Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Stronger Enforcement Of Disability Rights Law

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale fixed the matter for hearing on July 21, 2026.

Advocate Rahul Bajaj, appearing in the matter, submitted that the petition sought guidelines for the implementation of Sections 89 and 93 of the RPwD Act, which deal with penal consequences in cases where information is not furnished or where recommendations of Disability Commissions are not complied with.

Justice Vikram Nath took note of the submissions and ordered, “Issue notice. Returnable on July 21, 2026.”

Bajaj also requested that the matter be tagged with a pending petition.

The PIL, filed by lawyer Shashank Pandey through the Politics and Disability Forum, highlighted what it described as systemic enforcement failures under the RPwD Act, despite the statute being enacted to give effect to India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

The plea filed through AoR Talha Abdul Rahman contended that while Chief and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities are empowered to issue recommendations under Sections 76 and 81 of the Act, compliance remains inconsistent. It pointed out that although authorities are required to either comply within three months or record reasons for non-compliance, in practice neither requirement is consistently followed.

Citing official data, the petition stated that between 2022 and 2024, reasons for non-compliance were furnished in only 10–15% of cases where recommendations were not followed. It further argued that although Section 93 empowers Disability Commissions to impose penalties for non-compliance, this provision is rarely invoked, weakening enforcement.

The plea also flagged institutional deficiencies, including the lack of functional grievance redressal systems in several States. It stated that only four State Commissioners currently have operational online grievance portals, while around 20 State Commissioners do not have functional websites. The petition further highlighted that Advisory Committees, mandated under Sections 74(8) and 79(7) to assist Disability Commissions, have not been constituted in most cases.

At the central level, it was submitted that the post of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities has not had a full-time appointee since 2019, with officials holding additional charge. It also pointed out that only one Additional Commissioner has been appointed against the statutory requirement of two, leaving key positions vacant.

The petitioner submitted that a detailed representation raising these concerns was made to authorities in January 2026, but no response was received, necessitating judicial intervention.

The PIL seeks directions to ensure effective enforcement of Disability Commission recommendations, strengthening of grievance mechanisms, and proper staffing and functioning of statutory bodies under the RPwD Act to ensure meaningful protection of disability rights across India. The petitioner has asked the Court to issue directions to strengthen the functioning of disability rights bodies and ensure timely implementation of their recommendations.

The plea seeks a court order requiring authorities to properly follow the recommendations made by Disability Commissions. It also asks the Court to set clear consequences, including fines under Sections 89 and 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, if these recommendations are not complied with on time.

The petitioner has further sought a direction to immediately fill the vacant post of Additional Commissioner in the Central Commission for Persons with Disabilities, as required under Section 74(2) of the Act, and within a fixed deadline set by the Court. It also requests the constitution of Advisory Committees under Sections 74(8) and 79(7) of the same law, again within a time-bound framework directed by the Court.

Additionally, the plea seeks an independent audit of the offices of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and all State Commissions. The purpose of this audit is to identify infrastructure and operational gaps and ensure they are fixed within a set timeline. Finally, the petitioner has asked for any other directions the Court may consider necessary to ensure effective enforcement of disability rights law and better implementation of statutory safeguards.