RPwD Act complaints alleging continuing disability-based harassment cannot be dismissed as stale without comprehensive consideration.

The petitioner, who has an 86% permanent locomotor disability, challenged the Special Court’s dismissal of his complaint under Sections 92 read with 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The complaint concerned alleged abuse, humiliation and threats by his former wife and her family, including remarks directed at his disability.

The parties had separated in 2012 and were involved in other matrimonial proceedings.

The Special Court dismissed the complaint as vague, stale and arising from a matrimonial dispute, reasoning that the allegations related to events in 2012.

In revision, the petitioner relied on allegations of continuing conduct, including an incident on 5 July 2025 and a complaint to the police dated 4 October 2025.

1. Whether the Special Court’s dismissal was sustainable when the complaint alleged conduct continuing beyond 2012, including a specific incident in 2025.

2. Whether the complaint should be remanded for fresh consideration where the Special Court had not assessed its allegations as a whole or sought further particulars.

The complaint invoked Sections 92 and 84 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which provide the statutory basis for the alleged offences and the Special Court’s jurisdiction, respectively.

The Court noted that the RPwD Act is intended to protect vulnerable sections of society from harassment on the ground of disability.

It applied the principle that a complaint must be considered comprehensively: material allegations cannot be disregarded by treating all events as historical, and where particulars are inadequate, the Special Court may call for further details, including through pre-summoning evidence.

The Special Court proceeded on the premise that all allegations concerned 2012, despite the complaint referring to later conduct, including the alleged 5 July 2025 incident and ongoing disability-related remarks.

The High Court held that those allegations required consideration in the context of the complaint as a whole and the protective purpose of the RPwD Act.

Any lack of detail could have been addressed by seeking particulars or recording pre-summoning evidence; it did not justify the summary dismissal adopted.

The Court therefore found the impugned approach perfunctory, without expressing a view on the merits.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue an available remedy, including a fresh complaint, concerning incidents alleged to have occurred after the original complaint was filed.

The High Court’s observations were not to influence the Special Court’s decision on remand or be treated as findings on the merits.