The Delhi High Court has held that where the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), acting under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, issues a recommendation under Section 76, the concerned authority must either comply or, if it chooses not to act on the recommendation, communicate its valid reasons both to the Chief Commissioner and to the person aggrieved.
In a decision delivered by a Division Bench, the Court observed that recommendations of the Chief Commissioner dealing with infringements of the rights of persons with disabilities will bind the respondent authority unless: (a) the authority has valid, cogent reasons for non-compliance; and (b) those reasons are conveyed promptly and transparently to both the CCPD and the affected individual.
The case involved an employee of a government institute who was transferred following the institution’s decision. The employee, a person with a benchmark disability, approached the Chief Commissioner, who directed the institute to hold the transfer in abeyance. When the institute refused to comply, the employee approached the High Court. The Court found that while the institute argued administrative exigencies, it had not furnished its reasoning to the CCPD or the employee in adequate detail.
The bench held that the statutory framework under the RPwD Act envisages effective redressal for persons with disabilities and that the role of the Chief Commissioner is not purely advisory in nature. The authority responsible must treat the recommendation seriously. Non-compliance cannot be left unexplained. The Court emphasised that withholding a recommendation without communicating reasons would defeat the purpose of the Act and its special protective scheme.
Specifically, the Court directed that the concerned authority must, within a reasonable timeframe, provide a written explanation setting out the grounds for deviation from the CCPD’s recommendation. The explanation must meaningfully engage with the substance of the recommendation rather than mechanically assert administrative convenience. The employee or affected person must also be furnished a copy of that explanation.
This ruling reinforces that the rights of persons with disabilities under the RPwD Act demand procedural as well as substantive fairness. It clarifies that while authorities have the power to decide not to accept recommendations, they must not do so in an opaque manner. The obligation to give reasons is integral to the statutory scheme and helps ensure accountability, transparency and effective enforcement of disability rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.