- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition was filed in 1998 by a charitable trust seeking effective enforcement of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the 1995 Act”). Initially, the Union of India and the University Grants Commission (UGC) were the only respondents, but over time the Court impleaded all State Governments, Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, and the respective State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities. Various interim orders were passed between 1998 and 2014 directing the respondents to file affidavits and to implement the Act. By order dated 19-3-2002, the matter against UGC was closed after it showed compliance with the Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Government, State Governments, Union Territories and other public establishments have implemented, in letter and spirit, the mandates of the 1995 Act.
- Whether a 1% reservation in identified teaching posts for visually disabled persons, as required by Section 33 of the 1995 Act, has been provided in universities and affiliated colleges.
- Whether denial of such appointments violates the fundamental rights of visually disabled persons under Articles 14, 15 and 41 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The respondents have failed to implement the 1995 Act, leaving its beneficial provisions on paper alone.
- Non-reservation of 1% of teaching posts for visually disabled candidates contravenes Section 33 of the Act and infringes constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
Union of India’s Arguments
- Through counsel, the Union informed the Court that it had already implemented the Act and provided the mandated 1% reservation in identified teaching posts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India | Ensures comprehensive enforcement of the 1995 Act; serves as the governing judgment for allied matters. | The Court disposed of other writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 115/1998, 430/2000) and Civil Appeals Nos. 6442-43/1998 “in terms of” the present judgment rendered in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court underscored that a welfare State must adopt a “proactive, liberal and relief-oriented” approach towards differently-abled persons. Observing that more than 18 years had elapsed since enactment of the 1995 Act, it held that continued non-implementation defeated legislative intent and constitutional guarantees. The Court emphasised that executive lethargy cannot obstruct statutory rights and that immediate, uniform compliance across all governmental levels is imperative. Because UGC had already complied, no further orders were necessary against it. For all remaining governments and establishments, the Court fixed a firm outer limit—implementation “immediately and positively by the end of 2014.”
Holding and Implications
WRIT PETITION DISPOSED WITH DIRECTIONS.
The Central Government, all State Governments, Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities are directed to implement every provision of the 1995 Act, including the 1% reservation for visually disabled teachers, by 31 December 2014. Related writ petitions and civil appeals were disposed of on identical terms, and pending interlocutory applications were rendered infructuous. The primary consequence is compulsory, time-bound compliance with the Act nationwide; the Court did not establish a new doctrinal precedent but reinforced statutory mandates and constitutional protections for persons with disabilities.
R.M Lodha, J.—
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998
1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, a charitable trust, the prayers made are: (i) for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short “the 1995 Act”); (ii) direction for the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act; and (iii) for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled persons in the faculties and college 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.
2. Initially, two respondents, namely, (1) Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare and (2) University Grants Commission (UGC) through its Chairperson were impleaded as party-respondents. On 7-10-1998 (2014) 15 SCC 481, the Court ordered impleadment of the States and so also the Union Territories and, accordingly, Respondents 3 to 34 were impleaded as party-respondents.
3. On 13-9-2001 WP (C) No. 115 of 1998, (2014) 14 SCC 383 (F2) the Court directed the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India to be impleaded as party-respondent and consequently it has been impleaded as Respondent 35.
4. Then on 18-2-2009 WP (C) No. 116 of 1998, the Court directed the Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of various States and Union Territories to be impleaded as party-respondents and consequently Respondents 36 to 70 have been impleaded who are the Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities in different States and Union Territories.
5. Certain interim orders have been passed by this Court from time to time.
6. Insofar as UGC (Respondent 2) is concerned, the Court was informed on 19-3-2002 WP (C) No. 115 of 1998 through a counter-affidavit that UGC has acted in compliance with the 1995 Act. In Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, it was stated:
“3. It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the appropriate Government (the Government of India) has updated the list of identified posts. This list has been issued vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 178 dated 30-6-2001. In this list, the posts of university/college/school teacher for the blind and low-vision have been listed at Sl. Nos. 24-27 on p. 592.
***
6. The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has taken cognizance of the arrangements provided by the University Grants Commission for persons with disabilities by way of extending 5% relaxation in cut-off marks, appearing in NET for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship. Thus, the arrangement extended by UGC is in consonance with the policy stand taken by the Government of India insofar as relaxation in minimum standard is concerned. Relaxation in standards has been favoured only when the candidates belonging to the reserved categories are not available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them.
7. The relaxation extended to SC and ST candidates as per Maintenance of Standard 1998 of the Universities, provides for a 5% relaxation from 55% to 50% in the marks obtained at Masters degree. Since reservation for the disabled is called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical categories such as SCs, STs, OBCs and General. Therefore, all such blind/low-vision persons who belonged to SC, ST vertical category would automatically enjoy the benefit of 5% relaxation at the minimum qualifying marks obtained at Masters degree level. Thus, only the blind and low-vision belonging to the OBC and General categories are deprived of the relaxation of 5% marks at Masters level.
8. The blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons belonging to SC and ST category are in any case enjoying the benefit of 5% relaxation in marks obtained at the Masters level for appearing in the NET examination conducted by UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/low-vision and in general all disabled on a par with SC and ST disabled would bring parity amongst all persons with disabilities irrespective of their vertical categories.”
7. Thus, insofar as UGC is concerned, this Court in the order dated 19-3-2002 WP (C) No. 115 of 1998 observed that nothing survives for consideration and the matter is disposed of as against UGC.
8. On 19-7-2006 (2014) 15 SCC 497, the Court directed the Union of India and the State Governments to file their responses in the form of affidavits within a period of four weeks, failing which it was observed that the Court may be compelled to direct personal appearance of the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned though the Court would like to avoid in making such a direction. Some of the States have filed their responses and some have not.
9. Be that as it may, the beneficial provisions of the 1995 Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years and thereby defeating the very purpose of such law and legislative policy. The Union, States, Union Territories and all those upon whom obligation has been cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively implement it. As a matter of fact, the role of the governments in the matter such as this has to be proactive. In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief-oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently abled citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity.
10. More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act came to be passed and yet we are confronted with the problem of implementation of the 1995 Act in its letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union Territories and other establishments to which it is made applicable.
11. Ms Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India, informs us that insofar as the Union of India is concerned, it has implemented the provisions of the 1995 Act and the reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and college of various universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act has been done.
12. In our view, the 1995 Act has to be implemented in letter and spirit by the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories without any delay, if not implemented so far. We, accordingly, direct the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014.
13. The Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, the Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators of Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner of the Union of India and the Commissioners of the State Governments and the Union Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act in all respects including with regard to visually disabled persons within the above time.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 115 of 1998, 430 of 2000 and Civil Appeals Nos. 6442-43 of 1998
15. The writ petitions and the appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment passed today in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India. No costs.
16. The interlocutory applications for intervention and impleadment filed in Civil Appeal No. 6442 of 1998, in view of the above, do not survive and they stand disposed of as such.
Alert