Project Ability Empowerment and Upward Migration for PwD Reservations: The Supreme Court’s Structural Roadmap for Dignity, Accessibility, and Community Living

Introduction

Citation: 2025 INSC 1101 | Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 12 September 2025

In a landmark composite judgment, the Supreme Court of India has consolidated and advanced disability rights jurisprudence by (a) creating a national, university-led monitoring architecture—“Project Ability Empowerment”—to assess, audit, and catalyse reforms in all institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities across India (state-run and private); and (b) signalling a transformative interpretation of reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), by proposing the extension of the “upward migration” principle to PwD reservations in recruitment and promotions.

The decision arises at the confluence of two proceedings: (i) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998 by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation seeking effective implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (now replaced by the RPwD Act, 2016); and (ii) Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016 (originating in the Asha Kiran litigation led by Reena Banerjee) concerning conditions in state-run care homes, especially for persons with cognitive disabilities. The Court, speaking through Mehta, J. (with Vikram Nath, J. concurring), treats disability not as a matter of medical accommodation but as a constitutional lens to test inclusivity, accessibility, and equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

This commentary unpacks the Court’s structural directions, its re-anchoring of accessibility as a constitutional principle, its critique of productivity-centric narratives of disability, and its consequential move towards community-based living and fairer implementation of reservation for persons with disabilities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s key holdings and directions are as follows:

Establishment of “Project Ability Empowerment”: Eight National Law Universities (NLUs), regionally distributed, are tasked with a nationwide monitoring and evaluation of all care institutions (state-run and private) housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The remit includes compliance with the RPwD Act and connected statutes.
Monitoring scope and parameters: Beyond nine identified infrastructure parameters, the Court mandates multi-dimensional evaluation across six parts:
- Part I: Resident profiling, individualised care planning, health and therapeutic services, and exit/reintegration strategies.
- Part II: Accessibility audits (built environment, transport, communication), education (school enrolment, NIOS), and vocational opportunities.
- Part III: Rights, safeguards, and compliance (grievances, restraint policies, legal aid, inspection protocols).
- Part IV: Staffing, resources, and institutional accountability (ratios, qualifications, training, transparency).
- Part V: Documentation and welfare access (institution websites/dashboards; identity documentation and Aadhaar enrolment with consent and privacy safeguards).
- Part VI: Reservation—substantive interpretation of Section 34 RPwD Act, focusing on equitable distribution of opportunities.
Funding and logistics: Each NLU to receive an interim grant of INR 25 lakhs; expenses to be shared equally by the Union (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, MoSJE) and the Social Justice Department of concerned States/UTs; District Magistrates/Collectors and DLSAs to provide access and support; State Commissioners for PwD and designated State/UT Nodal Officers to coordinate.
Timelines: Monitoring to commence within four weeks; consolidated report within six months; matter listed on 13 March 2026 to receive the report. Separate direction to Union to respond by 14 October 2025 on upward migration for PwD reservations.
Community-based living: The Court endorses transition away from large congregate settings, urging adoption of small-group, personalised support models (e.g., “Home Again”) and comprehensive decongestion and reintegration pathways.
Reservation—toward upward migration for PwD: The Court highlights a systemic anomaly—PwD candidates scoring above the unreserved cut-off are not migrated to the general list, forcing them to occupy PwD-reserved seats and thereby shrinking the effective benefit to the cohort. Citing Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj, the Court calls upon the Union to explain steps to implement upward migration for PwD in recruitment and promotions, to ensure the reserved quota genuinely benefits those most disadvantaged.
Constitutional anchoring of accessibility and dignity: The Court reiterates that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are constitutional imperatives—indispensable to meaningful exercise of rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21—and not mere technicalities.

Background and Procedural History

The 1998 writ petition by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation sought enforcement of the 1995 Act, including reservation in identified teaching posts and redressal of discriminatory exclusion of visually impaired persons. In 2014, the Supreme Court directed full implementation of the 1995 Act (by then almost two decades old), with compliance affidavits from Union, States, and UTs. Persistent non-compliance and incomplete reporting led to repeated follow-up orders, including a 2020 direction and a 2024 admonition requiring States/UTs to designate senior nodal officers and file complete data by February 2025.

Parallelly, revelations of custodial neglect and deaths at Asha Kiran (Delhi) triggered litigation culminating in Supreme Court directions in 2016 (per Khanwilkar, J.) for medicalised administration, governing councils with multidisciplinary expertise, decongestion, targeted rehabilitation, and a national Advisory Group Expert Panel. Non-compliance again drove the Court to systematise a nationwide, independent monitoring mechanism—now crystallised as “Project Ability Empowerment.”

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761

The Court invoked Jeeja Ghosh to reaffirm that discrimination against persons with disabilities violates Articles 14 and 21 and that dignity is intrinsic to life. Importantly, it treated reasonable accommodation as a necessary incident of substantive equality—informing the Court’s insistence on personalised care plans, tailored education, and therapeutic interventions in institutional contexts.

2) Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (W.P. (C) 243/2005; order dated 29 Nov 2023)

Rajive Raturi framed accessibility as integral to existing human rights and directed an independent assessment (by NALSAR’s Centre for Disability Studies) to operationalise the Accessible India Campaign. By analogical reasoning, the present Court scales this approach nationally, commissioning NLUs to conduct fact-based, independent assessments of disability care institutions and RPwD Act implementation—transforming accessibility and inclusion from slogans into measurable compliance obligations.

3) Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370

While endorsing the centrality of reasonable accommodation, the Court offers a nuanced critique of concepts that risk tethering dignity to productivity and treating PwD as a “discrete and insular minority” at the margins. This philosophical recalibration undergirds the judgment’s rejection of productivity-centric yardsticks, particularly for residents with high support needs in institutions, and its embrace of a rights-based, autonomy-centric approach.

4) Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1025)

Kabir Paharia condemns rigid, medically reductive exclusions in access to professional education and recognises reasonable accommodation as a constitutional entitlement under Articles 14, 16, and 21. Its emphasis on individualised, evidence-based assessment informs the Court’s insistence on personalised care, education, and exit strategies within institutions, and its broader view that administrative inertia can amount to constitutional wrongs.

5) Indra Sawhney (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) and M. Nagaraj (2006) 8 SCC 212

These decisions articulate reservation as an instrument of substantive equality and endorse the principle of upward migration whereby meritorious reserved-category candidates who meet general cut-offs move to the unreserved list, preserving reserved vacancies for those with greater disadvantage. The present judgment adapts this logic to disability-based reservations—asking the Union to implement upward migration for PwD in recruitment and promotions—so that reservation benefits are not inadvertently diminished.

Legal Reasoning and Doctrinal Development

A) Constitutional reframing: From accommodation to equal citizenship

The Court situates disability within the equality-dignity framework of Articles 14, 19, and 21. Accessibility is recast as a constitutional precondition for meaningful enjoyment of rights, not a procedural add-on. This aligns with the UNCRPD’s social model, placing the burden on institutions to remove structural barriers instead of requiring persons with disabilities to fit into non-inclusive systems.

B) Structural remedies and cooperative federalism

Recognising decades-long non-compliance, the Court deploys a structural injunction with clear architecture: eight NLUs, defined parameters, statutory collaborators (DLSAs, State Commissioners for PwD, State Nodal Officers), dedicated funding streams, timelines, and a return date. This cooperative federal model accepts polycentric complexity and sets up a credible, independent evidence-generation platform to drive durable reform.

C) Community-based living as normative baseline

Drawing on the Advisory Group Expert Panel and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Section 19), the Court affirms that institutionalisation should be minimal and transitional. It urges pathways to community living—family reunification, foster/kinship care, small-group homes, and personalised support—aligning with Articles 19 and 21 (autonomy and dignity) and UNCRPD Article 19.

D) Reservation for PwD—toward upward migration

The Court identifies a systemic inequity: PwD candidates exceeding general cut-offs are not migrated to the unreserved list, contrary to the approach followed for social reservations. This forces PwD candidates to consume the very reservations meant to assist persons facing compounded barriers, thereby diminishing the effective reach of Section 34. By calling on the Union to implement upward migration (also in promotions), the Court seeks to align disability reservations with foundational equality principles while ensuring the intended beneficiaries are not crowded out.

E) Privacy-by-design in documentation drives

The Court endorses institutional facilitation of identity documentation and Aadhaar enrolment to enable welfare access, but expressly subjects this to consent and privacy safeguards. This is a principled reconciliation with informational privacy and decisional autonomy as articulated in the constitutional jurisprudence on privacy.

International and Domestic Legal Frameworks Emphasised

International: UDHR (dignity and equality), ICCPR (liberty and security; safeguards against arbitrary institutionalisation), ICESCR (health, education, work), CRC (heightened protection for children with disabilities; institutionalisation as last resort), UNCRPD (accessibility, autonomy, equal recognition before the law, liberty, community living).
Domestic: RPwD Act, 2016 (Sections 3, 5, 34, 40–46), Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (Section 19 right to community living), and the constitutional triad (Articles 14, 19, 21) as interpreted through a substantive equality lens.

Impact and Implications

1) For State and Union Governments

Mandatory cooperation with NLU teams; designation of senior Nodal Officers; funding obligations in equal proportion with the Union.
Shift from sporadic compliance affidavits to continuous, verifiable, field-based monitoring and public accountability.
Need to prepare for structural reforms: decongestion, staff augmentation, training, accessible infrastructure, and community-based alternatives.

2) For Institutions (State-run and Private)

Subject to comprehensive rights-based audits covering care, therapy, education, accessibility, staffing, governance, and documentation.
Expected to create/maintain online dashboards for transparency (with stringent privacy protections), and to operationalise grievance redress, restraint policies, and legal aid access.
Obliged to adopt individualised care planning and exit/reintegration pathways.

3) For Persons with Disabilities and Families

Potential for improved living conditions, personalised support, educational and vocational access, and safer, rights-respecting environments.
Expanded pathways out of institutionalisation into community-based living with supports.
Fairer access to public employment if upward migration is implemented, ensuring reservations reach those facing greater structural barriers.

4) For Recruitment and Promotions

If the Union implements the Court’s call, PwD candidates scoring above the general cut-off will be counted in the unreserved category (both in direct recruitment and promotions), preserving the PwD quota for those who most need it—significantly reshaping appointment and promotion rosters and aligning practice with the substantive equality ethos.

5) For Legal Governance

Reinforces the Court’s continuing mandamus approach to systemic rights enforcement where polycentric, multi-level coordination is essential.
Sets a precedent for university-led independent monitoring in social rights litigation, with clear financing and accountability pathways.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Social vs. medical model of disability: The medical model views disability as an individual impairment to be “fixed” or accommodated; the social model treats disability as arising from barriers in the environment and institutions. The judgment privileges the social model, requiring systems to adapt.
Accessibility: Not limited to ramps and lifts; includes transport, information and communication, digital accessibility, signage, formats (e.g., sign language, pictorial cues), and assistive technologies—enabling independent and equal participation.
Reasonable accommodation: Context-specific modifications that do not impose a disproportionate burden but are necessary for equal access and participation—across education, employment, housing, healthcare, and public services.
Upward migration (or migration principle): When a reserved-category candidate scores above the general cut-off, they are counted against the unreserved category, preserving the reserved seat for another candidate from the reserved category. The Court now signals extending this to PwD reservations to avoid dilution of the quota’s intended benefit.
Community-based living: Small-group homes, supported living, foster/kinship arrangements, with personalised supports—minimising institutionalisation and promoting autonomy and social inclusion.
Structural injunction/continuing mandamus: A judicial technique where the Court designs ongoing supervisory frameworks (timelines, reporting, monitoring bodies) to remedy systemic rights violations.

Key Directions at a Glance

Project Ability Empowerment: Eight NLUs assigned across regions to monitor all institutions (state-run/private) housing persons with cognitive disabilities; collaboration with the Advisory Group Expert Panel; six-part assessment framework.
Funding: INR 25 lakhs interim to each NLU; expenses shared equally by Union and States/UTs.
Institutional cooperation: DMs/Collectors, DLSAs, State Commissioners for PwD, and designated Nodal Officers to ensure access and data.
Transparency: Institutional websites/dashboards for public accountability (with privacy safeguards).
Documentation: Facilitation of identity documents and Aadhaar enrolment subject to consent and privacy safeguards.
Timelines: Work to begin within four weeks; consolidated report in six months; listing on 13 March 2026.
Reservation: Union to respond by 14 October 2025 on implementing upward migration for PwD in recruitment and promotions.

What Remains Open

The Union’s position on extending upward migration to PwD reservations and its practical implementation in recruitment and promotions.
Institutional responses to the data-driven audit—especially around decongestion, community transitions, and funding for long-term support services.
Data protection and consent protocols for Aadhaar enrolment of institutionalised residents, particularly those with high support needs or impaired decision-making capacity.

Conclusion

This judgment is a watershed in India’s disability rights jurisprudence. It operationalises constitutional commitments by building a robust, independent monitoring infrastructure, backed by funding, timelines, and institutional responsibilities. It steers national policy away from custodial institutionalisation towards community-based living and personalised supports, aligning domestic practice with the UNCRPD and the Mental Healthcare Act.

Equally significant is the Court’s move to correct a structural inequity in the operation of PwD reservations. By inviting the Union to implement upward migration for PwD candidates, the Court seeks to ensure that reservation fulfills its purpose—reaching those who actually face compounded barriers—while recognising and celebrating merit without eroding the quota’s protective function.

The ruling’s deeper contribution lies in its normative clarity: accessibility is a constitutional necessity; dignity is not contingent on productivity; and disability is a constitutive part of human diversity. As “Project Ability Empowerment” unfolds, its evidence-led recommendations—if faithfully implemented—can transform India’s care and support ecosystem from institutional dependency to inclusive community participation, fulfilling the constitutional promise of equality, autonomy, and dignity for persons with disabilities.