Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 1078
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can educational institutions deny admission to students with disabilities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue in a public interest litigation, emphasizing the rights of persons with disabilities to access education. The Court mandated a 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher education and directed institutions to ensure accessibility. This judgment underscores the importance of inclusive education and equal opportunities for all. The bench comprised of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, with the judgment authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.
Case Background
The case originated as a public interest litigation in 2006, filed by the Disabled Rights Group, concerning the non-implementation of reservations for persons with disabilities in law colleges. The scope of the case was later expanded to include all educational institutions. The petitioners highlighted the lack of compliance with the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995, and subsequently, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The primary concerns were the inadequate reservation of seats, lack of physical accessibility, and insufficient teaching facilities for disabled students.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 292 of 2006 filed by Disabled Rights Group. |
| 2009 | The Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted. |
| 22 February 2016 | Petitioner filed a compilation containing suggestions for infrastructure and teaching facilities for differently-abled persons. |
| 2016 | The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, replaced the 1995 Act. |
| 15 December 2017 | Supreme Court pronounces final judgment. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995: This section mandated that all government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the government shall reserve not less than three percent seats for persons with disabilities. The Court noted that this provision had been previously discussed in All Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of Kerala, where it was held that compliance was mandatory.
- Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This section confers the right to free education upon children with benchmark disabilities between the ages of 6 and 18 years, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
- Section 32(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: “All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.” This provision increased the reservation from 3% to 5% and specified that it applies to persons with benchmark disabilities.
- Section 32(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: “The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education.” This provision provides for age relaxation for admission to institutions of higher education.
- Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines “person with benchmark disability” as “a person with not less than forty per cent. of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority.”
- Section 2(i) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘establishment’ to include both Government and private establishments.
- Section 2(k) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘Government establishment’.
- Section 2(v) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘private establishment’.
- Section 2(w) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘public building’.
- Section 2(zd) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘transportation systems’.
- Section 2(ze) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘universal design’.
- Section 2(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Defines ‘appropriate Government’.
- Section 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Mandates inclusive education and accessible facilities in educational institutions.
- Section 25(1)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Mandates barrier-free access in hospitals and healthcare institutions.
- Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Mandates the Central Government to frame rules for accessibility standards.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that educational institutions were not adhering to the reservation policies for persons with disabilities. They highlighted the lack of accessibility in campuses, classrooms, and other facilities, which hindered the education of disabled students. The petitioners also emphasized the need for pedagogical changes to accommodate different types of disabilities. The petitioners relied on the principles of inclusive education and equal opportunity, as well as various international models of disability, including the Social Model of Disability. They also referred to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) concerning schemes for persons with disabilities, specifically the Higher Education for Persons with Special Needs (HEPSN) scheme.
The petitioners submitted detailed guidelines for accessibility, covering infrastructure, on-campus accommodation, classrooms, science laboratories, libraries, pedagogy, examination modifications, administration, and recreational facilities. They sought directions for the UGC to inspect institutions, ensure compliance, and consider their guidelines for implementation. They also requested the Central Government to frame rules for accessibility standards under Section 40 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, and to create an audit template to monitor compliance.
The respondents, primarily the Union of India and other government bodies, acknowledged the need for better implementation of the existing laws. However, they did not present detailed arguments against the petitioners’ claims, focusing instead on the steps taken to address the issues over time.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Non-implementation of reservation policy | Educational institutions not adhering to the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities as per the 1995 Act. | Petitioners |
| Need for compliance with the 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities as per the 2016 Act. | Petitioners | |
| Lack of proper monitoring and enforcement of reservation policies. | Petitioners | |
| Institutions need to submit annual reports on admissions of disabled students to relevant authorities. | Petitioners | |
| Lack of accessibility in educational institutions | Inadequate physical access to buildings, classrooms, and other facilities. | Petitioners |
| Absence of necessary infrastructure such as ramps, lifts, and accessible washrooms. | Petitioners | |
| Need for barrier-free campus environments as per the 2001 guidelines issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. | Petitioners | |
| Need for technological support and special equipment for differently-abled persons. | Petitioners | |
| Insufficient teaching facilities (Pedagogy) | Lack of accessible course materials in formats such as Braille, audio, and electronic files. | Petitioners |
| Need for readers, note-takers, and scribes for students with disabilities. | Petitioners | |
| Lack of sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired students. | Petitioners | |
| Need for suitable curriculum modifications and assistance, especially in science laboratories. | Petitioners | |
| Steps taken to address the issues over time | Acknowledged the need for better implementation of the existing laws. | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- Whether educational institutions are complying with the reservation of seats for persons with disabilities as mandated by law.
- Whether educational institutions are providing adequate accessibility for persons with disabilities.
- Whether educational institutions are making adequate provisions for teaching (pedagogy) for disabled persons.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance with reservation of seats | Directed all covered institutions to comply with Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016. | Mandated 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. |
| Adequate accessibility for persons with disabilities | Directed UGC to form a committee to study and implement accessibility guidelines. | Recognized the need for barrier-free environments and facilities. |
| Adequate provisions for teaching (pedagogy) for disabled persons | Directed UGC committee to study and suggest modalities for implementing pedagogical changes. | Emphasized the need for accessible course material, readers, note-takers, and sign language interpreters. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of Kerala [2002 (7) Scale 198] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Mandatory compliance with Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 regarding reservation of seats. |
| Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 | Statute | Considered | Mandated 3% reservation of seats for persons with disabilities in educational institutions. |
| Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 | Statute | Considered | Mandated 5% reservation of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher education. |
| Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 | Statute | Considered | Mandates the Central Government to frame rules for accessibility standards. |
| Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development | Government Guidelines | Followed | Accessibility standards for public buildings. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Non-implementation of reservation policy | Directed all educational institutions covered under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 to comply with the 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. Law colleges must also inform the Bar Council of India (BCI) of their compliance, while other institutions must notify the UGC. The BCI and UGC have the discretion to conduct inspections to verify compliance. |
| Lack of accessibility in educational institutions | Directed the UGC to form a committee to assess the feasibility of the petitioners’ guidelines on accessibility. This committee should include members from the Central and State Advisory Boards, as well as the Chief and State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. The committee is tasked with studying accessibility and pedagogy and suggesting implementation modalities, funding, and monitoring mechanisms. |
| Insufficient teaching facilities (Pedagogy) | The UGC committee is also tasked with studying and suggesting modalities for implementing pedagogical changes. The committee must lay down time limits for the implementation of these suggestions. The committee may consider forming an in-house body in each educational institution to address the daily needs of differently-abled persons and implement the devised schemes. |
| Report and Action Taken Report | The UGC is required to submit a report and an Action Taken Report to the Court by July 2018. The matter will be placed before the Court upon receipt of the report. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed the ruling in All Kerala Parents Association of the Hearing Impaired v. State of Kerala [2002 (7) Scale 198]* which mandated compliance with reservation of seats for persons with disabilities.
- The Court considered Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995* and Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016* to emphasize the need for reservation of seats for persons with disabilities.
- The Court considered Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016* to highlight the need for framing rules for accessibility standards.
- The Court followed the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development* to emphasize the need for accessibility in public buildings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was deeply concerned with ensuring that persons with disabilities have equal access to education. The Court emphasized the need for a level playing field, where all citizens have the opportunity to realize their full potential. The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the Social Model of Disability, which views disability as a social construct arising from societal barriers. The Court also highlighted the importance of inclusive education, which requires the participation of all groups, including disadvantaged persons, in the development process. The Court noted that a disability is only a disability when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do, and that with proper access and support, persons with disabilities can lead independent, economically self-sufficient, and fully participatory lives.
| Reason | Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Need for equal access to education for persons with disabilities. | Strongly Positive | 30% |
| Importance of a level playing field for all citizens. | Positive | 25% |
| Influence of the Social Model of Disability. | Neutral | 15% |
| Need for inclusive education. | Positive | 20% |
| Ensuring independent, self-sufficient lives for persons with disabilities. | Positive | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects of the case (30%). The emphasis was on the legal framework provided by the Disabilities Acts and the need for their effective implementation.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Non-compliance with reservation of seats for disabled students
Legal Basis: Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates 5% reservation.
Court’s Reasoning: All educational institutions must comply with the 5% reservation.
Direction: Institutions to submit compliance reports to UGC and BCI.
Issue: Lack of accessibility in educational institutions
Legal Basis: Sections 16, 25, and 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Court’s Reasoning: Need for barrier-free environment and facilities.
Direction: UGC to form a committee to study and implement accessibility guidelines.
Issue: Insufficient teaching facilities (Pedagogy)
Legal Basis: Rights of persons with disabilities to education.
Court’s Reasoning: Need for accessible course material, readers, note-takers, etc.
Direction: UGC committee to suggest modalities for pedagogical changes.
The Court considered various models of disability, particularly the Social Model, which emphasizes that societal barriers create disability. The Court also noted that “everyone can learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable”, and that all disabled persons have the right to higher education. The Court also quoted “A disability is only actually a disability when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do”, highlighting that with proper facilities, persons with disabilities can lead productive lives. The Court also observed that “Inclusive development builds on the idea of ‘Society for All’ in which all people are equally free to develop their potential, contribute their skills and abilities for the common good and to take up their entitlements to social services.”
Key Takeaways
- Educational institutions must reserve 5% of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities in higher education.
- Institutions must provide accessible infrastructure, including ramps, lifts, and accessible washrooms.
- Institutions must provide accessible course materials, readers, note-takers, and sign language interpreters.
- The UGC is responsible for overseeing the implementation of these directions.
- The judgment emphasizes the importance of inclusive education and equal opportunities for all.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- All educational institutions covered under Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, must comply with the 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
- Law colleges must inform the Bar Council of India (BCI) of their compliance, while other institutions must notify the UGC.
- The BCI and UGC have the discretion to conduct inspections to verify compliance.
- The UGC must form a committee to assess the feasibility of the petitioners’ guidelines on accessibility.
- This committee should include members from the Central and State Advisory Boards, as well as the Chief and State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act.
- The committee must study accessibility and pedagogy and suggest implementation modalities, funding, and monitoring mechanisms.
- The committee must lay down time limits for the implementation of these suggestions.
- The committee may consider forming an in-house body in each educational institution to address the daily needs of differently-abled persons and implement the devised schemes.
- The UGC is required to submit a report and an Action Taken Report to the Court by July 2018.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the right to education for persons with disabilities, mandating a 5% reservation in higher education and emphasizing the need for accessible infrastructure and pedagogical changes. This judgment builds on the previous legal position by increasing the reservation percentage and broadening the scope of accessibility requirements.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Disabled Rights Group & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark decision that significantly advances the rights of persons with disabilities in the field of education. By mandating a 5% reservation and directing institutions to ensure accessibility, the Court has taken a crucial step towards creating a more inclusive and equitable educational system. The judgment underscores the importance of equal opportunities and the need to eliminate societal barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from realizing their full potential.
Category
Parent Category: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Child Categories: Section 32, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Section 40, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Inclusive Education; Accessibility; Higher Education; Disability Rights
FAQ
Q: What is the reservation for persons with disabilities in higher education?
A: The Supreme Court has mandated a 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in all government and government-aided higher education institutions.
Q: What does ‘benchmark disability’ mean?
A: A person with not less than 40% of a specified disability, as certified by the certifying authority, is considered to have a benchmark disability.
Q: What kind of accessibility measures are educational institutions required to provide?
A: Institutions must provide barrier-free access to buildings, classrooms, and other facilities, including ramps, lifts, and accessible washrooms. They must also ensure accessible course materials, readers, note-takers, and sign language interpreters.
Q: What is the role of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in this?
A: The UGC is responsible for overseeing the implementation of these directions, including forming a committee to assess the feasibility of the petitioners’ guidelines on accessibility.
Q: What should I do if I face discrimination in educational institutions as a person with disability?
A: You can approach the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, and also bring it to the notice of the BCI or UGC as the case may be.