Delhi High Court Refers Issue Of Unfilled PwD Seats In Colleges To Law Commission For Recommendations On Amendments To RPwD Act

The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner had sought directions to prevent diversion of unfilled benchmark disability seats to other categories and to ensure that they are instead allocated to persons with disabilities.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while referring the question to the Law Commission, observed that “We thus find it appropriate to refer this issue to the Law Commission of India for conducting a study and accordingly to make recommendations for appropriate amendment(s) in the RPwD Act.”

Advocate Rahul Bajaj appeared for the petitioner, while Kavindra Kumar Gill, Senior Panel Counsel and Advocate T. Singhdev represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner had originally filed a writ petition challenging Section 32(1) of the RPwD Act as unconstitutional and also seeking a seat under the PwD category in NEET-UG, 2022. However, during the course of proceedings, the challenge was not pressed. The surviving grievance was confined to the treatment of unfilled seats reserved for benchmark disabilities under Section 32 of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the seats reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities should not be reverted to open or other categories but should be allocated back to the same pool, even if they did not qualify as benchmark disabilities.

Unless this course was adopted, the petitioner argued, the benefit intended under the RPwD Act would be diluted, as seats specifically earmarked for benchmark disabilities would effectively be lost to the larger category.

Court’s Observations

The Delhi High Court noted that the RPwD Act had been enacted to give effect to India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and that its purpose was to secure equality, dignity, and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.

It was highlighted that the Act expressly distinguishes between “persons with disabilities” and “persons with benchmark disabilities” under Sections 2(s) and 2(r). While Section 34, dealing with employment, provided for carrying forward and interchangeability of vacancies when benchmark disability candidates are not available, no such mechanism existed in Section 32 relating to higher education.

The Court observed: “In the absence of any provision in Section 32 of the RPwD Act, or anywhere else in the said Act, providing for carrying forward a vacancy which could not be filled in on account of non-availability of persons with benchmark disabilities for admission, to the next academic year, it is difficult for the Court to issue directions for such carrying forward.”

Reiterating that judicial directions could not be used to rewrite the statute, the Bench stated: “It is trite law that provisions of a statute are to be read as it is without either any interpolation or intrapolation.”

At the same time, the High Court stressed that such a legislative gap undermines the very objectives of the Act. Referring to the constitutional guarantee of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, it held: “In our opinion, a provision providing for carrying forward the seats in higher educational institutions, which cannot be filled in on account of non-availability of persons with benchmark disabilities, to the next academic year and/or a provision for diverting such seats to persons with disabilities will go a long way to fulfil the aims and objects of the RPwD Act.”

Conclusion

Recognising that the matter required legislative attention, the Court deemed it appropriate that the issue be referred to the Law Commission of India. “Accordingly, we request the Law Commission of India to deliberate on the issues outlined in this judgment and make appropriate recommendations to the Union of India for incorporating the requisite amendment(s) in the RPwD Act”, the Court concluded.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the Registry was directed to furnish a certified copy of the judgment to the Law Commission of India.

Cause Title: Ms Jahanvi Nagpal vs Union of India & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8142-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Rahul Bajaj, Advocate Sarah

Respondents: Advocate Kavindra Kumar Gill, along with others.

Click here to read/download Judgment