No Rest For The Weary: Impaired State Of Disability Rights Enforcement In India

This piece examines the Court on its own motion v. KVS^[1] and the operational realities that continue to obstruct people with disabilities in India from fully exercising their rights.

A letter from the National Association of the Deaf to the courts in December 2022, highlighting the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan's institutional refusal to incorporate disabled individuals into their recruitment processes, evolved into a significant precedent in the realm of disability law in India. In Court on its own motion v. KVS, the Delhi High Court aimed to address not only the specific issues of the under-representation of individuals with disabilities in recruitment procedures but also a troubling overarching trend of discrimination against persons with disabilities in professional environments. As a result, in November of the following year, the Ministry of Social Justice issued a directive for the more rigorous enforcement of standardized guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

The Directive 

Subsequently, a public interest litigation arising from a suo motu cognizance of the letter was taken up by the Delhi High Court. During the course of the inquiry, it was found that KVS had issued recruitment announcements for the roles of Principal, Vice Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher, Trained Graduate Teacher, and Librarian. However, the Sangathan was found to significantly neglect the obligatory 4% reservation for individuals with disabilities, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The division bench, composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, admitted the violation to be indicative of a larger trend of overarching institutional failures in government recruitment processes nationwide. 

The Court underlined the plight of people with disabilities being compelled to sprint from 'pillar to post' to secure their entitlements. This demonstrated that the judiciary is becoming cognizant of administrative complacency. Although people with benchmark disabilities are legally guaranteed employment under the 2016 Act, it is common practice to dismiss the provisions of the Act as mere regulatory suggestions or guidelines.

On Compliance And Resistance 

The recent developments indicate a varied outcome. It was not until a year later that the Centre released explicit guidelines, mandating the regular identification of positions for individuals with disabilities and the formation of assessment committees. Subsequently, these initiatives were introduced following an extended duration in which numerous institutions postponed action and, in some instances, ignored previous directives. 

Further, the legal proceedings concerning the Sangathan seemingly focused on a single institution, very quickly brought to light a broader issue of non-compliance throughout the public sector. What transpired with the Sangathan was not an isolated incident; comparable deficiencies were being observed in other organizations as well. Some government advertisements excluded disabled candidates outright, while others provided only token accommodation, despite the law's clarity. The Court's reminder that departments must “appoint deaf and hard of hearing persons by providing them 1% reservation” became a refrain across hearings. 

The gap in enforcement manifested in various ways. The law was interpreted restrictively at times, directives were carried out with long delays, and there was often a lack of administrative control. In 2023 and 2024, several departments were involved in legal proceedings again and again, pointing to the fact that the usual enforcement methods were ineffective against ingrained prejudices.

The November Guidelines as Reform 

In November 2024, the Centre released new directions. The directions have changed the way that disability reservations will operate in public service employment. Departments will be required to conduct recurring reviews of classified positions. Professional bodies will be expected to consider barriers to accessibility. Changes have been made to limit reliance on provisions by making consistent provisions. There will also be processes you will be able to observe to ensure that policies are not gently disregarded.

Job postings often imposed restrictions that disqualified individuals with disabilities from employment. When accommodations were needed during the application process, they were delayed or not provided. Although the laws may have been followed in a technical sense, true inclusion was prevented. These initiatives were designed to transform disability employment from a charitable approach to one based on rights. That it required nearly two years of sustained judicial pressure to get here, however, underlines both the depth of bureaucratic resistance and the slow pace of institutional change. 

Toward Effective Policy Implementation 

The November 2024 guidelines are clearly an advance, but their real value will depend on whether they are carried out properly. Two years of delay after the first judgment show that the problem lies not so much in drafting policy but in preventing departments from falling back on technical compliance while avoiding genuine inclusion. 

This case, then, presents a mixture of hope and alarm – on one side, taking NAD's correspondence and using it to support a public interest petition shows that strategic litigation can be a tool to operationalize counter-discrimination law to address deeply entrenched discrimination. On the other hand, the long timeline shows the need for the Bar to continuously mount pressure and to have independent off-site oversight, to combat potential inaction on the part of government administrators.

Overall, the handling of the KVS matter by the High Court marks a significant shift. Government employment of people with disabilities can no longer rest at the discretion of a bureaucrat; the proclivity has become an exercise in authority via (binding) judicial direction. As departments adjust to these obligations, the legal community must stay watchful. The real test is whether inclusion is carried out in spirit, not reduced to another checklist. Without ongoing supervision, the system may regress into superficial actions rather than genuine, enforceable inclusion.

Views Are Personal.