IMPORTANT POINT
The 2016 Act requires to be implemented in letter and spirit.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The instant interlocutory application was filed to issue directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to comply with the judgment rendered in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India and Another, (2014) 14 SCC 383. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench took note of various orders passed in the writ petition, especially the prayer for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the 1995 Act') and 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 and opined that the 1995 Act is to be treated as an enactment for empowerment of the persons under disability and further expressed its concern with regard to the apathy shown by various State Governments and the instrumentalities of the States.

2. Sitting in a time-machine, we may make a fruitful reference to the decision rendered in Union of India and Another versus National Federation of the Blind and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772. The Court, in the said case, after referring to Section 33 of the 1995 Act, which dealt with reservation of posts and adverting to various aspects, directed as follows:-

“In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:

(i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Court’s Order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.

(ii) We hereby direct the “appropriate Government” to compute the number of vacancies available in all the “establishments” and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default.

(iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments/public sector undertakings/Government companies declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and Nodal Officer in department/public sector undertakings/ Government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against for the default.”

3. In the said case, the Court laying emphasis on the concept of employment, expressed thus:-

“Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community.

The Union of India, the State Governments as well as the Union Territories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution of India and under various International treaties relating to human rights in general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to protect the rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until today.”

4. In the case of the present petitioner, that is, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation (supra), the three-Judge Bench was concerned with the implementation of the 1995 Act. In that context, it observed as under:-

“Be that as it ma