Disability Rights | Supreme Court directs 8 NLUs to undertake nationwide ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ monitoring drive

Supreme Court: While considering an appeal urging the Court to uphold and advance the constitutional vision of an inclusive society that recognizes every individual, regardless of their disability, as an equal participant in the nation’s framework, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., gave the following directions:

• The Court directed a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities to be distributed across different regions of the country for greater reach and oversight so as to be effective. The monitoring shall also extend to examining the implementation of the RPwD Act.

• To undertake this task, the Court directed that the monitoring be undertaken under the name and style of the “Project Ability Empowerment” and which shall be undertaken by eight National Law Universities each covering specific States and/or Union Territories.

• The Court further opined that National Law Universities and Advisory Group Expert Panel undertaking the “Project Ability Empowerment” shall pay particular attention to the following key areas, to guide the scope of their compilation(s) and recommendation(s):

  1. Resident Profiling, Care and Rehabilitation: Comprehensive mapping of residents should be undertaken, covering each individual residing in institutions for persons with cognitive disabilities; monitoring group should document whether residents have access to general health check-ups, emergency medical services, psychiatric consultations, and therapeutic interventions, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy, with special consideration to the use and review of psychiatric medications whether treatment plans are personalised and subject to periodic professional review. The monitoring shall study exit pathways and mechanisms for community integration. This includes efforts made by the institution to trace families of residents, assess the possibility of family reunification, prepare aftercare plans, and facilitate transfer to community-based alternatives such as group homes, supported living arrangements, or foster care.

  2. Accessibility, Infrastructure and Education: This exercise must include a detailed accessibility and infrastructure audit. This audit should also examine accessibility of transport to and from the institution, and whether appropriate assistive technologies and mobility aids are available and in working condition.

  3. Rights, Protection and Compliance: Team members of the ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ shall examine institutional policies and grievance redressal mechanisms, including whether residents are aware of and able to exercise their rights, and whether there are systems in place for receiving, addressing, and following up on complaints of abuse, neglect, or rights violations. This should include a review of the policy on use of restraints, behaviour management strategies, and access to legal aid. The existence and functioning of internal complaints committees, residents’ councils, or any form of participatory governance should be documented. The monitoring exercise must include a review of compliance with legal and policy mandates, including past directions of the Court and provisions of the RPwD Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. This should cover aspects such as appointment of protection officers, registration of institutions under the RPwD Act, and adherence to inspection protocols.

  4. Staffing, Resources and Institutional Accountability: The team shall examine the staffing ratios, working hours, payment structures, and professional support provided to doctors, nurses, therapists, and other personnel. Recommendations on staff enhancement, training modules, and financial allocations may also be drawn from this data. The report must review the institution’s data systems, transparency mechanisms, and public accountability.

  5. Documentation and Welfare Access: The ‘Project Ability Empowerment’ team, after assessing the feasibility and rationale, may consider recommending that all State-run institutions housing persons with disabilities maintain an official online presence, including a dedicated website with an institutional dashboard. Such a dashboard shall provide essential information regarding the institution’s functioning, facilities, staffing, and compliance with applicable legal standards, while strictly upholding the privacy and confidentiality rights of all residents.

  6. Reservation: Addressing the grave discrimination faced by the persons with disabilities, the Court directed the Union of India to explain whether appropriate measures have been taken to provide the upward movement of meritorious differently-abled candidates applying against the post/s reserved for persons with disabilities, in case such candidate secures more than the cut-off for the unreserved category. The same principle must also be applied to promotions. Such consideration must be guided by the overarching aim that the true and substantive benefit of reservations reaches those most in need, ensuring that no person with disability is ignored from his rightful claim to the post, merely due to the compounded barriers of poverty, stigma, and lack of access. The Court directed that the response to the above query shall be placed on record by the Union of India on 14-10-2025.

• Taking note of the requirement of resources by the NLUs to undertake the afore-stated task, the Court directed that all expenses incurred by the monitoring teams of the NLUs in the course of preparing and submitting their reports shall be borne in equal proportion by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, and the Social Justice Department of the concerned States/Union Territories. The Union of India shall provide an interim project fund to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs each to the eight designated NLUs. The said amount shall be remitted to the NLU concerned and will be marked in a separate Head “Project Ability Empowerment”.

• The monitoring institutions shall commence their work within four weeks from the date of receipt of the instant order. A detailed consolidated report shall be submitted within six months, with actionable recommendations for systemic reforms and transition toward community-based alternatives.

• District Magistrates/Collectors and Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authority shall extend full cooperation to the monitoring teams and ensure access to institutions within their jurisdiction. All State Governments and Union Territories, through their respective Departments of Social Justice/Disability Welfare/Women and Child Development/Health & Family Welfare, shall provide logistical and administrative support, including access to records, facilities, and staff of the institutions.

• The State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities shall coordinate with the monitoring teams to facilitate compliance with statutory mandates and assist in data collation. The Chief Secretaries of all States/Union Territories shall designate a Nodal Officer, not below the rank of Secretary in the concerned Department, to liaise with the monitoring institutions and Advisory Group Expert Panel.

• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, shall extend central coordination support, particularly in respect of data consolidation and policy-level facilitation.

Background:

In 1998 Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation, which has been working for the promotion of human rights, gender justice, and persons with disabilities, instituted a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court seeking the implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1995 Act). However, during the course of the proceedings, the law underwent an overhaul with the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which is now the governing law.

The prayers made in the petition included: (i) a direction for effective implementation of the 1995 Act; (ii) a mandate for reservation of 1% of the identified teaching posts in the faculties and colleges of various Universities in terms of Section 33 of the 1995 Act; and (iii) a declaration that the denial of appointment to persons with visual disability in such identified posts, violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15, read with Article 41 of the Constitution.

After years of litigation whereby the Court issued several orders and directions from time to time. Eventually, the Court directed that the Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories to designate a senior officer to supervise the process of compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act within their respective jurisdictions, and the lagging States/Union Territories were granted time until 17-2-2025 to file their respective responses/affidavits detailing the further steps that have been taken for complete compliance with the provisions of the RPwD Act.

Furthermore, the appellant initiated a writ petition in Delhi High Court focusing on the pathetic condition at Asha Kiran, a state-run care institution in New Delhi, for persons with cognitive disability. However, dissatisfied by the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking independent oversight and effective remedies to ensure accountability and protection of the residents’ rights. Taking note that that the deficiencies at Asha Kiran Home reflected a larger, systemic failure in the care and treatment of persons with cognitive disability across the country, the Court issued several directions from time to time. Subsequently, Advisory Group Expert Panel and other Experts submitted their Status Reports and Recommendations stating that large-scale congregate facilities should gradually be replaced with community-based systems of care and support for persons with cognitive disability.

In the present appeal, the appellant sought for the appointment of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, in conjunction with the Advisory Group Expert Panel and other experts associated with the present report, to jointly undertake a nationwide monitoring of all State-run care institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities. The monitoring was proposed to be carried out with reference to nine specified parameters detailed in the Status Report filed before the Court.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the issues raised in the appeals and petitions, the Court delved into the national and international framework on rights for the disabled. The Court noted that alongside the legislative framework, the judiciary itself has played a pivotal role in their interpretation, consistently invoking the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, through which, it has reframed disability not merely as a medical condition but as a type of structural disadvantage, thereby requiring active redressal, protection, and inclusion within the constitutional framework.

“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 stated that the present case, concerning the implementation of the RPwD Act along with the prolonged institutionalisation and lack of access to education, health, and community life for persons residing in State-run care institution/homes, must therefore be viewed through this expansive constitutional lens. “The proposed monitoring and assessment must not be limited to administrative compliance but must engage with the question of whether institutional structures respect the autonomy, equality, and dignity of persons with disabilities as guaranteed under the Constitution”.

The Court thus directed 8 NLUs to undertake this nationwide monitoring as “Project Ability Empowerment”. The following NLUs were selected for the monitoring task:

1. National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, covering the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh and Union Territories of Puducherry and Lakshadweep Islands.

2. National Law University, Delhi, covering the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh.

3. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, covering the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

4. National Law University, Jodhpur, covering the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat and Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

5. National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, covering the States of Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram.

6. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, covering the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

7. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, covering the States of West Bengal, Sikkim, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha and Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

8. Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, covering the States of Maharashtra, Goa and Telangana.

[Reena Banerjee v. NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1966, decided on 12-9-2025]

*Judgment by Justice Sandeep Mehta

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Ms. Shreya Singhal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Kapur, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Adv. Ms. Vivya Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin, AOR

For Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Satish Vig, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Gulshan Kumar Bajwa, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Manvinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Charanjeet Sidhu, Adv. Ms. Swati Vishan, Adv. Mr. T. V. George, AOR Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Ms. Meenaksh S. Kamble, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Ms. Arushi, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Jatin Malik, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. S. D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Ms. Shweta Sinha, Adv. Ms. Meenu Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. P Gandepan, Adv. Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Ms. Raniba Pangnila, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Ms. Rajani Ohri Lal, AOR Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR R.r.rajesh, Adv. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Amit Sharma-b, Adv. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Ms. Diva Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Avinash Poddar, Adv. Mr. Ankit, Adv. Mr. Swagat Nanda, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR Ms. Aarushi Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkat Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Prafull Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Ms. Suveni Bhagat, AOR Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Ripul Kumari Swati, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gowtham Polanki, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee Ld, A.S.G. Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aman Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv. Mr.Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sativka Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Kapoor, Adv. Mr. S. Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Ritika Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Ms. Amartya Shreya, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Ms. Amartya Shreya, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G. Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gowtham Polanki, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. P Gandepan, Adv. Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Ms. Raniba Pangnila, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aman Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR

Buy Constitution of India  HERE