Image used for representational purposes only.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 1, 2026) sought the Centre’s response on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that widespread non-compliance with the recommendations of disability commissions was reducing disability rights to “illusory promises”.A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale issued notice on the plea filed by Shashank Pandey, a lawyer and disability rights activist, and asked the Union Government to respond. “Issue notice. Returnable on July 21, 2026,” the Bench said.The plea sought the top court’s intervention to address “existing gaps” in the functioning of these “oversight bodies” and ensure “meaningful” protection of disability rights across India. It pointed out that Sections 76 and 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016 confer on the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for persons with disabilities (PwD) the power to make recommendations, which the authorities concerned are mandated to comply with within three months.However, Mr. Pandey submitted that available data showed that in a majority of cases, authorities neither comply with the recommendations of the disability commissions nor provide any justification for their non-compliance. “To illustrate, as per official figures of the Union of India, between 2022 and 2024, reasons for non-compliance were furnished by the respondent authorities in only 10-15% of the cases in which the recommendations of the Chief Commissioner for PwD were not implemented,” the plea stated.The court was also informed that in such instances, the disability commissions have the power under Section 93 of the RPwD Act to penalise defaulting authorities. However, the plea contended that there has been “no case” to date in which the Chief Commissioner for PwD (CCPD) has imposed a fine on any authority under the provision.“While recommendations of the CCPD refer to the possibility of imposing penalties under Section 93 where the requisite information is not furnished, in practice such fines are never imposed. This lacuna results in a situation where petitioners, despite receiving favourable recommendations from disability commissions, are forced to approach constitutional courts to secure their implementation,” the plea added.Pointing to infrastructural constraints, Mr. Pandey also submitted that several disability commissions lack functional websites and public-facing grievance redressal portals, while commissions in nearly 20 States do not have a website at all.“The failure to ensure effective, independent and empowered enforcement mechanisms violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. Accessibility, non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation and access to remedies are intrinsic to dignified living for PwD, and a rights framework that exists only on paper, without meaningful enforceability, reduces these guarantees to illusory promises,” the plea said.It accordingly sought directions to ensure effective and time-bound compliance with the recommendations of disability commissions, including the imposition of fines under the RPwD Act in cases of non-compliance.The petition also sought an “independent audit” of the offices of the Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for PwD to identify infrastructural and functional deficiencies and ensure their rectification. Published - June 01, 2026 10:04 pm IST
