The Supreme Court of India has directed a comprehensive nationwide monitoring of all state-run and private care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities, citing systemic failures and prolonged non-compliance with disability rights law by state and central authorities. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also raised serious concerns about the denial of “upward movement” to meritorious candidates with disabilities in government jobs and promotions, calling it a “glaring example of hostile discrimination.”
The landmark judgment, delivered in a set of petitions pending for over two decades, establishes a monitoring mechanism named “Project Ability Empowerment” to be undertaken by eight National Law Universities (NLUs) across the country. The Court has tasked the Union of India with explaining its stance on the reservation policy, seeking a response by October 14, 2025.
Background of the Litigation
The Court’s decision consolidates two long-standing public interest litigations. The first, a writ petition filed in 1998 by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, sought the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. In a 2014 judgment on this petition, the Court had criticized the “continued inaction and lethargy” of governments in implementing the Act.
The second case, a civil appeal filed by Reena Banerjee, highlighted the “pitiable and pathetic condition” at Asha Kiran, a state-run care institution in New Delhi. The Supreme Court had expanded the scope of this case in 2015 to cover all such institutions nationwide, directing states and union territories to undertake reforms.
Despite these orders, the judgment noted that a majority of states failed to submit compliance reports, demonstrating a “cavalier attitude towards the administration of justice.”
Advisory Panel Report on Institutional Failures
A key component of the proceedings was a report by an Advisory Group Expert Panel titled “Asha Kiran as Microcosm of What Ails India’s Care Support Structure.” The report detailed grim conditions, noting that residents often arrive with “complex health and emotional needs,” having experienced homelessness, abandonment, or trauma. It found that overcrowding contributed to the spread of infections and recommended comprehensive reforms in healthcare, nutrition, therapy, education, and vocational training.
The panel advocated for a shift from large-scale institutionalisation towards community-based living arrangements, such as the ‘Home Again’ model of small group homes. It called for participatory governance, structured exit pathways for residents, and the prevention of new admissions by strengthening family support systems.
Court’s Analysis: A Rights-Based Framework
In its judgment, the Court emphasised that “disability represents a fundamental aspect of human diversity” and that the legal system must recognise it as a lens that “reveals the true nature of legal, social, and institutional frameworks.”
The bench reviewed international conventions, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and domestic laws like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court drew upon its past judgments, including Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, which established accessibility as a fundamental requirement, and Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, which affirmed reasonable accommodation as intrinsic to substantive equality.
However, the Court critically reflected on its own jurisprudence, observing that framing persons with disabilities as a “discrete and insular minority” or as “assets, not liabilities” can be inadequate. It stated, “The dignity of persons with disability, especially those institutionalised and forgotten, cannot be made contingent upon their perceived ability to integrate, perform, or comply with dominant norms of independence.” The Court affirmed that the right to equality is “anchored in dignity, autonomy, and the right to belong.”
Landmark Directions: “Project Ability Empowerment”
Finding that a more robust oversight mechanism was necessary, the Court directed the establishment of “Project Ability Empowerment.” The monitoring will be conducted by eight NLUs, each assigned a specific region:
- NLSIU, Bengaluru: Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry, Lakshadweep.
- NLU, Delhi: Delhi, Chandigarh.
- RGNUL, Punjab: Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh.
- NLU, Jodhpur: Rajasthan, Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
- NLUJA, Assam: Assam and all other North-Eastern states.
- RMLNLU, Lucknow: Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh.
- WBNUJS, Kolkata: West Bengal, Sikkim, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
- MNLU, Mumbai: Maharashtra, Goa, Telangana.
The scope of the monitoring is extensive and must cover:
- Resident Profiling and Care: Comprehensive mapping of each resident’s profile and the creation of Individual Care Plans.
- Healthcare and Therapy: Audit of medical, psychiatric, and therapeutic services.
- Community Integration: Assessment of exit pathways and family reunification efforts.
- Accessibility and Infrastructure: Detailed audit of physical and communication accessibility.
- Education and Vocational Training: Evaluation of educational and skill-building opportunities.
- Rights and Protection: Review of grievance redressal mechanisms and policies against abuse.
- Staffing and Resources: Examination of staff strength, training, and qualifications.
- Documentation and Welfare: Ensuring all residents are enrolled for Aadhaar and other identity documents to access welfare schemes.
The Court directed the Union of India to provide an interim fund of Rs. 25 lakhs to each NLU for this purpose. A consolidated report with actionable recommendations is to be submitted to the Court within six months.
On Reservation: A Question of “Hostile Discrimination”
The Court addressed a crucial aspect of reservation for persons with disabilities under Section 34 of the RPwD Act. It noted with “grave concern” that meritorious candidates with disabilities who score higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category are not moved to the general list. Instead, they occupy a seat reserved for persons with disabilities.
The Court held that this practice “defeats the very purpose of reservation” and “constitutes a glaring example of hostile discrimination.” It observed that the principle of upward movement, available to candidates under social reservation categories, ensures that reserved seats go to those who truly need them. The denial of this principle to persons with disabilities deprives lower-scoring candidates with disabilities of their rightful opportunities.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Union of India to explain “whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious candidates applying against the post/s reserved for persons with disabilities.”
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for March 13, 2026, to review the consolidated report from the monitoring project.
