Sanjay Karol, J.

This Court took suo motu cognizance of a letter petition addressed by a student, namely, Indu Kumari, daughter of Shri Durga Singh, resident of VPO Naini Khadd, Tehsil Bhatiyat, District Chamba, wherein she had highlighted the issue of denial of admission to her under 5% quota, as provided in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by the Himachal Pradesh University. The contention of the letter petitioner was that she had applied for admission in M.A. (Political Science) in Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla under 5% quota reserved for disabled students under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, admission was denied to her and when she inquired, she was informed that the respondent-University was providing only 3% reservation to the disabled students and that too, as per the provisions of the old Act, i.e., the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. As per letter petitioner, as the students intake in the concerned subject was 40, therefore, two seats were to be reserved for persons with disabilities in the Department of Political Science as per the 2016 Act, but ignoring the said provisions, only one seat had been reserved. It was on these basis that the letter petition was addressed to this Court.

2. While issuing notice on 11.08.2017, this Court had requested Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel, who was present in the Court, to assist as Amicus Curiae.

3. In the course of hearing of the matter on 22nd August, 2017, this Court had passed the following order:

“Issue pertains to the implementation of the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Allegedly, Institutions imparting education and/or training, within the State of Himachal Pradesh are not providing reservations for students, who are otherwise entitled for the benefit of the provisions under the Act. Section 32 of the Act mandates all Government institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions, receiving aid from the Government, that not less than 5% of seats shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. Sub Section (r) of Section 2 defines “person with benchmark disability” and Sub Section (i) of Section 2 defines “establishment”, which includes Government and private establishments.

3. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General invites our attention to communication dated 31.7.2017 that of Director Empowerment for the SC, OBC, Minority and the Specially Abled, Himachal Pradesh, wherein all the departments of the Government have been “requested to implement the provisions of the Act”.

4. Well, this, in our considered view, would not serve the purpose. There is nothing on record to establish as to whether the Government has issued any direction, directing the institutions of higher education, Government or Private, which are otherwise receiving aid from the Government, for making reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. It is true that respective educational institutions are not before us, but then it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure complete and proper implementation of the provisions of the Act. It is an obligation, coupled with a duty, cast upon the Government to ensure compliance of the statutory provisions. Mere “request” has not helped the situation anyone bit.

5. Mr. Arjun K. Lall, learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention to the several decisions rendered on the issue, not only by this Court in CWPIL No. 30 of 2011, titled as Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others; CWP No. 192 of 2004, titled as Ankush Dass Sood v. State of H.P. & Others, as also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. Union of India and another, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 481, wherein it stands observed that statute operates in a broad spectrum and stress is laid to protect the