- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prajwala v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This public interest writ petition was filed in 2004 alleging that, despite the coming into force of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 on 7-2-1996, many State Governments and local authorities had failed to implement Section 43 of the Act. Section 43 mandates preferential allotment of land at concessional rates to persons with disabilities for specified purposes such as housing, business, special schools, research centres, recreation centres and factories.
Upon issuing notice, the Supreme Court received counter-affidavits from various States. Several States admitted non-implementation (e.g., Arunachal Pradesh), while others reported only partial or marginal compliance. No State claimed to have framed comprehensive schemes or fixed reservation percentages as contemplated by Section 43.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether State Governments and local authorities had complied with the statutory obligation under Section 43 of the 1995 Act to frame schemes for preferential allotment of land to persons with disabilities.
- What directions, if any, the Supreme Court should issue to ensure effective implementation of Section 43 across all States and Union Territories.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed the affidavits filed by the States and found a widespread lack of compliance with Section 43. Key observations included:
- Some States candidly accepted total non-implementation, while others described only limited reservation percentages without formal schemes.
- The statutory language of Section 43 is mandatory (“shall by notification frame schemes”), leaving no discretion to abandon or dilute the duty.
- The 1995 Act establishes a complaints mechanism through the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners (Section 62), underscoring the legislature’s intention that the benefits be real and enforceable.
In light of these findings, the Court held that immediate directions were necessary to give meaningful effect to the legislative mandate.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is DISPOSED OF with specific directions.
Directions: Whenever State Governments or local authorities allot land for any purpose listed in Section 43, they must accord preferential treatment to persons with disabilities and offer land at concessional rates. The exact percentage of reservation is left to each State/local authority, but they must consider the total population of disabled persons in fixing that percentage.
Implications: The order compels every State and local authority to implement Section 43 forthwith and opens a remedial avenue—affected individuals may lodge complaints with the Chief Commissioner or relevant State Commissioner if benefits are denied. The ruling enforces, rather than creates, legal rights; therefore, it sets no new precedent but strengthens statutory compliance nationwide.
Order
WP (C) No. 576 of 2004
1. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996) was passed by Parliament and it came into force with effect from 7-2-1996. The petitioner under public interest litigation filed this petition alleging that despite the commencement of this Act 1 of 1996, many of the State Governments or the local authorities in the various States have not fully implemented Section 43 of the Act.
2. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows:
“43. Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes.—The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates for—
(a) house;
(b) setting up business;
(c) setting up of special recreation centres;
(d) establishment of special schools;
(e) establishment of research centres;
(f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities.”
3. This Court issued notice to the various State Governments and the State Governments have filed counter-affidavit and also indicated various steps taken by the respective Government to implement Section 43 of the Act. Some of the States have candidly admitted that they have not implemented Section 43 of the Act. For example, the State of Arunachal Pradesh stated that this is not so far implemented in the State.
4. Some of the State Governments stated that Section 43 was partially implemented and for allotment of land for certain purposes as indicated in Section 43, some percentage of reservation made in favour of disabled persons. By the statements of the State Governments, it appears that only marginal benefits are given as indicated in Section 43 of the Act. No State has come forward with specific plea that schemes have been formulated either by the State or by the local authorities and percentage of reservation has already been made in favour of the disabled persons.
5. Under the above circumstances, we direct that whenever the State Governments or local authorities allot land for various purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act and various items indicated in Section 43, preferential treatment be given to the disabled persons and the land shall be given at concessional rate. The percentage of reservation may be left to the discretion of the State Governments/local authorities. However, total percentage of disabled persons shall be taken into account while deciding the percentage.
6. The Act has also provided for appointment of the Chief Commissioner to look after the complaints of persons with disabilities. Section 62 enables the Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities.
7. We had already directed various State Governments to appoint the Chief Commissioner as well as the Commissioner and if any person feels that the State Governments/local authorities are not extending the benefits to the persons who are entitled to get such benefits under Section 43 of the Act, he would be at liberty to make complaint to the appropriate authorities as envisaged under the provisions of the Act.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Alert