Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Denying General Category Seats To Persons With Disabilities Scoring Higher Than General Cut-Off

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concerns over the denial of general category seats to persons with disabilities who score higher than the cut-off marks for the unreserved category.

The Court said that such an approach will defeat the purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court asked the Union Government to explain if appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that PwDs, who score higher than the general cut-off, are given "upward movement" by accommodating them in the general category.

The Court posed a query to the Centre as to whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide upward movement of meritorious candidates applying against the posts reserved for PwDs in case such candidates secure more than the cutoff for the unreserved category. Response to the query shall be placed before the Court on 14 October.

"We are informed and it is a matter of grave concern that same treatment, that is, upward movement, is not provided to persons with disabilities protected under the Act, who inspite of standing higher in terms of merit, are denied such upward movement. The direct consequence of not providing upward movement to the meritorious candidates applying under the category of PwD would be that even when a candidate with disability scores higher than the cutoff for unreserved category, such a candidate would invariably occupy the reserved seat thereby denying the opportunity to a lower scoring candidate with disability to make a claim on the said post. In our view, this defeats the very purpose of reservation under Section 34.

...we require the Union to explain whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide upward movement of meritorious candidate applying against the posts reserved for PwDs in case such candidate secures more than the cutoff for the unreserved category. Same principle must also be applied to promotions. Such consideration must be guided by the overarching aim that the true and substantive benefit of reservations reaches those most in need, ensuring that no PwD is ignored merely due to compounded barriers of poverty, stigma and lack of access" the Court said.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment on a writ petition pertaining to the implementation of the RPwD Act.

Project Ability Empowerment

The Court also directed monitoring of the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to be undertaken under the name and style of a project called the "Project Ability Empowerment". The Court assigned the task to 8 National Law Universities across the country and stated that the Project report shall be filed within 6 months as follows :

NLSIU Bangalore (covering Kerala, TN, Karnataka, AP, UTs of Puducherry and Lakshadweep), NLU Delhi (covering UTs of Delhi and Chandigarh), RJNUL-Punjab (covering Punjab, Haryana, HP, J&K&L),  NLU Jodhpur (covering Rajasthan, Gujarat, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu), NLUJA Assam (covering Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram), RMLNLU Lucknow (covering UP, MP and Chhattisgarh),  WBNUJS Kolkata (covering West Bengal, Sikkim, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Andaman & Nicobar) and MNLU (covering Maharashtra, Goa and Telangana).

The petition was filed by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation seeking the following reliefs:

i. for implementation of the provisions of the then Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995;

ii. direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and colleges of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act; and

iii. for a declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and colleges of various Universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15, read with Article 41 of the Constitution of India.

In 2014, the a bench of Justices RM Lodha, SJ Mukhopadhaya, and Dipak Misra observed that the 1995 Act had to be implemented in the letter and spirit without any delay, if not implemented thus far. Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Government, State Governments, and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014.

In 2020, the Court directed all the State Governments to file their respective compliance affidavits. Subsequently, most states filed their responses, but the provisions remained partly complied in certain states.

Case Title: JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION Versus U.O.I. AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 116/1998

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment