The Supreme Court has asked the Center to respond to the plea for not following the recommendations of the disabled commissions

Image is for representational purposes only. | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 1, 2026) asked the Center to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, which alleged that widespread non-compliance with disability commission recommendations reduced the rights of persons with disabilities to “illusory promises”.

A bench of Vikram Nath and PB Varale issued a notice to the plea filed by Shashank Pandey, a lawyer and disability rights activist, and asked the Union government to respond. “Issue notice. Returnable on July 21, 2026,” the Bench said.

The plea sought the apex court’s intervention to address the “existing gaps” in the functioning of these “oversight bodies” and ensure “meaningful” protection of the rights of the disabled across India. It pointed out that Sections 76 and 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 empower the High Commissioner and the State Disability Officers (SPOs) to issue recommendations which the concerned authorities are tasked with implementing within three months.

However, Mr. Pandey said that available data shows that in most cases the authorities do not implement the recommendations of the disability commissions, nor do they provide any justification for non-compliance. “To illustrate, according to the official data of the Union of India between 2022 and 2024, the respondent authorities gave reasons for non-compliance in only 10-15% of the cases where the recommendations of the Chief Commissioner for PWDs were not implemented,” the suit said.

The court was also informed that in such cases the Commission for the Disabled has the power to sanction non-compliance under Section 93 of the RPwD Act. However, the plea contended that so far there has been “no case” where the Chief Commissioner for PWDs (CCPD) has imposed a fine on any authority under this provision.

“While the recommendations of the CCPD refer to the possibility of imposing sanctions under Section 93 where the necessary information is not provided, in practice such fines are never imposed. This loophole leads to a situation where, despite the positive recommendations of the Commission for Persons with Disabilities, petitioners are forced to turn to the Constitutional Courts to ensure their implementation,” the lawsuit adds.

Pointing to infrastructural constraints, Mr. Pandey also said that several disability commissions lacked functional websites and public grievance redressal portals, while commissions in nearly 20 states did not have websites at all.

“Failure to ensure effective, independent and empowered enforcement mechanisms is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a life of dignity. Accessibility, non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation and access to remedies are integral to a life of dignity for PWDs, and a rights framework that exists only on paper, without meaningful enforceability, reduces these guarantees to pleading.

Accordingly, it sought instructions to ensure effective and timely implementation of the recommendations of the disabled commissions, including the imposition of fines under the Act on RZP in cases of non-compliance.

The petition also demanded an “independent audit” of the offices of the High Commissioner and State PWD Commissioners to identify infrastructural and functional deficiencies and ensure their rectification.

Published – 1 Jun 2026 22:04 IST