Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

State cannot put ‘arbitrary ceiling’ on disability limits when RPwD Act does not prescribe any: SC

March 21, 2026 4 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • In Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2026 INSC 253), the Supreme Court held that a state cannot prescribe an upper ceiling on the disability percentage for candidates applying under reserved categories in public employment
  • Himachal Pradesh's Public Service Commission had stipulated that candidates under the disability quota must have not less than 40% and not more than 60% disability — effectively barring applicants with more than 60% disability
  • The Court ruled this upper cap is arbitrary and contrary to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which only defines a floor (minimum 40% disability to qualify as a "person with benchmark disability") and prescribes no upper limit
  • The ruling directed the state to issue an appointment letter to the appellant (for the post of Assistant District Attorney) with notional benefits from the date original appointments were made

Static Topic Bridges

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It was enacted to align Indian law with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified in 2007.

  • "Person with benchmark disability" defined as one with not less than 40% of a specified disability (Section 2(r))
  • Government establishments must reserve not less than 4% of vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities (Section 34)
  • The 4% is divided: 1% each for (i) blindness and low vision; (ii) deaf and hard of hearing; (iii) locomotor disability, cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims, muscular dystrophy; (iv) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, mental illness
  • The Act imposes an obligation on employers to provide "reasonable accommodation" to persons with disabilities
  • The Act recognises 21 categories of disabilities (up from 7 under the 1995 Act)

Connection to this news: The Court relied on the RPwD Act's silence on any upper limit to conclude that states lack the power to impose one. The law defines a minimum eligibility floor; capability for a post must be assessed individually with reasonable accommodation — not assumed to diminish proportionally with higher disability percentage.

Article 16(1) and Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. Article 16(4) permits the State to make provisions for reservation in favour of backward classes that are not adequately represented in state services. Article 16(4A) extends this to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in matters of promotion.

  • Article 16 is a specific application of the general equality guarantee in Article 14
  • Reservation for persons with disabilities does not flow from Article 16(4) (which is for backward classes) but is a legislative mandate under the RPwD Act, making it a statutory right
  • Courts have held that where a statute confers a right, the executive cannot narrow that right by administrative orders
  • Landmark case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — the Court held that a reasonable cap of 50% applies to reservations under Article 16(4) but did not address disability reservations; the RPwD Act governs those independently

Connection to this news: The arbitrary 60% upper cap violated both the RPwD Act and the constitutional right to equality of opportunity in public employment. A disability percentage is a medical fact, not a measure of professional incapacity when reasonable accommodation is available.

"Reasonable Accommodation" as a Disability Rights Principle

The concept of reasonable accommodation — adjustments that enable a person with a disability to perform the essential functions of a job without imposing undue hardship on the employer — is central to modern disability law. It originates from the UNCRPD and is enshrined in Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, 2016.

  • Section 2(y), RPwD Act: "reasonable accommodation means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others"
  • Denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination under Section 3(3) of the RPwD Act
  • The principle shifts the burden from "can this person fit the job as-is?" to "can the job be adapted to accommodate this person?"
  • Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021): Supreme Court ordered UPSC to allow a scribe and extra time for a candidate with a writing disability; upheld reasonable accommodation as a constitutional requirement

Connection to this news: The HP-PSC's logic — that above 60% disability, a candidate is unfit — directly contradicts the reasonable accommodation principle. Suitability must be assessed with accommodation measures, not through a blanket numeric cut-off.

Key Facts & Data

  • Case: Prabhu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2026 INSC 253
  • Post in dispute: Assistant District Attorney, HP-PSC
  • Disability cap challenged: 40%-60% — court struck down the 60% upper limit
  • RPwD Act, 2016: Section 2(r) — "person with benchmark disability" threshold is 40% (no upper limit)
  • RPwD Act, 2016: Section 34 — mandates 4% reservation in government establishments
  • Replaces: Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
  • India ratified UNCRPD in 2007
  • RPwD Act recognises 21 disability categories (vs. 7 under the 1995 Act)