On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India raised a crucial concern regarding the treatment of persons with disabilities (PWD) in the reservation system for education and employment. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while hearing Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, questioned why disabled candidates who qualify on merit above the general category cut-off are still considered under the reserved PWD quota instead of being treated as general candidates.
This anomaly, the Court noted, has the effect of denying opportunities to other persons with disabilities who may not score as high but are still eligible for reservation benefits. The Court emphasized that this undermines the purpose of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), which seeks to ensure substantive equality, inclusion, and representation for PWDs.
The Supreme Court’s Concern
The Court drew an important comparison between caste-based reservations and PWD reservations.
- In the case of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), if a candidate meets the cut-off score for the general category, he or she is counted as a general category candidate. This allows another candidate from the same reserved category with lower marks to benefit from the quota.
- However, when it comes to PWD candidates, the same principle is not applied. Even if a PWD candidate scores higher than the general cut-off, they are still counted under the PWD quota.
This, the Bench observed, leads to twofold harm:
- Meritorious disabled candidates are denied rightful recognition in the general merit list.
- Lower-scoring disabled candidates lose the benefit of reserved seats because meritorious candidates unnecessarily occupy them.
The Court warned that such a practice effectively dilutes the benefit of reservation and defeats the legislative intent of the RPWD Act.
Court’s Directions to the Union Government
The Bench directed the Central Government to submit a detailed response on whether:
- Measures have been taken to ensure upward movement of meritorious PWD candidates into the general category list.
- The same principle applies to promotions, so that reservation benefits are extended fairly at all levels.
The Court highlighted that such reforms must be guided by the Constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and inclusion, ensuring that disabled persons are not denied their rightful share due to systemic gaps.
The Centre has been ordered to file its response by October 14, 2025.
Monitoring Through “Project Accessibility Empowerment”
The case also led to an important development in monitoring the implementation of the RPWD Act, 2016. Recognizing the logistical challenges in ensuring accessibility and enforcement, the Court directed eight National Law Universities (NLUs) to assist in this task.
The following NLUs will participate under the initiative titled Project Accessibility Empowerment:
- NLU Delhi
- NLSIU Bengaluru
- NLU Jodhpur
- NUJS Kolkata
- RGNUL Patiala
- MNLU Mumbai
- NLU Assam (Gauhati)
- RMLNLU Lucknow
The universities will assist in research, monitoring, and reporting on disability rights compliance. A status report is to be submitted within six months, and the Court will next review this aspect in March 2026.
Section 34 of the RPWD Act, 2016: The Legislative Framework
Under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the government mandates that not less than 4% of vacancies in government establishments are reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.
The provision aims to:
- Provide equal opportunity in employment and promotions.
- Ensure that PWDs are not discriminated against in public recruitment.
- Facilitate substantive inclusion in administrative and professional spheres.
However, the Supreme Court’s observation shows that in practice, the system is not functioning as intended. By not giving meritorious PWD candidates a place in the general category, the cascading effect denies opportunities to those who genuinely need the protective shield of reservation.
Why This Judgment Matters
This intervention of the Supreme Court is significant for several reasons:
- Correcting Structural Inequality
The judgment recognizes that disability-based reservations should function like caste-based reservations, where merit allows for upward movement. - Ensuring Representation
The decision ensures that more PWD candidates benefit from the quota system, rather than limiting opportunities to a few. - Preventing Reservation Dilution
By freeing up reserved seats, the Court ensures that the legislative intent of Section 34 is upheld. - Promoting Constitutional Values
The Court’s insistence on equality, dignity, and inclusion aligns with Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
Comparative Perspective: Lessons from Caste-Based Reservations
India has long followed the principle that candidates from reserved communities who qualify in the general category cut-off are counted in the general pool. This practice:
- Preserves the integrity of reservations.
- Expands the overall representation of marginalized communities.
- Avoids penalizing meritorious candidates for belonging to a reserved group.
The PWD quota, however, has not been extended the same principle. This creates a hierarchy of reservations that is inconsistent with the equality mandate.
Implications for the Future
If the Union Government accepts the Court’s reasoning and introduces reforms, the outcome could be transformative:
- More PWD candidates will secure government jobs and higher educational seats.
- Fairer promotions will be available to PWD employees in government services.
- The spirit of the RPWD Act, 2016 will be better realized.
It will also encourage greater inclusivity in workplaces and educational institutions, reducing stigma and promoting accessibility.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India is a landmark moment in the disability rights movement in India. By questioning why PWD candidates are not treated as general category candidates when they qualify on merit, the Court has highlighted a structural flaw in the reservation system.
The upcoming response of the Union Government will be crucial. If reforms are implemented, they could set a progressive precedent ensuring that the benefit of reservation reaches those who need it most, while recognizing the merit of disabled persons who overcome immense challenges to compete at the highest level.
The Court’s decision to involve leading NLUs in monitoring through Project Accessibility Empowerment also reflects a collaborative and systemic approach to disability rights enforcement.
In the coming months, all eyes will be on the Union Government’s affidavit due on October 14, 2025, and the Supreme Court’s review in March 2026.
For now, the judgment has reaffirmed the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusion for one of India’s most marginalized groups.
Also Read
