The Supreme Court’s judgment in Reena Banerjee v Government of NCT of Delhi affirms that meritorious Persons with Disabilities (PwD) who score above the unreserved cut-off must migrate to the general list, thereby preserving reserved PwD posts for candidates facing compounded barriers whom Section 34 of the RPwD Act was designed to benefit. By characterising denial of such “upward movement” as hostile discrimination that frustrates the teleology of reservation, the Court advances a purposive and anti-subordination reading of equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Procedural setting
The judgment arises from a long-running composite litigation tracking implementation of disability rights since 1998 and a cognate appeal concerning systemic failures at the Asha Kiran Home, now contextualised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Delivered on 12 September 2025 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, it couples structural directions on institutional care with a decisive clarification of the reservation architecture for PwD candidates in public employment and promotions.
Core holding on “upward movement”
The Court holds that when a PwD candidate surpasses the general cut-off, migrating that candidate to the unreserved list is obligatory; otherwise, the meritorious PwD will consume a reserved seat and thereby exclude a lower-scoring PwD who is the intended beneficiary of Section 34’s ameliorative design. This migration principle is extended to promotions, and the Union is directed to place on record by 14 October 2025 whether mechanisms exist to operationalise this rule, signalling imminent compliance adjudication.
Doctrinal scaffolding
The Court reads Section 34 through a purposive lens that prioritises those “most disadvantaged by disability and deprivation,” insisting that reservation deliver actionable opportunities to those at greatest structural risk rather than devolving into a formal tally of seats. Drawing on Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj, the Court aligns PwD migration with the established principle that reserved-category candidates who stand above the general cut-off are counted in the unreserved pool to both prevent reverse discrimination and to ensure effective utilisation of reservations.
Equality and accommodation
The judgment situates disability equality within a matured jurisprudential frame that rejects medicalised minimalism and embraces substantive equality, reasonable accommodation, and dismantling of systemic barriers as constitutional imperatives under Articles 14, 19, and 21. It synthesises lines from Jeeja Ghosh, Vikash Kumar, and Kabir Paharia to insist that accessibility and accommodation are not dispensations but rights, and warns against productivity-centric valuations that subordinate dignity to market metrics.
Refusing migration to meritorious PwD candidates is described as “hostile discrimination” because it depletes the finite stock of earmarked opportunities for those for whom reservation is an indispensable gateway, not a mere preference. The Court’s hermeneutic centres the heterogeneity of disability and the compounded effect of deprivation, thereby aligning reservation’s design with its distributive justice function rather than with a mechanistic arithmetic of lists.
Administrative and structural directions
The Supreme Court also issued structural directions to reform disability governance and protect substantive equality. The Court established Project Ability Empowerment, a nationwide monitoring framework through eight National Law Universities, tasked with evaluating State-run care institutions across parameters such as healthcare, accessibility, education, vocational training, rights protection, staffing adequacy, and governance. It also mandated individualized care plans, periodic health screenings, and rehabilitation measures, including family reunification and community-based alternatives, to reduce over-institutionalisation.
Further, the Court ordered institutional reform through multidisciplinary professional teams, tailored medical and nutritional care, inclusive pedagogy, vocational training, and access to welfare schemes. Accountability was reinforced through participatory governance, grievance redressal mechanisms, and external oversight. States were directed to appoint senior nodal officers, with logistical and financial support from both State and Central governments. Collectively, these directives form a comprehensive framework to advance equality, dignity, and autonomy for persons with disabilities.
Firstly, by equating PwD migration to the established practice for other reserved groups, the Court prevents the paradox where excellence by a PwD inadvertently erodes the protective floor for peers requiring affirmative action’s shelter. This doctrinal clarification preserves the integrity of earmarked posts while ensuring that merit is not penalised, producing a normatively coherent and operationally workable framework for roster management.
Secondly, explicitly extending the migration principle to promotions, the judgment precludes stagnation and opens vertical pathways consistent with substantive equality and career progression norms in public service. The Union’s directed disclosure on implementation modalities foreshadows granular prescriptions on roster design, cut-off computation, and audit mechanisms necessary to translate doctrine into administrative regularity.
Conclusion
For candidates, this means merit pays off. High-achieving PwDs don’t accidentally take away someone else’s chance. For administrators and HR managers, it means rosters need to be smarter and more responsive to actual needs. For judges and lawyers, it means legal interpretation must look not just at what the law says, but at what the law is for.
The Supreme Court’s ruling brings law back to its roots solving real problems for real people. It isn’t only about ticking compliance boxes or mechanical fairness. It’s about making sure every rule reflects its original purpose. If the old rule got in the way, the judgment changes it quietly but totally.
Sometimes, the most elegant legal reasoning is the least flashy. The Banerjee judgment seems modest. But its impact is profound: reservation becomes what it was meant to be, an engine of opportunity, not a trap of bureaucracy. At its heart lies a simple insight help those who need it most. As legal professionals, we should insist that every rule, every policy, and every law asks the same question.
Humam Khan
5th year, B.B.A LL.B (Hon), BML Munjal University School of Law.