Private establishments are bound by non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation mandates under the RPwD Act, 2016.

Respondent No. 1, a primary teacher at the Petitioner-School since 2008, sustained a 90% locomotor disability (traumatic paraplegia) on 22.08.2013.

The injury occurred when she attempted to save a student threatening to jump from a windowsill.

The Petitioner paid initial medical bills and salary up to May 2015, but then offered her a lower-paying "retainer role" rather than reinstating her as a teacher with accommodations.

Treating the refusal as a lapse in service, the School effectively terminated her.

In 2019, the Teacher filed a complaint before Respondent No. 2 (State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities).

The Commissioner ordered the School to pay ₹10 lakhs for medical expenses and future costs.

The Petitioner challenged this order, claiming the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over private unaided schools and that the claim was barred by limitation.

1. Whether the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016, applies to private unaided educational institutions.

2. Whether the State Commissioner has the power to issue binding corrective directions and compensatory orders against private establishments.

3. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation given the multi-year delay between termination and filing.

4. Whether the denial of "reasonable accommodation" by a private employer constitutes actionable discrimination.

The Court applied the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically Section 2(i) which expands "establishment" to include private entities.

Section 3(3) regarding universal non-discrimination.

Section 2(y) defining "reasonable accommodation".

Section 82(2), which deems the Commissioner a civil court for specific judicial proceedings, distinguishing it from the 1995 Act.

Precedentially, it followed Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, which designated the RPwD Act a "watershed" legislation applying to the private sector.

In Re: Recruitment of PWD Candidates (Rajasthan), which labeled it a "super statute".

Kabir Paharia v. NMC, establishing reasonable accommodation as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Dalco Engineering and Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, noting those were decided under the narrower 1995 Act.

Under the 2016 Act, "establishment" expressly includes private institutions.

The Court found that while Section 20 applies to government jobs, Section 3(3) imposes a universal prohibition on discrimination that binds private employers.

The School’s failure to provide a ground-floor classroom or accessible restrooms—and offering a demotion instead—constituted "discrimination by omission".

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court held that Section 82(2) of the 2016 Act gives the Commissioner broader powers than the 1995 Act, including the power to direct "corrective action".

The limitation plea was dismissed because disability rights violations constitute a "continuing cause of action".

A three-year delay for a paraplegic person following rehabilitation is "reasonable".

The Court held that the RPwD Act, 2016, applies to private schools and the Commissioner has the power to award compensation.

The Court ordered the Petitioner to: (i) pay ₹10,00,000 within three months; (ii) frame an Equal Opportunity Policy; (iii) conduct an accessibility audit; and (iv) offer formal reinstatement to the Teacher with specific accommodations—including a ground-floor classroom and transport allowance—with seniority protected but without back wages.

The Court issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for universal accessibility in Karnataka.