Case Name: Venkateshwara Prasad v. State Commissioner
The petition challenged an order of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities issuing a warning to apartment association office-bearers following a complaint by a resident with physical disability. The complainant alleged that CCTV cameras had been installed near his apartment entrance, his privacy had been violated, he had been verbally abused by being called a “loafer”, details of his maintenance arrears had been circulated through the apartment WhatsApp groups, and notices regarding the outstanding dues had been displayed within the apartment complex. Invoking Section 82 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), he sought action against the apartment office-bearers and relocation of the CCTV cameras. The petitioners challenged the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, contending that the allegations neither disclosed discrimination on the ground of disability nor involved any statutory right protected under the RPwD Act.
The Karnataka High Court accepted the petitioners’ contention and held that the complaint failed to disclose any violation of rights protected under the RPwD Act. The Court observed that the allegations essentially related to interpersonal disputes concerning apartment management, recovery of maintenance dues, placement of CCTV cameras, and alleged verbal abuse. Crucially, the complaint did not allege that any of these acts had occurred because the complainant was a person with disability, nor did it demonstrate denial of accessibility, reasonable accommodation, equal opportunity, or any other statutory protection guaranteed under the Act. The Court emphasised that the RPwD Act is a welfare legislation intended to protect the dignity and equal participation of persons with disabilities. Consequently, authorities constituted under the Act possess jurisdiction only where the dispute bears a clear nexus with rights created by the legislation. Merely because one of the parties to a private dispute is a person with disability does not automatically attract the jurisdiction of disability authorities. Entertaining such complaints would divert statutory resources away from genuine cases involving discrimination and denial of disability rights.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the warning issued by the State Commissioner against the petitioners. It held that the complaint fell outside the Commissioner’s statutory jurisdiction and observed that disputes relating to apartment management and maintenance recovery should instead be resolved through the remedies available under the apartment bye-laws and general civil law.
The judgment clarifies that the protective framework of the RPwD Act cannot be invoked to resolve ordinary civil or interpersonal disputes merely because one of the parties has a disability. For the statutory machinery under the Act to be attracted, the complaint must establish a direct connection between the alleged conduct and the denial or infringement of rights specifically guaranteed under the RPwD Act, such as equality, accessibility, reasonable accommodation, or protection against disability-based discrimination.
Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa
