Case Comment: Anamol Bhandari (Minor) Vs Delhi Technological University
- IJLLR Journal
- Oct 14
- 1 min read
Mananika Deb, BA LLB, National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam
ABSTRACT
This case comment analyses the Delhi High Court’s decision in Anamol Bhandari (Minor) v. Delhi Technological University, a landmark judgment addressing the unequal academic relaxation extended to persons with disabilities (PwDs) vis-à-vis Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) candidates. The case raised crucial constitutional questions under Article 14, particularly on whether a 5% relaxation for PwDs, compared to 10% for SC/ST candidates, violated the guarantee of substantive equality. The Court held that the differential treatment failed to meet the test of reasonable classification and reaffirmed the principle of horizontal reservation, emphasizing that PwDs cannot be treated as a competing vertical category. The judgment also clarified that institutional policies are not immune from judicial review when they infringe constitutional rights. Drawing on statutory mandates from the 1995 “Disabilities Act and international commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” (UNCRPD), the Court relied on empirical data to highlight the systemic educational disadvantage faced by PwDs. While the judgment secured relief for the petitioner, it stopped short of mandating broader structural reform across educational institutions. This comment situates the judgment within India’s evolving disability rights jurisprudence and critiques its limitations in achieving systemic change. It argues that the decision, though significant, underscores the need for stronger executive and legislative action to ensure that constitutional and statutory guarantees for PwDs are effectively realised across the country.
