Delhi High Court Refers Gap in Disability Reservation Law to Law Commission, Urges Policy Review for Unfilled Seats

New Delhi: In a significant judgment addressing a critical gap in disability rights legislation, the Delhi High Court has directed the Law Commission of India to examine and recommend amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, highlighted the issue of reserved seats for 'Persons with Benchmark Disabilities' in higher education institutions going to the general pool when qualified candidates are unavailable.

While declining to issue a judicial directive to fill these seats with candidates having less than the benchmark disability, the Court acknowledged the issue as a crucial policy matter requiring legislative intervention to fulfill the true objective of the Act.

Background of the Case

The case, Ms. Jahanvi Nagpal vs Union of India , was initiated as a writ petition concerning the allocation of seats under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the NEET-UG 2022 cycle. While the petitioner dropped several initial prayers, the case pivoted to a fundamental legal question: What should be the fate of the 5% reserved seats under Section 32 of the RPwD Act if an insufficient number of 'Persons with Benchmark Disabilities' (defined as having 40% or more disability) are available?

Petitioner's Arguments for Inclusion

Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Rahul Bajaj, argued that diverting these unfilled seats to the open category defeats the very purpose of the RPwD Act. He contended that such seats should first be offered to the broader category of 'Persons with Disability' (those with less than 40% impairment) as a form of "reasonable accommodation."

The petitioner drew support from several key judgments: * Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021): The Supreme Court held that persons with disabilities, even without a benchmark disability, are entitled to reasonable accommodation. * Ashwin Murali v. ONGC Ltd. (2023): A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that de-reserving a post for a benchmark disability candidate and giving it to an unreserved candidate, rather than another person with a disability, would defeat the mandate of the RPwD Act.

The petitioner suggested that the court could direct a carry-forward of vacancies or divert them to the larger pool of persons with disabilities to ensure the benefits of reservation remain within the intended community.

Respondents' Stance and Court's Analysis

The Union of India and the National Medical Commission argued that the court could not legislate. They maintained that Section 32 of the RPwD Act specifically reserves seats for 'Persons with Benchmark Disabilities' and contains no provision for carrying forward vacancies or diverting them to persons with disabilities below the benchmark.

The High Court meticulously contrasted the provisions for reservation in higher education (Section 32) with those for public employment (Section 34) within the same Act.

"Thus, there is a contrast between the scheme providing for reservation in public employment as contained in Section 34 of the Act, and the scheme of reservation in higher educational institutions as contained in Section 32 of the Act. In case of public employment, on account of non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability, the vacancy is to be carried forward... whereas no such provision exists in Section 32 of the Act."

The Court concluded that acceding to the petitioner's prayer would amount to "reading something in Section 32 of the RPwD Act, which otherwise is absent," which is impermissible for the judiciary.

Final Decision and Broader Implications

Despite being unable to grant the specific relief sought, the Court underscored the importance of the issue, stating it lies "in the realm of policy making." Acknowledging that the current framework might not fully achieve the Act's objective of "meaningfully empowering the persons with disabilities," the bench deemed it a matter requiring legislative attention.

The Court observed:

"In our opinion, a provision providing for carrying forward the seats in higher educational institutions, which cannot be filled in on account of non-availability of persons with benchmark disabilities, to the next academic year and/or a provision for diverting such seats to persons with disabilities will go a long way to fulfil the aims and objects of the RPwD Act."

Disposing of the petition, the Court formally requested the Law Commission of India to study the issues outlined in the judgment and make appropriate recommendations to the Union of India for potential amendments to the RPwD Act. This decision places the onus on the executive and legislative branches to address the statutory lacuna and ensure reservation policies for disabled persons are robust and effective.