The Supreme Court of India issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the widespread lack of regulatory oversight and baseline standards at rehabilitation facilities for children with disabilities across the country.

The petition contended that a critical implementation vacuum across a triad of central legislations—the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017—left vulnerable children exposed to unsafe, abusive, and completely unregulated commercial therapeutic practices, directly violating their right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued notice in the plea.

The plea argued that the structural collapse of rehabilitation centres for children with special needs constituted a direct infraction of the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"It is submitted that media reports suggest that children are often denied necessary therapies due to a lack of trained staff, negligence leads to unsafe environments and outdated equipment hampers the provision of basic medical care. As per census 2011 figures, India has a population of 2.68 crore persons with disabilities. The WHO’s 2011 World Report on Disability estimates that approximately 15% of the world’s population lives with some form of disability, a figure which, if applied to India, would translate to approximately 19-20 crore persons with disabilities in India. A significant portion of such persons are children with disabilities", the plea stated.

It submitted that despite a robust legislative triad comprising the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (“RCI Act”), and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (“MHCA”), a severe implementation gap left vulnerable children exposed to unsafe therapeutic practices, abusive environments, unqualified personnel, degrading treatment, and exploitative fee structures.

The plea, filed by AOR Ashutosh Senger, said, "Institutions providing facilities to children with disabilities would be required to be registered under Section 50 of the RPwD Act. Section 50 of the RPwD Act mandates that no person shall establish or maintain any institution for persons with disabilities except in accordance with a certificate of registration issued by the competent authority appointed under Section 49 of the RPwD Act. Section 51 of the RPwD Act prescribes the procedure for obtaining registration, requiring every application to be made to the competent authority in the prescribed form and manner, and obligating the competent authority to grant or refuse a certificate of registration within ninety days of receipt of the application. However, a large number of institutions working for persons with disabilities are in fact not registered under the RPwD Act, preventing any meaningful oversight."

The petition cited a directive dated September 20, 2020, issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Jammu and Kashmir, which mandated strict compliance with the RCI Act, followed by a October 2023 investigative report by the DT Next platform titled “Tiny tots’ trauma in therapy”. 

It said, "The report records an incident where a three-year-old child was found tied up during a speech therapy session in a private therapy centre. Officials from the Department for the Welfare of the Differently-Abled reportedly found that the staff qualifications at the centre had not received approval from the Rehabilitation Council of India. The report further documented instances of children allegedly being assaulted by therapists and subjected to degrading treatment." 

The petition further detailed a matrix of statutory provisions that remained dead letters. It asserted that while Section 50 of the RPwD Act strictly prohibited the operation of any disability institution without a certificate of registration from the competent authority under Section 49, a vast number of centres across the country operated completely outside the legal net.

Under the MHCA, the plea highlighted that while Sections 65 and 66 mandated the compulsory registration of all Mental Health Establishments, empirical data compiled up to September 30, 2025, by the Centre for Mental Health Law and Policy at ILS Law College, Pune, revealed that only 12 States and Union Territories had framed rules under Section 121, only 5 states had formulated minimum quality standards under Section 123, and only 7 states possessed an operational registry for mental health professionals.

The Petitioners further averred that the penal mandates under Section 13(2) of the RCI Act—which prohibited unregistered individuals from practicing as rehabilitation professionals and prescribed imprisonment under Section 13(3)—were routinely ignored. This statutory truancy was backed by a representation dated May 7, 2026, from the All India Occupational Therapists’ Association (AIOTA) to the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions. The apex body alerted the government to a nationwide epidemic of unqualified individuals running clinics and unauthorizedly administering specialized treatments like Neurodevelopmental Therapy (NDT) and Sensory Integration (SI).

Ground-level evidence of the tragic consequences of this regulatory vacuum was further introduced through news reports and direct parental accounts. The plea pointed to an April 2025 Times of India report detailing abysmal infrastructure in Rohtak, Haryana, and a horrific May 2025 incident where a youth with ADHD was beaten to death with sticks and plastic pipes by staff at a Tamil Nadu rehabilitation facility.

Furthermore, a series of parental complaints from Jammu, Budgam, and Anantnag received in May 2026 corroborated that private clinics charged upwards of ₹20,000 per month despite lacking qualified occupational therapists, grouping children with disparate conditions without individualized assessment, and illegally utilizing children's photographs for commercial promotion without parental consent while actively resisting the video recording of therapy sessions.

The petition delineated a clear chronological cause of action to justify the invocation of the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. Petitioner No. 1’s organization, Mission Accessibility, had initially sent a comprehensive representation to the authorities on January 21, 2025.

Though the Central Government forwarded the representation to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Srinagar, which subsequently conducted a surprise raid on February 25, 2025, at a centre named “Brainprueners” and uncovered zero statutory registrations alongside sub-standard facilities, no systemic pan-India policy changes were executed.

Aggrieved by the wider institutional apathy, Petitioner No. 1 had moved a formal complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on February 25, 2026.

The Petitioners submitted that because more than three months had elapsed without any meaningful action from the NHRC, and because the ongoing day-to-day infractions of disability rights constituted a continuing, pan-India cause of action, they were compelled to approach the Supreme Court seeking immediate structural enforcement, uniform national standards, and robust statutory monitoring mechanisms.

Through their final prayers, the Petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the competent Union Ministries and statutory bodies to:

a. Compel all States and UTs to immediately notify rules, quality standards, and registries for professionals under the MHCA.

b. Enforce mandatory registration of all child rehabilitation facilities under Section 50 of the RPwD Act and initiate strict disciplinary action against unregistered centres.

c. Ensure all practicing therapists are duly certified under the RCI Act and prosecute those violating the mandate.

d. Fill all vacancies within State Mental Health Authorities in a time-bound manner.

e. Direct the creation of a live, nation-wide digital dashboard of all rehabilitation facilities, backed by mandatory annual audits and individualized care plans for every child.

Cause Title: Rahul Bajaj and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 705/2026]

Tags: