Landmark Judgment Affirms Duties of Private Educational Institutions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Mandates Equal Opportunity Policy, Accessibility Audits, and Compliance with Accessibility Norms
In a significant judgment dated June 1, 2026, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) applies not only to government institutions but also to private establishments, including unaided private educational institutions affiliated with CBSE. The case arose from a writ petition filed by PSBB Learning Leadership Academy challenging an order by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities that directed the school to reinstate a teacher, Mrs. Barnali Rout, who sustained a 90% locomotor disability while trying to save a student from falling off a windowsill in the school premises.
The Court meticulously examined the statutory framework and judicial precedents and held that the 2016 RPWD Act expressly includes private establishments within the definition of "establishment" under Section 2(i), thereby imposing universal anti-discrimination obligations under Section 3(3) that apply to both government and private entities. The Court distinguished the earlier Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which was held by the Supreme Court in Dalco Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2008) to apply only to government or aided establishments, noting that the 2016 Act had a broader scope consistent with India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
The Court observed that private educational institutions, including CBSE-affiliated schools, must provide reasonable accommodation, maintain and register an Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) as mandated by Section 21 and Rule 8 of the RPWD Rules, 2017, and ensure accessibility as public buildings under Section 2(w) of the Act. The judgment underscored that failure to provide accessible infrastructure, reasonable accommodation, or formulate an EOP constitutes discrimination within the meaning of the RPWD Act.
The incident in question involved the teacher voluntarily attempting to rescue a student who threatened to jump from a windowsill, during which she fell and sustained severe injuries leading to permanent disability. The school had paid substantial medical expenses and continued the teacher’s salary for nearly two years during her absence. Despite offers for alternative roles at reduced pay, the teacher sought reinstatement with reasonable accommodations, including accessible classrooms, transport allowance, flexible working hours, and medical facilities.
The Court held that Section 20 of the RPWD Act, which explicitly applies to government establishments, does not bar the application of the universal non-discrimination provisions of Section 3(3) to private establishments. The school’s refusal to reinstate the teacher in a teaching role with appropriate accommodations and its offer of a demotion with reduced salary amounted to discrimination, not justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The Court also addressed the school’s contention that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue binding directions, relying on precedents under the 1995 Act. The Court clarified that the 2016 Act confers expanded powers on the Commissioner, including deeming proceedings before the Commissioner as judicial proceedings and empowering the Commissioner to issue binding corrective directions and compensation orders. It held that the Commissioner’s order directing payment of Rs.10 lakh as compensation for medical and future expenses was a valid exercise of power and not a penal fine under Section 89 of the Act.
Addressing limitation objections, the Court held that the complaint, filed in 2019 after the 2016 Act came into force, was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action was continuing and the Disability Act does not prescribe a limitation period for complaints before the Commissioner.
The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the school, upholding the Commissioner’s order with a modification extending the compliance period for payment to three months. It further directed the school to:
- Frame, notify, and register an Equal Opportunity Policy within six months.
- Conduct an accessibility audit of its premises and implement corrective measures as per the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2021.
- Provide the teacher with a formal offer of reinstatement to teaching duties with the reasonable accommodations she requested.
- Upon acceptance, reinstate the teacher with seniority and salary continuity from her original appointment date, without back wages for the absence period.
The Court also issued a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Universal Accessibility applicable across all establishments in Karnataka, detailing obligations ranging from physical infrastructure standards, digital accessibility, grievance redressal, to institutional governance structures to ensure effective implementation of the RPWD Act.
This judgment reinforces the legal and constitutional mandates for inclusivity, accessibility, and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities in both public and private sectors, emphasizing that reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right rather than a concession. It also clarifies the scope and powers of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under the 2016 Act.
The PSBB Learning Leadership Academy and similar private establishments are now unequivocally bound to comply with the RPWD Act’s provisions and ensure an inclusive and accessible environment for employees and students with disabilities.
Bottom Line :
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Applicability to private establishments - The Act expressly includes private establishments within the definition of "establishment" under Section 2(i) and imposes universal anti-discrimination obligations under Section 3(3) that apply to both government and private entities - Private educational institutions, including CBSE-affiliated schools, are bound to provide reasonable accommodation, maintain equal opportunity policies, and ensure accessibility - The writ petition challenging the Commissioner's order is maintainable but not liable for interference - The School is directed to reinstate the teacher with reasonable accommodations, formulate and register Equal Opportunity Policy, conduct accessibility audit, and comply within stipulated timelines.
Statutory provision(s): Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Sections 2(i), 2(v), 3(3), 16, 20, 21, 44, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 Rule 8; Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 Sections 2(k), 47
PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs.Barnali Rout, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2920590
