Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 243/2005
Order dated 29.07.2026 (Pardiwala and Viswanathan, JJ.)
Introduction
By the order dated 29th July,2026, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan in the long-pending Rajive Raturi matter pertaining to accessibility, directed the Union of India to fill the post of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), which has remained vacant since 2019, and directed ten States and Union Territories to appoint State Commissioners for the first time. According to the Court, the watchdog bodies created under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) cannot be a part-time, additional charge of an officer heading the very department which the watchdog body will oversee.
The Order
The order is one more step in an ongoing mandamus that dates back to the earlier judgement in the matter on 8th November 2024 that provided the roadmap for accessibility compliance under the Act, and an order dated 11th February,2026 that ordered the Union of India to file periodic status reports on the framing of the rules. As per this direction, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter DEPwD) filed its fresh status report in the form of an affidavit. The Bench noted that draft final gazette notification on Built Environment accessibility is available and awaits approval, draft rules on Information and Communication Technology have been drafted and appended to the status report, and rules on Assistive Technologies are pending at the drafting stage. It directed the Union must provide copies of the status report and draft rules to all concerned stakeholders so that the suggestions of petitioners may be made available to various ministry committees in advance of notifying the rules.
Against this background came the submission of Advocate Rahul Bajaj that formed the crux of the order. Advocate Bajaj argued that at present there is no full-time CCPD since 2019. And the post of Disability Commission is lying vacant in 10 states and union territories.
Why “Additional Charge” Cannot Survive the Rule 30 Test?
Section 74 of the RPwD Act provides for the constitution of a Chief Commissioner and twoAdditional Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities. But since 2019, India does not have an exclusive and full-time CCPD; the position of CCPD is occupied by the Secretary, DEPwD on “additional charge”.
However, in its order, the court held that this cannot stand legally because of Rule 30 of the RPwD Rules, 2017, which provide for the conditions of eligibility for the post of Chief Commissioner. Rule 30 requires that the candidate shall have a minimum age requirement, a minimum experience of 25 years and, importantly, specifying that a government servant shall seek retirement from such service before his appointment to the post. The Court has reproduced the rule as it is in its order and found that it makes the position of CCPD on additional charge not merely undesirable but illegal. It is illegal because a rule that conditions appointment on retirement from government service is, by its own terms, contemplating a standalone, independent post, not a role to be layered onto an existing government office.
Hence, having the position of CCPD on an “additional charge” is a departure from the requirements of the rule. And thus, it destroys the separation envisaged by Section 74 between the regulatory and the regulated. Consequently, the court has ordered the Union of India to make appointments of Chief Commissioner and the two Additional Commissioners in 4 weeks.
The same reasoning was applied and sharpened, in relation to State-level authorities. Section 79 requires each State Government to appoint a State Commissioner who plays a role similar to that played by the CCPD in the State’s area of jurisdiction. The Court was informed that in ten States and Union Territories, which include Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Nagaland, Puducherry, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu, there is no Commissioner at all. All ten were directed by the Bench to appoint a Commissioner within four weeks “in strict compliance” and that “any relaxation shall be viewed very strictly.”
Furthermore, the direction makes it explicit that the appointment must be to a distinct charge and that a State cannot comply with the above direction by making an appointment of an already existing official to the above post on an additional charge basis. In this way, the Court has preemptively addressed in relation to States the same issue that has plagued the centre since 2019.
Two Structural Gaps
The order points out two further gaps left in the existing process. First of all, it considers Section 89 of the RPwD Act that provides for penalties in case of violation of the Act or its rules but, as pointed out by petitioners, it provides no prescribed method for recovering such penalties.Penalty provision without such a method may turn out to be rather symbolic than practical, and the Court instructs the Union to incorporate an efficient recovery mechanism in the Rules to be framed.
Second, the Court stresses that the requirements set forth by Rule 15(1) regarding the progressive compliance with the accessibility standards and achievements of the objectives of the Accessible India Campaign “should continue unabated” regardless of the fact that new rules are being developed. Thus, the argumentation about the fact that there is no need to comply with the existing obligations because the drafting process is underway is unacceptable. Additionally, the Union of India is instructed to finalize within six months the non-negotiable norms and the matter is posted to receive a compliance report on 20 January 2027.
Why is this Important?
The RPwD Act contains important substantive rights; however, such rights are as good as the process used for enforcement thereof. The CCPD and the State Commissioners form the central grievance redressal structure of the RPwD Act, which is discussed in Chapter X of the Act. Such is the first and often the only recourse point for a person with disability experiencing discrimination and/or exclusion from any activity. In case these structures are vacant or are held on additional charge, then the entire system lacks a functional head regardless of what kind of mechanisms are created in the future.
Instead of treating the additional charge as an administrative discretion that should be protected by the courts, the Bench interprets the requirement of Rule 30 for retirement of an officer as creating legislative intent within the delegated legislation itself that this structure must be independent and full-time. This is not only the interpretation of the provision but a textual argument, which could potentially extend beyond this particular statute, especially since other statutes create watchdogs whose Rules have similar eligibility requirements but additional charge positions have been established anyway.
Conclusion
In this light, the order of 29th July is more of an issue of accountability rather than one concerning any specific appointment. If there are laws and rules regarding accessibility of persons with disabilities then it is meaningless if those structures remain vacant, understaffed, or are assigned to the officers with a conflicting interest. By requiring independent and full-time positions at the level of the Union as well as State Governments, and by explicitly rejecting additional charge as an acceptable alternative, the SC signals that the enforcement infrastructure created by the RPwD Act is mandatory. How the Union as well as ten State Governments comply and what kind of appointments are actually made will prove to be the true measure of success of this order. Compliance report to be submitted on 20 January 2027 will show to what extent this signal has been received.
Authored By:
Chinmay Nandi and Ananya Nayar
5th year law students, BML Munjal University School of Law