JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION versus U.0.1. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 26-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 113 
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION 
v. 
U.0.1. & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998) 
MARCH 26, 2014 
(R.M. LODHA, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA 
AND DIPAK MISRA JJ.] 
PERSONS 
WITH 
DISABILITIES 
(EQUAL 
A 
B 
OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECT/ON OF RIGHTS AND FULL C 
PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995: 
. ' 
Differently abled persons - Writ petition.with regard•to 
visually disabled persons - Seeking reservations of 1 % of 
identified teaching posts in Universities and Colleges in terms 0 
of the Act - Held:The beneficial provisions of the Act cannot 
be allowed to remain only on paper for years and thereby 
defeating the very purpose of such law and legislative policy 
-- All those upon whom obligation has been cast under the 
Act have to effectively implement it -- Role of governments E 
in such a matter has to be proactive -- Differently abled 
citizens must be accorded best and special attention - This 
is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity 
- Pursuant to interim orders, UGC has acted in compliance 
of the Act -- Central Government, State Governments and 
Union Territories are directed to implement provisions of the F 
Act immediately and positively by the end of 2014 in all 
respects including with regard to visually disabled persons. 
The petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998, 
seeking, inter alia implementation of the provisions of the G 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection 
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (the '199.5 Act'), 
and reservation of 1 % of the identified teaching posts in 
the faculties and college of various Universities for usuaily 
113 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
disabled persons in terms of s. 33 of the 1995 Act. Initially, 
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Welfare 
and University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) through its 
Chairperson were impleaded as party respondents. The 
Court further ordered impleadment of the States, the 
B 
Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner for Persons 
with Disabilities, Ministry of So,cial J.ustice and 
Empowerment, 
Government of India 
and 
the 
Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities of various 
States and Union Territories to be impleaded as party 
C 
respondents. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by 
the Court, U.G.C. was stated to have acte.d in compliance, 
of the 1995 Act. On 19.07.2006, the Court directed the 
Union of India and the State Governments to file their 
responses in the form of affidavits. Some of the States 
0 
filed their responses. 
Disposing of the petitions, the Court; 
HELD: 
More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act 
E came to be passed and yet there are problems in its 
implementation. The 1995 Act has to be implemented in 
the letter and spirit. The beneficial provisions of the 1995 
Act cannot be allowed to remain only on paper for years 
and thereby defeating the very purpose of such law and 
F 
legislative policy. The Union, the States, the Union 
Territories and all those upon whom obligation has been 
cast under the 1995 Act have to effectively implement it. 
As a matter of fact, the role of the governments in the 
matter such as this has to be proactive. Differently abled 
G citizens must be accorded best and special attention. This 
is true equality ·and effective conferment of equal 
opportunity. This Court, accordingly, directs the Central 
Government, the State Governments and the Union 
Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act 
H 
JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. 
115 
U.0.1. & ANR. 
immediately and positively by the end of 2014 in all 
A 
respects including with regard to visually disabled 
persons. [para 10, 11, 14 and 15] [118-H; 119-A-D, D-G; 
120-B] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the 
B 
Constitution of India. 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116 of 1998. 
W.P. (C) No. 115 of 1998. 
W.P. (C) No. 430 of 2000. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6442 and 6443 of 1998. 
c 
Suryanarayaria Singh, Addi. AAG, S.S. Shamshery, 
D 
· A.A.G., Ambar Qamaruddin, C.K. Sucharita, Aniruddha P. 
Mayee; Prashant Kumar, Rajiv Mehta, B. Balaji, Susmita Lal, 
Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Kumar Tandale, 
Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, T.V. 
George, Pragati Neekhra, Leena Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, 
E 
Gulshan Bajwa, Anil Shrivastav, P.V. Yogeswaran, Gopal 
Singh, P.N. Gupta, K.V. Mohan, Rachana Srivastava, Sunil 
Fernandes, P.N. Ramalingam, Abhijit Sengupta,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.