The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for strengthening the grievance redressal architecture under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and ensuring effective enforcement of recommendations issued by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities (SCPDs).
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale took cognisance of the plea and listed the matter for further hearing on July 21, 2026.
The petition raised concerns over alleged systemic gaps in the implementation of statutory mandates under the RPwD Act and deficiencies in the institutional functioning of disability rights commissions across India.
Under the RPwD Act, the CCPD and SCPDs function as quasi-judicial statutory authorities entrusted with oversight, monitoring compliance, and adjudicating grievances relating to disability rights. The statutory scheme under Sections 76 and 81 mandates that authorities concerned must act on recommendations issued by these commissions within a prescribed period of three months. In case of non-compliance, the concerned authority is required to communicate reasons for refusal both to the commission and the aggrieved person.
The petition alleged that this statutory framework was not being effectively operationalised in practice, leading to a persistent compliance deficit. It claimed that in a significant number of cases, authorities neither implemented the recommendations nor furnished reasoned orders explaining non-acceptance, thereby undermining procedural accountability and due process safeguards envisaged under the legislation.
Relying on official data of the Union Government and material placed in proceedings in Satendra Singh vs Union of India, the plea stated that between 2022 and 2024, reasons for non-compliance were furnished in only about 10–15 per cent of cases where recommendations of the Chief Commissioner were not followed. It further contended that although the Act empowered disability commissioners to impose penalties under Section 93 for non-compliance, this coercive enforcement mechanism was rarely invoked, resulting in weak statutory compliance.
The PIL also highlighted alleged infrastructural and institutional deficiencies in State Disability Commissions, including the absence of functional grievance redressal systems and inadequate digital infrastructure. It stated that only four State Commissioners currently have operational online grievance portals, while nearly 20 SCPDs do not maintain functional websites, thereby restricting access to rights-based remedies and limiting transparency in adjudicatory processes.
The petition further submitted that mandatory Advisory Committees envisaged under Sections 74(8) and 79(7) of the RPwD Act, intended to provide expert assistance to disability commissions, have not been constituted in most jurisdictions, thereby affecting informed decision-making and technical capacity within these statutory bodies.
At the central level, the plea pointed out that the office of the Chief Commissioner had reportedly been functioning without a full-time incumbent since 2019. It further noted that one of the two posts of Commissioners under Section 74(2) remained vacant, effectively reducing the statutory panel strength from three members to a single functioning full-time member, thereby impairing institutional capacity.
The petition also raised concerns regarding inadequate budgetary allocation for disability rights institutions. It highlighted that the Office of the Chief Commissioner received Rs 5.5 crore in the Union Budget 2025–26 and Rs 6.5 crore in 2026–27, which was significantly lower in comparison to allocations made to other statutory and quasi-judicial bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission, National Green Tribunal, and commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The plea contended that such disparities in fiscal provisioning adversely impacted the effective discharge of statutory functions.
In light of these alleged deficiencies, the petition sought judicial directions for mandatory and time-bound compliance with recommendations issued by disability commissioners, along with enforcement mechanisms, including penalties under Sections 89 and 93 of the RPwD Act in cases of non-compliance. It further prayed for filling of vacant posts within the Chief Commissioner’s office, constitution of Advisory Committees as mandated under the statute, and an independent institutional audit of both central and state disability commissions to identify structural and infrastructural gaps.
The post Supreme Court issues notice on plea seeking strengthened grievance redressal under RPwD Act appeared first on India Legal.