India's Supreme Court Mandates Priority for Disability Cases in Judicial System
The Supreme Court of India issued a significant circular on December 29, ordering courts across the country to prioritize cases involving people with disabilities. This directive aims to address the prolonged delays that have plagued disability rights litigation for years. The circular also extends priority to cases concerning acid attack victims, senior citizens over eighty, individuals living below the poverty line, and legal aid services.
Chronic Delays and Financial Burdens on Litigants
Disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra has been fighting a legal battle since 2017. He challenges the imposition of GST on essential assistive devices like hearing aids, Braille paper, crutches, and specially modified vehicles. Malhotra, who has a locomotor disability, has seen his case listed thirteen times, adjourned eight times, and heard only four times, with the last hearing occurring in July 2024.
"Every year the case doesn't move, people continue to pay more out of pocket for things they cannot do without," Malhotra explains. His petition highlights the severe economic consequences of delayed justice for people with disabilities. Born with arthrogryposis, a condition affecting limb development, Malhotra argues that taxing these devices places PwDs at a structural disadvantage.
Systemic Challenges and Implementation Concerns
While lawyers and disability activists welcome the Supreme Court's circular, many express skepticism about its practical impact. They point to chronic pendency in courts as a systemic problem that requires deeper institutional reform.
Disability rights advocate Rajiv Raturi notes that disability is largely a state subject, adding layers of delay within India's federal structure. "Pendency is chronic," says Raturi, a visually impaired person whose 2005 public interest litigation led to a landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment recognizing accessibility as integral to the right to life and dignity.
Raturi adds: "The recent circular prioritising PwD cases happened only because of sustained advocacy. Its effectiveness will depend entirely on implementation."
Examples of Prolonged Legal Battles
Malhotra's case is not an isolated example. In November 2021, the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled filed a petition challenging a central government notification. This notification granted a blanket exemption from disability reservation to all posts in three key services: the Indian Police Service, the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service, and the Indian Railway Protection Force Service.
Issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, this exemption rendered PwDs ineligible for reservation across these services, not just in combat roles but also clerical, ministerial, technical, and administrative positions.
"This was a complete erasure," states Muralidhar Vishwanathan, a long-time disability rights campaigner and general secretary of the NPRD. "The law requires posts to be identified role by role, disability by disability. Instead, an entire service was exempted in one stroke."
The decision to approach the Supreme Court aimed to circumvent chronic pendency in lower courts. Yet even there, the case has moved slowly, with only interim relief granted in March 2022 allowing PwDs to apply for the posts. Meanwhile, recruitment cycles have passed, a delay that Vishwanathan says often determines outcomes in disability rights cases.
The Delhi High Court Model and Its Limitations
The Delhi High Court has implemented a version of this prioritization system since 2024. Under this system, cases involving PwDs are flagged at the filing stage after submission of a disability certificate and placed at the top of the board.
"By and large, it works," says senior advocate Roma Bhagat, who has handled disability-related litigation in multiple courts. However, there is a significant flipside. Placing a PwD matter at the top of the board does not guarantee an effective hearing or quick disposal, particularly for cases already pending.
"The anxiety is that the Supreme Court's circular should not apply only to fresh cases. The real backlog is in the pending ones," explains Rahul Bajaj, co-founder of Mission Accessibility.
Structural Impediments and Data Deficiencies
Prioritized listing addresses only one part of the problem. Another major impediment is the absence of a comprehensive database on PwD cases.
"There is currently no data being maintained or used by courts on PwD matters, even though the National Judicial Data Grid exists," Bajaj points out. "This issue at a structural level was pointed out to the Chief Justice of India in our representation for prioritisation in December 2025."
Procedural delays further complicate matters. Extended timelines granted to the State and its agencies to respond often lead to repeated adjournments.
"Matters are adjourned again and again because the State hasn't filed a reply, and very little consequence follows," Bhagat observes. "In writ matters, particularly in the High Court, cases are often allowed to drift until they are almost infructuous."
Raturi's 2005 PIL exemplifies this. Although the Supreme Court issued a detailed judgment in 2017 recognizing accessibility as integral to the right to life, the State complied with the directions only in 2024, nearly nineteen years after filing.
"For long periods, nothing moved," Raturi recalls. "Even after the 2017 order, implementation was slow because government responses were unclear and inadequate."
The Need for Comprehensive Reform
While lawyers can indicate a litigant's disability at the filing stage, this information is not consistently used for listing or prioritization in a meaningful way. Despite this, the Delhi High Court has seen faster resolution of PwD cases since implementing prioritization.
For litigants, delay does not merely postpone justice; it often changes the outcome entirely. "Delay doesn't just postpone justice; it changes the outcome," Bhagat emphasizes. "Prioritisation alone is not enough. The deeper problem is endemic — repeated adjournments, procedural delays and lack of accountability. Unless that is addressed, PwD cases will continue to suffer despite being labelled 'priority'."
Senior advocate S K Rungta highlights that lower courts and tribunals lack such prioritization systems. "Lower courts and tribunals do not have such a system," Rungta states. "The Central Administrative Tribunal is the worst. Cases from 2018 or 2019 are still pending there. There's no priority mechanism at all."
The Supreme Court's circular represents a crucial step toward recognizing the urgent needs of people with disabilities within the judicial system. However, without addressing systemic issues like chronic pendency, data deficiencies, and procedural delays, justice in disability rights cases may remain elusive for many.
