Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India and Another

## [2017] 3 S.C.R. 723 ## HJSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION A v. ## UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (I.A. No.JO of2015) In (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 116of1998) APRIL 25, 2017 B **[DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND** ## **MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]** _Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016_ - _Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995_ - _Issuance of directions by this Court in_ *Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs Union of India _to State 'Governments and Union Territories to implement the provisions of the 1995 Act-Filing of IA to issue directions to Central Government, State Government and Union Territories to comply with the said ;udgment_ - _Compliance report filed, however, compliance not_ - _complete Parliament, realizing the national need of the rights of the persons under disability and commitment to the Convention of the United Nations General Assembly, repealed the 1995 Act and brought in 2016 Act- 2016 Act visualizes sea change and conceives of actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act_ - _Conferment of more rights on the disabled persons, more categories added, and access to justice, free education, role of local authorities,_ - _National fund and State fund jot persons with disabilities created In given circumstances, mandatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that they are implemented_ - _State Governments and· Union Territories to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report within the stipulated time._ c D E F ## **Ad.iourning the matter, the Court** G **HELD: 1.1 The Parliament, realizing the national need of the rights of the persons under disability and commitment to the Convention of the United Nations General Assembly, repealed the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and brought in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The said 2016 Act has H** 723 724 [2017] 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A been brought ,into existence to give effect to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 2016 Act visualizes a sea change and conceives of actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole grammar of benefit has been changed for the better, and responsibilities of - B many have been encompassed. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become a distant dream. Immediacy of action - c is the warrant. [Paras 8, 9](739-E-F; 740-F-G] - 1.2 The 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient - features. More rights have been confened on the disabled persons and more categories have been added. That apart, access to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund - D and the State fund for persons with disabilities have been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities, educational institutions and the companies. Emphasis is there on the special court, speedy trial and special public prosecutor. The statute - E operates in a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights and provide punishment for their violation. [Para 23] (746F-H] - 1.3 Regard being had to the change in core aspects, the - States and the Union Territories are directed to file compliance - F report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within the stipulated period. The States and the Union Territories must realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a sphere with r~gard to the rights of the disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled - G persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude. The steps taken in this regard would be concretely stated in the compliance report within the time stipulated. When the States are directed, a duty is cast also on the States and its - II-. 725 JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION QE INDIA AND ANOTHER authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms, associations and establishments, institutions, are scrupulously followed. The State Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress made. [Para 24) [747-A-D] _*Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India and Another_ [2014) 4 SCR 113 : 2014 (14) SCC 383; _Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others_ [2013] 9 SCR 1023 : 2013 (10) sec 772 - referred to. A B c ## Case Law Reference [2014] 4 SCR 113 referred to Para 1 [2013) 9 SCR 1023 referred to Para2 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : lnetrlocutary Application D No.10of2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.116of1998. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Iqdia. S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Mrs. V. Mohana, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Ad vs., Manali Singhal, Santosh Sachin, Ms. Vinita Sashidharan, Rohit Kaul, Tejasvi Kumar, S. Sarfaraz Karim, Deepak Singh Rawat, Ambar Qamaruddin, Dr. Monika Gusain, Abhijit Sengupta, Pawan Shri Aggarwal, Abhishek Chaudhary, Anil Kumar Tandale, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Biswas, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Anuvrat Sharma, Arjun Garg, Arun K. Sinha, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Naresh Kumar Gaur, M. N. Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Mathur, B. Balaji, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkru; Shaivali Choudhary, Soumitra G Chaudhuri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, C. K. Sasi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, D. S. Mahra, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Ms. Varsha Poddar, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Manu Srinath, Gulshan Bajwa, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Kamlendra Mishra, K. V. Mohan, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Nimimesh Dube, P. N. Gupta, P. N. Ramalingam, Prashant Kumar, Praveen Swarup, Shikhar Garg, Ganesh Bapu, P. V. Yogeswaran, Rajeev ·sharma, Raj iv Mehta, Raj iv Nanda, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Ranjan Mukherjee, R. Sathish, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Satish Vig, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Sangram S. Saron, Shree Pal Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Sun ii Fernandes, E F G H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. - A Tapesh Kumar Singh, Kumar Anurag Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, T. V. George, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, V. N. Ragh\lpathy, Ms. A. Subhashini, Bhupesh Narula, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. lndira, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Ms. El ix Ganmei, Z. H. Issac Raiding, PratapVenugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, - B Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalsyarasan, M/s. K. J. John & Co., Ms. Niranjana Singh, Aviral Saxena, Sukrit Kapur, Ms. Monika, Nitya Madhusoodanan, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Susmita Lal, Pankaj Sinha, Ms. Rajkumari Banju, M. Yogesh Kamm, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Maha Lakshmi, Pratap Sarathi, - c R. K. Rathore, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Raj Bahadur, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Rekha Pandey, B. K. Prasad, G. M. Kawoosa, M. ShoebAlam, Manoj R. Sinha, Mahaling Pandarge, Nishant Rarnkantrao Katneshwarkar, S. UdayaKumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Amit Arora, Advs. for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J, 1. The instant interlocutory application was filed to issue directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to comply with the judgment rendered in _Justice Su11a11da Blw11dare Fo1111datio11 vs. U11io11 of India <111tl Anot/ier[1] •_ E In the said case,a three-Judge Bench took note of various orders passed in the writ petition, especially the prayer for implementation of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity, 'the 1995 Act') and for declaration that denial of appointment to the visually disabled F persons in the faculties and college of various universities in the identified posts is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 read with Articl.e 41 of the Constitution of India and opined that the 1995 Act is to be treated as an enactment for empowerment of the persons under disability and further expressed its concern with regard to the apathy shown by various State Governments and the G instrnmentalities of the States. 2. Sitting in a time-machine, we may make a fruitful reference to the decision rendered in _Union of Imlia mul Another versus National Federation of tile Blind a11d Otllers[1] •_ The Comt, in the said case, 1 (2014) 14 sec 383 H '(2013) 10 sec _112_ JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 727 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] after refeITing to Section 33 of the 1995 Act, which dealt with reservation of posts and adverting to various aspects, directed as follows:- A "In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions: (i) We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Court's Order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment. (ii) We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to compute the number of vacancies available in all the "establishments" and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default. (iii) The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments/public sector undertakings/Government companies declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non- obedience and Nodal Officer in depai1ment/public sector undertakings/ Government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be depai1mentally proceeded against for the default." B c D E 3. In the said case, the Court laying emphasis on the concept of employmen_t, expressed thus:- "Employment is a key factor in the empowern1ent and inclusion of people with disabilities. It is an alanning reality that the disabled people are out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make a useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their families and community. The Union ofindia, the State Governments as well as the Union Te1Titories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution ofindia and under various International treaties relating to human rights in general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to F G H 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. - A protect the rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was enacted way back in 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until today." 4. In the case of the present petitioner, that is, _Justice Swumda Blumdare Foundation (szpra),_ the three-Judge Bench was concerned B with the implementation of the 1995 Act. In that context, it observed as under:- - "Be that as it may, 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 legislative policy. - c The Union, States, 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. In the matters of providing relief to those who arc differently ab led, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented - D and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently - E ab led citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal oppo1iunity." 5. Proceeding further, it expressed its agony in the following manner:- - "More than 18 years have passed since the 1995 Act came to be - F passed and yet we are confronted with the problem of implementation of the 1995 Act in its letter and spirit by the Union, States, Union Territories and other establishments to which it is made applicable." - ·6. After expression of the said anguish, the Court issued the - G following directions:- - "In our view, the 1995 Act has to be implemented in the letter and spirit by the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories without any delay, if not implemented so far. H 729 ## JUSTrCE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DlPAK MISRA, J.) The Secretary, Ministry Of Welfare, Government of India, the A Chief Secretaries of the States, the Administrators of the Union Territories, the Chief Commissioner of the Union of India and the Commissioners of the State Governments and the Union Territories shall ensure implementation of the 1995 Act in all respects including with regard to visually disabled persons within B the above time." B 7. It is submitted by Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner that after the judgment was delivered, applications were filed by the petitioner to file the compliance report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a revised convenience chart depicting compliance of the 1995 Act. The final observations made by the learned counsel has been produced before us in a tabular chart. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same:- c ## "FINAL OBSERVATIONS |S.No.<br>1<br>2|Respondent<br>State|Remarks/Obsrrvations w.r.t Compliance| |---|---|---| |||OfThe Act| ||UGC|•Onlyanapproximate1/3roofthe seatsfor<br>the teaching & non-teaching staffhave<br>been filed wherein theActrequires3%of<br>the seatstobefiled.| ||Stateof<br>Jharkhand|•Yettocomplywith provisions ofS.29<br>(Teacher's training Institution)asitisnot<br>been specified.<br>•S.30 (Comprehensive Education Scheme),<br>40(Poverty Allevation Schemes)&41<br>(IncentivestoEmployers)ofthe Acthave<br>also not been complied with.<br>•Complianeeof the provisionsofS.44<br>(Non- DiscriminationInTransport)-46<br>(Non' Discriminationinthebuilt<br>environment)hasnot been compliedwith.<br>•S.49(Financial IncentivestoUniversities<br>forResearch)notcomplied withandthe<br>sameisstill under consideration.<br>•NocomplianceofS.68(Social Security -<br>Unemployment Allowance)bythe State.<br>Theaffidavitissilent about the<br>compliance ofS.68 (Unemployment<br>Allowance).| 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R. |3<br>4<br>,<br>5<br>6|Stateof.<br>•Affidavitissilentonthecompliancesof<br>Rajas than<br>· S.28 (Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids),<br>31(AmanuensistoChildrenwith<br>VisualImpairment), 39 (Resetvation of<br>Seats),48(Research),49(Financial<br>1ncentivestoUniversitiesforResearch)<br>&67(SocialSecurity Programmes) of<br>theAct.<br>•Undertheprovisions ofS.48<br>(Research)withregardtoResearch&<br>manpower Developmentnoreportor<br>StatusReporthasbeenbroughtout.|Stateof.<br>•Affidavitissilentonthecompliancesof<br>Rajas than<br>· S.28 (Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids),<br>31(AmanuensistoChildrenwith<br>VisualImpairment), 39 (Resetvation of<br>Seats),48(Research),49(Financial<br>1ncentivestoUniversitiesforResearch)<br>&67(SocialSecurity Programmes) of<br>theAct.<br>•Undertheprovisions ofS.48<br>(Research)withregardtoResearch&<br>manpower Developmentnoreportor<br>StatusReporthasbeenbroughtout.| |---|---|---| ||State of Punjab|Reportbrought<br>•Noprovisioning of incentivesto<br>employerstoensure5 %ofthe<br>workforcebeofPWDs.Non-<br>compliance ofS.41 (Incentivesto<br>Empl.oyers).<br>•Non-complianceofS.28(Assistive<br>Devices,HearingAids),48(Research)<br>&49(Financial Incentivesto<br>UniversitiesforResearch).Qua<br>Promotion.<br>•ThecomplianceofS.49(Financial<br>IncentivestoUniversitiesforResearch)<br>hasnotbeenbroughtoutbytheState.<br>•ThecomplianceofS.56(Institutionfor<br>PersonswithSevere Disabilities)not<br>broughtoutbytheState.<br>•Thecompliance ofS.66-68(SociaI<br>Security Programmes)hasnotbeen<br>carried outbytheState adequatelyas<br>.110clarityhasbeengivenonthe<br>RehabilitationAspect.(only a limited<br>amounthasbeenallocatedforthe<br>rescueschemeandonlypersons<br>affectedLeprosyandfoundbeggingare<br>accommodatedinrehabilitation homes).<br>•Compliance ofS.43(Preferential<br>AllotmentofLand) notspecified.<br>•Statehasnotfiledtheaffidavitin<br>consonancetotheOrderdt.26.4.2016<br>asitremainssilentonmajorissuesw.r.t<br>thecompliancesofSections28<br>(AssistiveDevices,HearingAids),41<br>(IncentivestoEmployers),48<br>(Research),49(Financial Incentives to··-<br>·UniversitiesforResearch),66&67<br>(Social Security Programmes)of-the<br>PWDAct.| ||StateofTamil<br>Naidu|| ||STATE OF<br>KARNATAKA|| JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 731 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] ., .. |7|7|STATE OF|•"SlateCo-ordinationCommittee"have|•"SlateCo-ordinationCommittee"have||A| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||BIHAR|notbeenreconstituted,thusnon|||| ||-||complianceofS.13.|||| ||||•ComplianceoftheprovisionofS.41.|||| ||||(IncentivestoEmployers)hasnotbeen|||| ||||depicted.|||| ||||•Theaffidavitissilentonthe|||B| ||||complianceofS.67&68(Social|||| ||||SecuritvPro<mlmmes)oftheAct|||| |8|8|UTof|•SilentonS.25(a)-25(h)(Prevention|(Prevention||| |||Puducherry|andEarlyDetection),S.27-30(Non-|||| ||||FormalEducation),S.38(Schemesfor|||| ||||Emplo)111ent)-41(Incentivesto|||c| ||||Emplo)ers)&43(Preferential|||| ||||AllotmentofLand).|||| ||||•Further,theaffidavitissilentonS.44-|||| ||||47(Discrimirationw.r.tTransportand|||| ||||BuiltIns&GovernmentJobs),48-49|||| ||||(ResearchandIncentivesto<br>Universities),67-68(SocialSecurity)||-|D| ||||andevenS.73(GovernmentRules).|||| |9|9|UTof|•ProvisionsofS.32(Identificationof|||| |||Andamanand|Posts)arestillatimplementationstage|||| |||Nicobar Islands|astheStatehasrequestedHeadsof|||| ||||variousDepartmentsforthe|||| ||||complianceof provisions ofthe|||E| ||||Section.|||| ||||•NocomplianceofS.34(Special|||| ||||Emplo)111entExchange), fwtherno|||| ||||compliance/actionmkenofS.34-44|34-44||| ||||(Employinentand Benefit Related|||| ||||Scliemes).|||F| ||||•Rulesasprescribedunderthe|-||| ||||p!'ovisionsofS.73(Government|||| ||||Rules)arenotframed.|||| |10|10|NCTofDelhi|•TheaffidavitissilentontheSpecial|||| ||||EmploymentExchangeunderS.34|||| ||||(SpecialEmploymentExchange)of<br>treAct.|of||G| ||||•NoComplianceofS.41(Incentivesto|||| ||||Emplo)ers). Stateisnotoffering|||| ||||incentivestoprivate/public employers|||| ||||toenmrethatatleast5%ofthework|||| ||||forceiscomposedofpersonswith|||| ||||disabilities.|||H| 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. |**11**<br>12<br>13<br>14<br>15|State of<br>M anipur|•Incompliance ofS.25{a)(Prevention<br>andEarlyDetection) ofthePWDAct<br>itisstatedthatsurveyhasnotbeen<br>undertakenfordetectingcausesof<br>occurrence of disabilities sueto<br>constraints of experienced manpower<br>andinfrastructure.<br>•Affidavitissilentonsettingupspecial<br>employmentexchangeforPWDsas<br>requiredunderS.34ofthePWDAct.<br>•Affidavitadmitsnoncompliance of S .<br>41(IncentivestoEmployers)ofthe<br>PWDAct.<br>•Affidavitadmitsnoncompliance ofS.<br>42(AidsandAppliances) ofthePWD<br>Actduetonon-availability offunds.<br>•AffidavitadmitsnoncomplianceofS•<br>67(SocialSecmity) ofthePWDAct<br>duetolack offunds.<br>.<br>•NotcompliedwithS.**41**(lncentivesto<br>Employers)andfurthernocompliance<br>hasbeencanicdinfurtherancetoS.<br>67-68(Social Security) ofthePWD<br>Act.<br>•ProvisionsofS.30(Comprehensive<br>EducationScheme)quarestructure of<br>curriculumarestillunder<br>consideration.<br>•CompliancesunderS.41(Incentives<br>toEmployers)of theactarestillunder<br>consideration|•Incompliance ofS.25{a)(Prevention<br>andEarlyDetection) ofthePWDAct<br>itisstatedthatsurveyhasnotbeen<br>undertakenfordetectingcausesof<br>occurrence of disabilities sueto<br>constraints of experienced manpower<br>andinfrastructure.<br>•Affidavitissilentonsettingupspecial<br>employmentexchangeforPWDsas<br>requiredunderS.34ofthePWDAct.<br>•Affidavitadmitsnoncompliance of S .<br>41(IncentivestoEmployers)ofthe<br>PWDAct.<br>•Affidavitadmitsnoncompliance ofS.<br>42(AidsandAppliances) ofthePWD<br>Actduetonon-availability offunds.<br>•AffidavitadmitsnoncomplianceofS•<br>67(SocialSecmity) ofthePWDAct<br>duetolack offunds.<br>.<br>•NotcompliedwithS.**41**(lncentivesto<br>Employers)andfurthernocompliance<br>hasbeencanicdinfurtherancetoS.<br>67-68(Social Security) ofthePWD<br>Act.<br>•ProvisionsofS.30(Comprehensive<br>EducationScheme)quarestructure of<br>curriculumarestillunder<br>consideration.<br>•CompliancesunderS.41(Incentives<br>toEmployers)of theactarestillunder<br>consideration| |---|---|---|---| ||UTof<br>Chandigarh|•NotcompliedwithS.**41**(lncentivesto<br>Employers)andfurthernocompliance<br>hasbeencanicdinfurtherancetoS.<br>67-68(Social Security) ofthePWD<br>Act.|| ||State of<br>UP|•ProvisionsofS.30(Comprehensive<br>EducationScheme)quarestructure of<br>curriculumarestillunder<br>consideration.<br>•CompliancesunderS.41(Incentives<br>toEmployers)of theactarestillunder<br>consideration|| ||State of<br>Tripura|•Complianceofthepmvisions ofS.28<br>(Assistive Devices, Hearing Aids),48<br>&49(ResearchandIncentivesto<br>Universities)w.r.tpromotion of<br>research&manpower development<br>havenotbeenbroughtouteitherin<br>I<br>any way asperthemandateoftheAct.|I| ||State of<br>Gujarat|•Compliance oftheprovisions ofS.28<br>(AssistiveDevices,HearingAids)has<br>notbeenbroughtoutintheaffidavit.<br>•Nostepshavebeentakenw.r.ttl1e<br>compliance ofS.40(Poverty<br>AllevationSchemes)oftheAct<br>•Compliance oftheprovisions ofS.41<br>(lncentivestoEmployers)hasnotbeen<br>broughtout.|| JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 733 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.) |16|State of<br>: •ProvisionsofS.28(Assistive<br>Assam<br>Devices,HearingAids)havenot been<br>compliedwith.<br>1<br>•Complianceoftheprovisions ofS.67<br>'<br>(SocialSecurity)hasnotbeen brought<br>outintheStateaffidavitasitisyetto<br>beframed.| |---|---| |17|State of<br>Arunachal<br>Pradesh<br>•Affidavitissilentonthe<br>implementationof other provisionspf<br>theAct.<br>.,<br>•Affidavitonlyspeaksof Compliance<br>ofSections33 (ReservationofPosts),<br>68(SocialSecurity) &42Aidsand<br>Aliances) oftheAct.| |18|State of Goai •InComplianceundertheprovisions of<br>S.28(AssistiveDevices,Hearing<br>Aids)oftheAct.StateGov.isstillin<br>theprocessofformulatingschemesfor<br>educationof children with special<br>needsthroughDirectorate of<br>Education.<br>: •ftt1thertherehavebeennocompliance<br>~<br>beingcarriedoutfortheprovisions<br>undertheSections41(Incentivesto<br>Employers),S.43(Preferential<br>AllotmentofLand)-45(Non-<br>DiscriminationinRoad)oftheAct.<br>' •TheAffidavitissilentw.r.tthe<br>implementaiionunderSections48,49,<br>((Researchand Incentivesto<br>Universities)),56 ((Institutionfor<br>PersonswithSevere Disabilities))&<br>57(ChiefCommissionerofPWDs).| |19|Stateof<br>Mcghalaya<br>i •Theaffidavitissilentonthe<br>Compliancestobecaniedwiththe<br>variousprovisionsofthePWDAct<br>excetS.39(Rcse1vationof Seats).| |20|Stateof<br>Sikkim<br>•NoprojectsintheStatehavebeen<br>takenundertheprovisions ofS.48<br>(Research).| 734 [2017] 3 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS |**21**<br>22<br>,|Stateof<br>Chattisgarh|• Affidavitissilentonthe provision<br>regarding restructuringofcurriculum<br>forthebenefit of childrenwith<br>disabilities,andprovisioningof<br>amaneusisasmandated underS.30-31<br>ofthePWDAct.<br>• Affidavitissilentoncomplianceof<br>Section44qua non-discriminationin<br>transport.<br>Regarding provisioningofinsumnce<br>schemesforPWDstheaffidavit states<br>that thereisnoseparate insurance<br>schemeforPWDs.Employeeswith<br>disabilitiesarecovered under the<br>Group Insurance Schemesofthe State.<br>Affidavitisnotincompliance ofthe<br>Orderdt26.04.2016, howeverthe<br>earlier affidavit shows the following:-<br>• Affidavit silentonformationofState<br>Co-ordination Committee and State<br>Executive Committeeasmandated<br>respectively underS.13and19ofthe<br>PWDAct,1995<br>• Affidavitissilentonthe<br>implementationofPreventiveand<br>earlydetection measuresasprovided<br>inS.25(a) - 25**(h).**<br>• Affidavitissilentonthe<br>implementationofnon-formal<br>education schemesorprogrammes,<br>researchfordesigning and developing<br>newassistiye devices, teaching aids<br>etc., settingupofteacher training<br>institutions, transport facilities,<br>provisioningofamanuensisetcas<br>mandated underS.27-31.<br>• Affidavitis.silentonimplementation<br>of provisions ofS.34-37onfurnishing<br>informationtoemployment exchange<br>andS.**40-41**onmaintenanceof<br>recordsbytheemployers and<br>vacanciestobereservedinpoverty<br>· alleviation schemes.<br>• Affidavitissilentinimplementation of<br>mostoftheprovisions mandated under<br>S.**44,**47forensuring non-<br>discriminationintransport, and govt<br>employmenttoPWDs.| |---|---|---| ||Stateof<br>Nagaland<br>'|| ... , 735 JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] |23||• Affidavitissilent on implementation<br>ofS.48-49 qua research and<br>manpower development initiatives.<br>• Affidavitissilent on implementation<br>ofS. 50-51 qua appointmentof<br>competent authority.<br>• Affidavit is silent on implementation<br>ofS.56 qua establishment and<br>maintenanceofinstitutions for persons<br>with severe disabilities.<br>• Affidavitissilent on implementation<br>ofsocial security schemes as<br>mandated under S.67-68.<br>• Affidavitissilent on formationof<br>rules under S. 73 by the appropriate<br>government for carrying out the<br>orovisions ofPWD Act.| |---|---|---| ||UTof<br>Lakshadweep|Affidavitisnot in complianceofthe<br>Order dt.26.04.2016, however the<br>earlier affidavit shows thefo!lo wing :-<br>• Affidavit is silent on settingupof<br>special schools as mandated under S.<br>26(b)-(d)ofthe PWD Act, 1995.<br>• Affidavit is silent on implementation<br>ofS.28qua research for designing<br>and developing new assistive devices,<br>teaching aids etc.<br>• Affida\'.itissilent on implementation<br>ofS.31on provisionofamanuensis to<br>the students with visual impairment.<br>• Affidavit is silentonimplementation<br>ofprovisionsofS.41 qua incentives<br>to the employers to ensure 5%ofthe<br>work force composedofperson with<br>disabilities.<br>• Affidavit is silentonimplementation<br>ofS.56 qua establishment and<br>maintenanceofinstitutions for pers.ons<br>with severe disabilities.<br>• Affidavitissilent on implementation<br>ofsocial security i nsuranc.e schemes<br>for employeesasmandated under S.<br>67.<br>• Affidavitissilent on formationof<br>rules under S. 73 by the appropriate<br>government for carrying out the<br>provisionsofPWDAct| 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 3 S.C.R. |24<br>..<br>25<br>26|Stateof<br>Uttrakhand|Affidavit is not in complia't1ceofthe<br>Orderdt.26.04.2016,howeverthe<br>earlier affidavitshowsthe following:-<br>•<br>Thoughthe Affidavitspeaksof<br>complianceofprovisionsofS. 26-<br>31butlotmorerequires to bedone<br>like,schemes fornonforinal<br>education,vocationaltraining<br>centres, research for designing and<br>developingnew assistivedevices,<br>curriculum restructuring, forum for<br>redressalofgrievancesofparents<br>ofchildren with disabilities,<br>.,'<br>provisionofamanuensisetc.<br>..<br>Thoughthe A ffida.vit speaksof<br>complianceofprovisionsofS.32-<br>41butlotmorerequires to bedone<br>likeprovisioningof3%<br>reservationofseatsinall<br>educationalinstitutions,incentives<br>toemployers,schemesfor<br>preferentialallotmentofland etc.<br>•<br>Affidavititselfstates that the<br>provisionsofS.48-49&56 areyet<br>to becompliedwith.<br>•IncomplianceofprovisionofS. 56<br>establishmentofa spinal injury<br>centre at Visakhapatnam isunder<br>considerationandestablishmentof<br>four hoines for destitute agesand<br>crippledisalsounderconsideration.<br>•<br>Establishmentofspecialschools<br>for visually,hearingandmentally<br>impaired children is being<br>proposedin41districtsofthe<br>State. S. 26 (Freeeducationto<br>Cw Os) has not beencompliedin<br>its entirety)<br>•<br>Nomeasuresincomplianceto S .<br>29 (TeachersTrainingInstitution)<br>have notbeencomplied.<br>•<br>With regard to S.30<br>(ComprehensiveEducation<br>·Scheme)theaffidavitis silenton<br>the aspectofrestructuringofthe<br>curriculum.| |---|---|---| ||Stateof<br>Andhra<br>Pradesh|| ||Stateof<br>Madhya<br>Pradesh|| JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 737 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] |||• The affidavit his silentonS.46(Non- ·<br>Discriminationinthebuilt<br>environment).<br>• The affidavitissilentonthe<br>complianceontheImplementationof<br>provisionsofS.47(Discriminationin<br>Government Jobs).<br>• The affidavitissilentonthe<br>implementation aspectoftheS.49<br>(Financial lncentivestoUniversities<br>for Research).| |---|---|---| |27|StateofJ&K|•Noaffidavithasbeen filedin<br>compliancetoOrderdt.26.04.2016.<br>However,theState earlierhadfiledan<br>affidavit whereinitwas stated thatthe<br>PWDAct,1995isnotapplicableto<br>theStateofJ&K.| |28<br>.|State of West<br>Bengal|• Thoughtheaffidavit speaksonthe<br>complianceofS.26-31ofPWDAct,<br>1995however lot more requirestobe<br>donelike vocational training facilities,<br>conducting special part time classes,<br>initiationofresearch for designingand<br>developingnewassistive devicesand<br>teaching aids, settingupofteacher's<br>training institution, etc.<br>• Affidavitissilentoncomplianceof<br>provisionsofSections 34ofPWDAct,<br>1995For provisioningofspecial<br>employment exchange.<br>• Affidavitissilentonpromotionof<br>researchandmanpower development,<br>andappointmentofcompetent<br>authorityasmandatedS.48-50ofthe<br>PWDAct,1995.<br>• Affidavitissilentonimplementation<br>ofS.56ofthePWDAct,1995<br>regarding establishmentofinstitutions<br>withpersonsofsevere disabilities:| |29|UTofDadra<br>& Nagar<br>HaveIi<br>.|• The affidavitissilentonthe<br>Compliancesw.r.ttheSections 31-32<br>(AmanuensistoChildren with Visual<br>Impairment) (Identification of Posts),<br>34-41 (EmploymentandBenefit<br>Related Schemes), 48-49 (Research)<br>& (Financial IncentivestoUniversities<br>for Research) ,56((Institution for<br>PersonswithSevere Disabilities)f)an<f<br>~~66-68 (Social Security Programmes).~~| |||~~66-68 (Social Security Programmes).~~| 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. |30<br>.,<br>'|State of<br>Haryana|•Affidavitissilentonprovisioningof<br>· teacher'straininginstitutionforperson<br>toteachchildrenwithdisabilitiesas<br>mandatedunderS.29(Teacher's<br>trainingInstitution)ofthePWDAct.<br>Affidavitissilentoninitiation of<br>researchfordesigninganddeveloping<br>newassistivedevicesandteaching<br>aids,settingupof teacher'straining<br>institutionetc.asmandatedunderS.<br>30-31(ComprehensiveEducation<br>Scheme)&(AmanuensistoChildren<br>withVisualImpairment)ofthePWD<br>Act.<br>•IncomplianceofS.73(Government<br>Rules)ofthePWDActRuleshaveyet<br>notbeenfinalized.<br>•Complianceshavebeencarriedoutby<br>theStateGovernment.<br>•Nocompliancesorreportshavebeen<br>presentedwithregardtotheprovisions<br>of Sections26-32(Educationand<br>assistivedevicesforChildrenPWDs),<br>34-55and57-68.Theaffidavitissilent<br>w.r.ttheaforementionedsections.| |---|---|---| |31|. State of<br>Maharashtra|| |32|Union<br>Territory of<br>Daman And<br>Diu|| |33|State of<br>Kerala|•Thestatehasassuredvariousmeasures<br>andvariousschemesbutnostatushas<br>beenpresentedonthe<br>progress/implementationofthe<br>projectsmadesofar.| |34<br>State of<br>Odhisha||•Non-complianceofS.45asthefunds<br>receivedhavenotbeenutilised.<br>•Non-complianceofS.49asnoaction<br>hasbeencarriedout.| |35<br>State of<br>Himachal<br>Pradesh||•Inreferencetocomplianceof Section<br>68(SocialSecuritySchemes)ofthe<br>PWDActstategovtsubmitsthatof<br>suchschemeisbeingimplemented.<br>OnlyDisabilityReliefAllowanceis<br>beingprovidedto41,961personswith<br>disabilities.| JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 739 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA,, J.] · **==> picture [11 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> A<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> |36|State of<br>1 •S.41(IncentivestoEmployers)not<br>Mizoram<br>I<br>complied,duetofinancialconstraints|State of<br>1 •S.41(IncentivestoEmployers)not<br>Mizoram<br>I<br>complied,duetofinancialconstraints| |---|---|---| |37|State of<br>Telangana|•Statesubmitsthatitisintheprocess<br>offormingvariouscommitteesand<br>depa1tmentsastheyhavebeendivided<br>duetoitsbifurcationwiththeAndhra<br>Pradesh.| |38|Department<br>ofWomen<br>and Child<br>Empowerme<br>nt|•ComplianceswithregardtoS.49<br>(FinancialIncentivestoUniversities<br>forResearch)&66(SocialSecurity<br>Programmes)arestill atthe<br>implementation stage."| c Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no complete compliance of the judgments passed by this Court. She has submitted that the reasons for non-compliance are the perceptible though all the States and Union Territories should have complied with the various provisions of the 1995 Act. 8. It is necessary to mention here that we have reproduced the tabular chart so that each State can know what the other States have done and who has failed to comply and take steps on the path of complete compliance. Before they could do what the 1995 Act envisages, the Parliament, realizing the national need of the rights of the persons under disability and commitment to the Convention of the United Nations General Assembly, repealed the 1995 Act and brought in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the 20 l 6 Act'). The said 2016 Act has been brought into existence to give effect to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. We think it appropriate to reproduce the preamble of the Act:- "An Act to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. D E F G WHEREAS the United Nations General Assembly adopted its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the 13th day of December, 2006; · H 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Convention lays down the following principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities, - (a) respectfor inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons; - B (b) non-discrimination; - ( c) full and effective participation and inclusion in society; - ( d) respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; - c ( e) equality ofopportunity; - f) accessibility; - (g) equality between men and women; - (h) respect for the.evolving capacities of children with disabilities and resect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve - D their identities; AND WHEREAS India is a signatory to the said Convention; AND WHEREAS India ratified the said Convention on the 1" day of October, 2007; E AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary to implement the Convention aforesaid. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-seventh Year of the Republic oflndia as follows:" 9. The.2016 Act visualizes a sea change and conceives of F actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole grammar of benefit has been changed for the better, and responsibilities of many have been encompassed. In such a· situation, it becomes obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become G a distant dream. Immediacy of action is the WatTant. H I 0. We may note with profit that sub-section (2) of Section l of the 2016 Act stipulates that the said Act shall come into force on such date as the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 741 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 11. Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union oflndia has filed the Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 19'h April, 2017, which provides as follows:· A "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ( 49 of B 2016), the Central Government hereby appoints l 9'h day of April, 2017, as the date on which the said Act shall come into force." Thus, the Act has come into force with effect from I 9'h April, 2017. 12. Sections 2('C ), 2(h), 2(k), 2(m), 2(v) and 2(zb) define "barrier", "discrimination''., ·Government establishment", "inclusive education", "private establishment" and "Special Employment Exchange" respectively. Ms. Manali Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the preamble-of the 2016 Act and the dictionary clause have expanded the horizon of the rights of the persons with disabilities. c D 13. In this context, Sections 2(p ), 2( r) and 2( s) are worthy of reference. They read as under:- "2(p) "local authority" means a Municipality or a Panchayat, as defined in clause (e) and clause (f) of article. 243P of the Constitution; a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006; and any other authority established under· an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature to administer the civic affairs; _r_ 2(r) "person with benclimark disability" means a person with not less than forty percent ofa specified disability where specified · . disability has not been definec\.in.measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority; 2( s) "persons with disability" means a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impainnent which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others." E F G H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. - A 14. Section 12 deals with access to justice. It reads as follows:! Access to _justice - (!)The appropriate Government shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to exercise the right to access any court, tribunal, authority, commission or any other body havingjudicial - B or quasi-judicial or investigative powers without discrimination on the basis of disability. - (2) The appropriate Government shall take steps to put in place suitable support measures for persons with disabilities specially those Jiving outside family and those disabled requiring high - c support for exercising legal rights. - (3) The National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39of1987) shall make provisions including reasonable accommodation to ensure that persons with disabilities - D have access to any scheme, programme, facility or service offered by them equally with others." ( 4) The appropriate Government shall take steps to - (a) ensure that all their public documents are in accessible formats; E (b) ensure that the filing departments, registry or any other office of records are supplied with necessary equipment to enable filing, storing and referring to the documents and evidence in accessible formats;. and F (c) make available all necessary facilities and equipment to facilitate recording of testimonies, arguments or opinion given by persons with disabilities in their preferred language and means of communications." 15. Section I 6(d) deals with the duty of educational institutions. G Section 17 Jays postulates for specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education. Section 18 deals with the adult education and provides that the appropriate government and the local authorities shall take measures to promote, protect and ensure participation of persons with disabilities in adult education and continuing education programmes equally with others. Section 19 deals with vocational training and self- H employment. JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 743 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK ·MISRA, J.] 16. Section 24 occurs in Chapter V, where the heading is 'social security, health, rehabilitation and recreation'. Section 25 deals with health care. Section 31 deals with free education for children with benchmark disabilities. Section 32 which deals with reservation in higher educational institutions, reads as follows:- "32. Reservation in higher educational institutions A B (!)All Government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than five per cent. Seats for persons with benchmark disabilities. (2) The persons with benchmark disabilities shall be given an upper age relaxation of five years for admission in institutions of higher education." 17. Section 33 deals with identification of posts for reservation and Section 34 provides for reservation. Section 35 dealt with incentives to employers in private sector. These provisions, being of significance, are reproduced below:- c D "33. Identification of posts for reservation ## The appropriate Government shall- (i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34; (ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons ~ with benchmark disabilities for idyntification of such posts; and E F (iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years. 34. Reservation (I) Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent. of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meantto be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and ( c) and one per G H 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A cent. for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses ( d) and ( e ), namely:- ( a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; B ( c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy; ( d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness; ( e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) C to ( d) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities: Provided that the reservation in promotion shall be in accordance with such instructions as are issued by the appropriate Government from time to time: D Provided further that the appropriate Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissi01wr or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, may, having regard to the type of work carried out in any Government establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notifications E exempt any Government establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non- availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall F be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, G other than a person with disability: Provided that ifthe nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the five categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. H JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION 745 OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] > (3) The appropriate Government may, by notification, provide A for such relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability, as it thinks fit. ## 35. Incentives to employers in private sector The appropriate Govcrmnent and the local authorities shall, within the limit of their economic capacity and development, provide incentives to emp toyer in private sector to ensure that at least five per cent of their work force is composed of persons with benchmark disability." 18. As. is noticeable, under the 1995 Act, the Parliament had shown its concern and provided for reservation for many categories and this Court by various judgments had directed for implementation of the Act and some States have implemented the provisions to a certain extent. 19. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of Section 84 that makes provision for creation of special court for speedy trial to try the offences under the 20 l 6Act. Section 85 stipulates for appointment special public prosecutor. Thus, emphasis is on the special court, speedy trial and special public prosecutor. 20. Under Chapter XVI, offences and penalties have been dealt with. Section 89 provides for punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder. The said Section reads as follows:- B c D E "89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees." 21. Section 90 deals with offences by companies. It is extracted hereunder:- F G "90. Offences by companies Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render B any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was co_mmitted without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), where c an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to D be proceeded against and punished accordingly. State Fund for persons with disabilities. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder. _Explanation:_ For the purposes of this section,- E a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or ' other association ofindividuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 22. Section 92 deals with punishment for offences of atrocities and Section 93 provides for punishment for failure to furnish information. F 23. We have referred to ce1iain provisions only to highlight that the 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient features. As we find, more rights have been conferred on the disabled persons and more categories have been ad_ded. That apart,.access to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund and the State fund for persons G with disabilities have been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities, educational institutions and the companies. The statute operates in a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights and provide punishment for their violation. H 747 ## JUSTICE SUNANDA BHANDARE FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 24. Regard being had to the change in core aspects, we think it apposite to direct all the States and the Union Territories to file compliance report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act within twelve weeks hence. The States and the Union Territories must realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a sphere with regard to the rights of the disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude. The steps taken in this regard shall be concretely stated in the compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing the States, a duty is cast also on the States and its authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms, associations and establishments, institutions, are scrupulously followed. The State Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress made. A B c D 25. The compliance report to be filed by the States shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor so that they can assist the Court. 26. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories. E 27. Let the matter be listed on 16'h August, 2017 . .. _.....__ __ -~ Nidhi Jain Matter adjourned. \