Private Apartment Disputes Cannot Be Invoked Under RPwD Act Says The High Court Of Karnataka

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of protective legislation for individuals with disabilities, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has emphasized that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016, cannot be weaponized to resolve mundane interpersonal conflicts. The court allowed a writ petition filed by residents of the Adith Bhavan Apartment, quashing a warning order issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability.

A Neighborhood Dispute Gone Legal

The controversy originated when a resident of Adith Bhavan Apartment, who is a person with a disability, filed a complaint against several fellow residents and office-bearers of the apartment complex. The complainant alleged that the installation of CCTV cameras near his doorway infringed upon his privacy, claimed he was verbally abused with derogatory terms, and complained that his outstanding maintenance arrears were publicised on the apartment’s WhatsApp group. Seeking redress for these grievances, he invoked the mechanisms provided under the RPwD Act, ultimately securing a warning notice against the petitioners from the State Commissioner.

Arguments from the Bench and Bar

The petitioners, represented by counsel, argued that the dispute was strictly a civil matter concerning apartment maintenance and community conduct. They contended that none of the allegations — ranging from CCTV placement to verbal disagreements — had any nexus with the complainant’s disability or a violation of rights guaranteed under the RPwD Act.

Conversely, the respondent argued that the humiliation and perceived harassment he faced in a communal setting warranted statutory intervention to protect his dignity, justifying the Commissioner’s decision to intervene.

Judicial Analysis: Preserving Statutory Integrity

Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the attempt to stretch the mandate of the RPwD Act to cover every grievance involving a person with a disability. The court clarified that the Act was enacted to address specific barriers—such as denial of accessibility or discrimination—that prevent persons with disabilities from participating equally in society.

The judgment underscores that private disputes, regardless of the identity of the involved parties, must be resolved through appropriate legal channels like the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act or standard civil forums.

Key Observations from the Court

The High Court’s ruling highlighted the dangers of expanding statutory powers beyond their legislative intent:

  • "The jurisdiction ... is confined to matters having a nexus with the rights and protections conferred by the statute. It cannot be expanded to encompass every dispute in which a person with disability is a party."
  • "Such disputes are civil in nature and are not transformed into disputes under the RPwD Act merely because one of the parties happens to be a person with disability."
  • "The attempt to invoke the machinery under the RPwD Act in respect of what is essentially a private dispute between apartment owners amounts to a misuse of the statutory mechanism ."

Final Order and Implications

The court concluded that because none of the allegations met the threshold of a violation under the RPwD Act, the State Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. By quashing the impugned order, the High Court has sent a clear message: specialized welfare statutes must be guarded against misuse. Residents are encouraged to settle day-to-day management disputes through internal association bye-laws or established civil procedures, ensuring that statutory authorities remain focused on genuine cases of discrimination and accessibility failures.