Inclusive Education Mandated In RPwD Act Can Be Achieved With Reasonable Accommodation: Delhi High Court Upholds Direction To Readmit Autistic Child

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge whereby the petition of the student was allowed and the appellant/school was directed to readmit the child in Class-I or in an age-appropriate class as a fee-paying student.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated, “As already noticed above, “inclusive education” as mandated in RPwD Act can be achieved with “reasonable accommodation” of children with disabilities. “Reasonable accommodation” requires necessary and appropriate modification and adjustment to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy and exercise their rights equally with others.”

Advocate Kamal Gupta represented the Appellant while Advocate Ashok Agarwal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The child who instituted the proceedings of the writ petition through her mother was born as a normal child in 2017; however, she experienced delayed achievement of certain milestones of growth, such as sitting, walking and speech. A Doctor suspected the child to be suffering from Autism, and thereafter, she was subjected to therapy, but such therapy was interrupted by the pandemic caused by Covid-19. The child, however, was admitted to the school in the Academic Session 2021-2022 under the Sibling Clause. On the resumption of offline classes, the parents of the child submitted her diagnosis and assessment reports to the school administration.

It was pleaded, on behalf of the child, that on account of constant pressure and lack of support from the school, her education was discontinued from January 1, 2023, though the fee was paid till March 2023. When a legal notice sent on behalf of the child through her mother to the school, resulted in the non-resumption of her Class-I studies in the Academic Year 2024-2025, the writ petition was filed. The Single Judge held that not offering admission to the child by the school would amount to a violation of various rights of the child, especially those embodied in Sections 3, 16, 17 and 31 of the RPwD Act. Thus, a direction was issued to re-admit the child and to permit her to attend the school with the assistance of a shadow teacher to be appointed by the parents. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents and material available on this intra-court appeal, we are unable to appreciate the approach of the appellant/school in denying admission to the child. The approach adopted by the appellant/school is in complete violation of various mandates embodied in RPwD Act, which also denies the child her rights available under the said Act.”

A report was submitted by a Designated Committee recommending that the child could be placed in the school or any other inclusive school, along with the shadow teacher attached with the child initially during the school hours, and the need for a shadow teacher may be reviewed periodically. On a perusal of the note submitted by the Chairperson of the Designated Committee, the Bench found that the objections raised to the said note by the appellant/school were unfounded. The objection only reflected the non-cooperative approach of the appellant/school, resulting in the denial of the right of the child as available to her under the RPwD Act.

“We may also note that various rights made available by the parliament by enacting RPwD Act are embodiment of human rights and have been conferred on persons with disabilities not only to ensure non-discrimination but also to provide space and opportunity for their inclusion in the society. The provision therein are to achieve “inclusive education” as defined in Section 2(m) of the RPwD Act and to provide “reasonable accommodation “in terms of Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act”, the Bench held.

As per the Bench, the approach of the appellant/school from the very inception was to deny the rights to the child, which she was otherwise entitled to under various provisions of RPwD Act. The Bench further highlighted the existence of an expert Committee formed pursuant to an earlier and headed by an Associate Professor of IHBAS which is an institution of behavioral and allied sciences working under Delhi Government. It was noticed that the Court had appointed the Committee to evaluate and assess the child, which was headed by an Associate Professor of the said institute, which comprised of other experts and even the School Counsellor and mother of the child were also associated with it. “In these circumstances we do not have any reason whatsoever to have even an iota of doubt on the report submitted by the Expert Committee and the note tendered by its Chairperson”, it held.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the appellant/school to ensure compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge within two weeks.

Cause Title: G.D. Goenka Public School v. Aadriti Pathak (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8442-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Kamal Gupta, Tripti Gupta, Sparsh Aggarwal, Madhulika Singh, Sabrina Singh

Respondent: Advocates Ashok Agarwal, Kumar Utkarsh, Manoj Kumar, Ashna Khan, SC Tushar Sannu, Advocates Parvin Bansal, Aqsa, SC Sameer Vashisht, Advocate Harshita Nathrani

Click here to read/download Order