but Grants Relief to Student with Learning Disability: Naman Verma vs. The Director, IIT Bombay (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits color blind individuals to enroll in all courses at Film and Television Institute of India: Ashutosh Kumar vs. FTII (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Disability Rights, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Reasonable Accommodation, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court permits color blind individuals to enroll in all courses at Film and Television Institute of India: Ashutosh Kumar vs. FTII (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether color blindness can be a valid ground for denying admission to film and television courses. CASE TYPE: Education/Disability Rights Case Name: Ashutosh Kumar vs. The Film and Television Institute

Supreme Court permits color blind individuals to enroll in all courses at Film and Television Institute of India: Ashutosh Kumar vs. FTII (2022) Read Post »

Mental Disability and Workplace Discrimination: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings (17 December 2021)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Mental Healthcare Act 2017, Non-discrimination in employment, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 with Section 47, Reasonable Accommodation, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 20, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees with Mental Disabilities in Disciplinary Proceedings LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee with a mental disability constitute workplace discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Disability Rights Case Name: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. The Union of India

Mental Disability and Workplace Discrimination: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings (17 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Accommodation for Dysgraphia in NEET: Avni Prakash vs. NTA (23 November 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Inclusive Education, Judges, Right to Equality, Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016, Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 with Section 17, Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 with Section 32

Supreme Court Directs Accommodation for Dysgraphia in NEET: Avni Prakash vs. NTA (2021) Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.18591 of 2021) Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can a student with dysgraphia, a specific learning disability, be

Supreme Court Directs Accommodation for Dysgraphia in NEET: Avni Prakash vs. NTA (23 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Pupil-Teacher Ratio for Special Needs Education in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 (28 October 2021)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Dinesh Maheshwari, Disability Law, Education Law, Inclusive Education, Judges, Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, Right to Education Act, 2009, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Special Education

Supreme Court Directs Pupil-Teacher Ratio for Special Needs Education Date of the Judgment: 28 October 2021 Citation: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) INSC 747 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. How can we ensure that children with special needs receive the quality education they

Supreme Court Directs Pupil-Teacher Ratio for Special Needs Education in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 (28 October 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top