Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 441
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 116 OF 1998
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE
FOUNDATION ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 11938 OF 2016
DIARY No(s). 29329 OF 2021
DIARY No(s). 26974 OF 2024
O R D E R
th
1. This Court, vide order dated 15 April, 2026,
recorded submissions advanced by Mr. Colin
Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in Civil Appeal No. 11938 of 2016 regarding
non-compliance by several States and Union
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Territories with the directions issued in the judgment
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.05.04
16:54:21 IST
Reason:
1
th
dated 12 September, 2025, particularly concerning
the appointment of Nodal Officers. It was noted that
despite the lapse of seven months, multiple States
1
and Union Territories had failed to act, thereby
impeding the effective functioning of National Law
Universities in discharge of the mandate of this Court
and undermining the implementation of statutory
mandates affecting vulnerable sections of the society.
Expressing serious displeasure at such inaction, this
Court granted a final opportunity to the defaulting
States and Union Territories to ensure compliance
before the next date of hearing, failing which senior
officials, including Chief Secretaries and concerned
departmental Secretaries, were directed to remain
personally present with affidavits explaining the
delay.
2. Further, this Court took note of the
submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of
1998 concerning the broader implementation of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and
1
States of Kerala, Jharkhand, Odisha, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and
Telangana, as well as the Union Territories of Puducherry, Lakshadweep
Islands, Ladakh, Delhi, Chandigarh, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
2
granted time to the counsel for petitioner to file a
status report. The Court also expressed concern over
the continued failure of the Union of India to respond
to a specific query raised in paragraph 53 of the
th
judgment dated 12 September, 2025, relating to the
provision of upward movement of meritorious
candidates in reserved categories. Noting the lack of
response/representation on behalf of the Union of
India, the Court granted a final opportunity to file the
requisite response before the next date of hearing.
The matter was accordingly directed to be listed on
th
28 April, 2026 for further consideration. For ready
reference, the relevant portion of the said order is
extracted hereinbelow: -
“1. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
11938 of 2016, submitted that certain States and
Union Territories have still not appointed Nodal
Officers in compliance with the directions issued by
th
this Court vide judgment dated 12 September,
2025. It is submitted that such non-compliance is
causing serious impediments in the effective
functioning of the National Law Universities in
discharge of the mandate of this Court.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that
the States of Kerala, Jharkhand, Odisha, Sikkim,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Telangana, as
well as the Union Territories of Puducherry,
Lakshadweep Islands, Ladakh, Delhi, Chandigarh,
and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, have not
3
appointed Nodal Officers even after a lapse of seven
months from the date of the aforesaid judgment.
3. We express our serious displeasure at the
lackadaisical and indifferent approach displayed by
the aforesaid States and Union Territories in
complying with the directions of this Court. The
directions issued pertain to a matter of considerable
sensitivity and significance, impacting the effective
implementation of statutory mandates and the
rights of vulnerable sections of the society. Such
continued inaction not only undermines the
authority of this Court but also defeats the very
purpose for which the directions were issued. The
concerned authorities are, therefore, expected to act
with promptitude and a sense of responsibility
commensurate with the importance of the subject
matter.
4. However, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, one last opportunity is granted to the
aforesaid States and Union Territories to appoint the
Nodal Officers in terms of the directions issued by
th
this Court vide judgment dated 12 September,
2025, on or before the next date of hearing. Failing
such compliance, the Chief Secretaries and the
Secretaries, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment/Department of Social Welfare of the
concerned States and Union Territories shall remain
personally present before this Court on the next date
of hearing, along with an affidavit explaining the
reasons for the delay in appointing the Nodal
Officers. It is clarified that in the event compliance
is effected and the Nodal Officers are duly appointed
by the next date of hearing, the requirement of
personal presence of the Chief Secretaries and the
Secretaries, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment/Department of Social Welfare of the
concerned States or Union Territories, as the case
may be, shall stand exempted, subject to the filing
of an affidavit evidencing such compliance.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998 submitted that
4
the larger issue in the present matters concerns the
faithful implementation of the provisions of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and
sought time to place on record a status report.
Accordingly, time is granted to the learned counsel
to file the status report on or before the next date of
hearing.
7. We are constrained to note that despite several
opportunities granted to the Union of India to place
on record its response as to the query raised in Para
th
53 of the judgment dated 12 September, 2025, i.e.,
whether upward movement of meritorious
candidates applying against posts reserved for
persons with disabilities is permissible in cases
where such candidates secure marks higher than
the cut-off prescribed for the unreserved category,
no clarity has been forthcoming. Neither has any
counsel appeared on behalf of the Union of India to
address this issue, nor have we been informed as to
whether any affidavit in this regard has been filed.
In these circumstances, we grant last opportunity to
the Union of India to file its response on record by
the next date of hearing.
th
8. List on 28 April, 2026 for further consideration.”
3. For the sake of clarity and to facilitate a
structured consideration of the issues involved, the
present order is being addressed under three distinct
heads, which are being considered seriatim :
A. Appointment of Nodal Officers
th
4. When the matter was taken up on 28 April,
2026, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 11938
of 2016, submitted that out of the States and Union
5
th
Territories referred to in the order dated 15 April,
2026, the States of Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya,
Manipur, Sikkim, Tripura, Mizoram and
Uttarakhand as well as Union Territory of Delhi have
since appointed Nodal Officers. However, the States
of Kerala, Jharkhand, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, and Telangana, as well as the
Union Territories of Puducherry, Lakshadweep
Islands, Ladakh, Chandigarh and Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, had still not appointed Nodal
Officers, as directed by this Court vide judgment and
th
order dated 12 September, 2025 and the
th
subsequent order dated 15 April, 2026.
5. However, counsel appearing for the States of
Kerala, Jharkhand, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh and Telangana, and the Union
Territories of Puducherry, Chandigarh and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, submitted that Nodal Officers
have since been appointed on different dates in April,
2026. Consequently, only the Union Territories of
Lakshadweep Islands and Ladakh are yet to appoint
Nodal Officers. In respect of the said Union
Territories, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional
Solicitor General, submitted that Mr. Vatsal Joshi,
6
Advocate-on-Record, shall take necessary steps in
the matter.
6. In view of the above, a final opportunity is
granted to the Union Territories of Lakshadweep
Islands and Ladakh to appoint Nodal Officers in
terms of the directions issued by this Court. The said
exercise shall be completed positively on or before
th
15 May, 2026.
7. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit a
th
copy of this order as well as order dated 15 April,
2026 to Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Advocate-on-Record, for
ensuring compliance.
B. Clarification on Reservation and Upward
Movement of PwBD Candidates
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of
India submitted that the compliance affidavit in
terms of paragraph 53 of this Court’s judgment and
th
order dated 12 September, 2025 had, in fact, been
nd
filed on 2 January, 2026 itself. It was further
submitted that, owing to the inadvertent absence of
counsel on the previous date of hearing, the said
affidavit could not be brought to the notice of this
Court earlier.
7
9. A perusal of the said affidavit indicates that the
Union of India, through the Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT), has already issued
comprehensive instructions governing the issue of
adjustment/upward movement of persons with
2
benchmark disabilities against unreserved
vacancies. The affidavit refers to Office Memoranda
th th th
dated 15 January, 2018; 17 May, 2022; and 27
September, 2022, which collectively provide and
emphasise that a PwBD candidate selected on the
basis of his/her own merit, without availing relaxed
standards, is to be adjusted against unreserved (UR)
vacancies and not against the quota reserved for
PwBD category. Conversely, candidates who avail
relaxed standards are to be adjusted against reserved
vacancies. The executive instructions further extend
this principle to both direct recruitment and
promotions, including both seniority-cum-fitness
and selection-based promotions. It is also clarified
that certain facilitative measures such as the
provision of a scribe or compensatory time shall not
be treated as relaxation of standards, whereas
2
For short, “PwBD”.
8
relaxations in cut-off marks, age, number of attempts
or other eligibility criteria would amount to relaxed
standards. It is further clarified that the disability of
a person, which he or she is suffering from, shall not
be treated as a relaxed standard in the medical
fitness test for the purpose of determining “own
merit.” The affidavit further emphasizes that
reservation for PwBD candidates operates
horizontally across categories and that the policy of
“own merit” is consistently applied to ensure that
meritorious candidates are not denied their rightful
placement while also safeguarding the interests of
those requiring reservation benefits.
10. Having considered the aforesaid affidavit and
the policy framework placed on record, we are
satisfied that the Union of India has adequately
addressed the query raised in paragraph 53 of the
th
judgment and order dated 12 September, 2025. The
position in law, as clarified, ensures that meritorious
candidates belonging to the PwBD category are
entitled to be considered against unreserved
vacancies on the basis of their own merit, while
preserving the efficacy and purpose of reservation.
We, accordingly, endorse the said position and exhort
9
the Union of India, as well as all States and Union
Territories, to scrupulously adhere to and implement
the policy of upward movement in its true letter and
spirit, so as to advance the constitutional mandate of
equality, dignity and inclusion for persons with
disabilities.
C. Status of Implementation of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998 submitted that a
status report has been filed in pursuance of the
th
liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 15
April, 2026, stating that despite several orders
passed by this Court directing the States and Union
Territories to implement the provisions of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, there has been
minimal compliance.
12. A perusal of the said status report reveals that
the issue of non-compliance is longstanding and
persists despite repeated judicial directions. The
status report traces the history of the proceedings,
noting that even under the earlier regime of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995,
10
compliance by States and Union Territories remained
inadequate, necessitating continued monitoring by
this Court. It further records that, following the
enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 and the directions issued by this Court in
th
its judgment and order dated 25 April, 2017, States
and Union Territories were required to file
compliance reports and take immediate steps to
implement the statutory mandate in its letter and
spirit. Despite multiple subsequent orders, wherein
timelines were fixed, affidavits of compliance were
sought, and senior officials were directed to ensure
implementation, the status report indicates
persistent gaps. As reflected, while some States and
Union Territories have filed compliance affidavits, a
significant number continue to remain either non-
compliant or only partially compliant.
13. The status report also highlights deficiencies
such as failure to establish mandatory institutional
mechanisms, including State Funds for Persons with
Disabilities, and inadequate implementation across
key areas of the Act, 2016. It further notes that
although monitoring mechanisms such as “Project
Ability Empowerment” was put in place pursuant
11
to this Court’s directions, the interim reports have
not adequately addressed the issue of
implementation of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. Overall, the status report
underscores that, nearly eight years after the coming
into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, full and effective compliance by all States
and Union Territories remains elusive, thereby
necessitating continued judicial oversight.
14. Considering the status report placed on record
and the submissions advanced, we are of the opinion
that, in view of the fact that almost all the States and
Union Territories have now appointed Nodal Officers,
the issue relating to the implementation of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 can be more
effectively and comprehensively examined by the
National Law Universities entrusted with the exercise
under “Project Ability Empowerment.” The
appointment of Nodal Officers provides an
institutional framework for coordination and
accountability, which was hitherto lacking, and is
expected to facilitate the collection of accurate data,
identification of deficiencies, and prompt redressal of
gaps in implementation across jurisdictions.
12
15. In this backdrop, we consider it appropriate that
the National Law Universities entrusted with the
exercise under “ Project Ability Empowerment” , in
terms of the directions issued by this Court,
undertake a detailed and structured assessment of
the implementation of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 across all States and Union
Territories. Such monitoring shall not be merely
formal but must involve a substantive evaluation of
compliance with statutory mandates, including the
creation of requisite institutional mechanisms,
enforcement of rights, and accessibility measures.
The concerned authorities and more particularly the
Nodal Officers shall extend full cooperation to the
National Law Universities to enable an effective and
time-bound assessment, so that the object and
purpose of the enactment are meaningfully realized.
16. It is further directed that National Law
University, Delhi shall undertake the exercise of
mapping the extent of compliance with the provisions
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
achieved by the Union of India. For the purpose of
ensuring effective coordination and meaningful
engagement, the Secretary, Department of Social
13
Justice and Empowerment, Union of India, shall
depute an officer not below the rank of Joint
Secretary to participate in the meetings to be
convened by National Law University, Delhi in
relation to the directions issued by this Court in the
present order.
17. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the
Registrar of each of the eight National Law
Universities as mentioned in paragraph 36 of the
th
judgment and order dated 12 September, 2025, as
well as to the Secretary, Department of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Union of India and Chief
Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, for
immediate compliance.
nd
18. List on 22 September, 2026 for receiving the
updated status reports from the National Law
Universities.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 28, 2026.
14