The Supreme Court on 21 July 2026 listed a PIL seeking stronger grievance redressal under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The petition aims to enforce recommendations of disability commissioners and to plug gaps in the functioning of the disability commissions.
Key Developments
- Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice on the petition (W.P.(C) No. 715/2026).
- The plea highlights non‑compliance with Sections 76 and 81 of the RPwD Act, which require authorities to act on commissioners’ recommendations within three months.
- Data (2022‑2024) shows only 10‑15% of non‑compliant cases provide reasons for refusal.
- Only 4 State Commissioners have an online grievance portal; 20 lack functional websites.
- At the centre, the post of Chief Commissioner has been vacant since 2019 and one of the two posts under Section 74(2) remains empty.
- Budget allocation for the Chief Commissioner’s office is just ₹5.5 crore (2025‑26) and ₹6.5 crore (2026‑27), far lower than allocations to other statutory bodies.
Important Facts
The RPwD Act designates the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) and the State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities (SCPDs) as the primary oversight agencies. Sections 74(8) and 79(7) require each commissioner to have an advisory committee of domain experts, but none exist as per publicly available information. Although Section 93 empowers commissioners to penalise non‑compliant authorities, the provision is rarely invoked.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the disability framework is essential for GS II (Polity) and GS III (Social Justice). The case illustrates how statutory bodies, budgetary allocations and implementation gaps affect policy outcomes. Aspirants should note the procedural aspects of the RPwD Act (recommendation timelines, penalty provisions) and the role of the judiciary in enforcing rights through PILs.
Way Forward
- Issue clear guidelines to ensure authorities act on commissioners’ recommendations within the stipulated three‑month period.
- Introduce a mandatory penalty mechanism under Sections 89 and 93 for non‑compliance.
- Fill the vacant post of Additional Commissioner in the Central Commission and the empty seat under Section 74(2).
- Establish functional online portals for all State Commissioners and set up advisory committees as mandated.
- Conduct an independent audit of the infrastructure and funding of the disability commissions to bring them on par with other statutory bodies.
Advocates Rahul Bajaj and Talha Abdul Rahman represented the petitioner, urging the Court to direct the Union Government to implement these measures.