Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MS. JAHANVI NAGPAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the petitioner’s claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the allocation of seats for disabilities. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. observations on existing laws and their implications. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. analysis of statutory provisions and their interpretations. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. explanation of reasonable accommodation under the rpwd act. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. conclusion and recommendations from the court. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
1. The proceedings of this petition have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, initially praying for issuing a direction to the respondent no.1/Union of India and respondent no.2/National Medical Commission to allocate a seat to the petitioner against one of the vacancies under Persons with Disabilities [hereinafter referred as „PwD‟] category in NEET-UG 2022 cycle as per the procedure and in terms of the provisions prescribed under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [hereinafter referred as „the RPwD Act‟];
An alternate prayer was also made to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
