Court Rejects State's Plea of Inability to Provide 24-Hour Attendant, Orders Affidavit on State Fund and Welfare Measures
In a significant judgment dated September 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar) has reprimanded the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) for failing to comply with its statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The case arose from an appeal filed by Smt Rani Devi, seeking enforcement of a Family Court order directing the State to provide a 24-hour male attendant to her child suffering from muscular dystrophy, a specified disability under the RPwD Act.
Background:
The Family Court had earlier issued an order dated July 20, 2022, directing the District Magistrate, North East Delhi, and the Secretary of the Health & Family Welfare Department, GNCTD, to provide necessary personal assistance in the form of a 24-hour male attendant to the appellant's child. The child's condition falls within the ambit of Section 2(zc) of the RPwD Act, which identifies muscular dystrophy as a specified disability.
However, when the appellant filed an application complaining about non-compliance of the Family Court's order, the application was dismissed on October 1, 2024. The State, through the Family Court, claimed that no scheme existed in the Women and Child Department to provide such male attendants, and that it was unable to provide the required manpower.
Judgment:
The Division Bench, upon hearing the parties, found the State's plea unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the RPwD Act imposes clear duties on the State to ensure persons with disabilities are provided with arrangements that enable them to lead dignified lives. Specifically, Section 5 of the RPwD Act mandates the Government to endeavour to provide access to community support services and personal assistance necessary for living and community inclusion.
The Court also drew attention to Section 88 of the RPwD Act, which requires the establishment of a State Fund for Persons with Disabilities to provide financial support and welfare measures. The bench noted that the legislation does not permit the State to shirk its responsibilities on the ground of absence of specific schemes or inability to muster manpower.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Government to file an affidavit within four weeks detailing whether the State Fund under Section 88 has been constituted and the steps being taken to fulfill the statutory responsibilities under Section 5 of the RPwD Act.
Impact:
This judgment reinforces the binding nature of the RPwD Act's provisions on State authorities, underscoring that statutory duties cannot be disregarded due to administrative or resource constraints. It highlights the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, ensuring that legal mandates translate into tangible assistance on the ground.
The case is listed for further hearing on December 8, 2026, to review the State's compliance as evidenced by the affidavit.
Bottom Line:
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Child suffering from muscular dystrophy - Family Court had directed State authorities to provide 24-hour male attendant - On challenge to dismissal of application complaining of non-compliance, High Court held that State cannot avoid its statutory obligations by pleading absence of scheme or inability to provide manpower - State directed to file affidavit regarding constitution of State Fund under Section 88 and steps taken to discharge duties under Section 5 of RPwD Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Sections 2(zc), 5, 88
Smt Rani Devi v. Sh Dinesh Kumar, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994100
