Legal Judgment on Misuse of Disability Laws in Apartment Disputes
The Karnataka High Court recently addressed the misuse of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, emphasizing that it should not be leveraged to resolve typical residential disputes that do not involve discrimination against disabled individuals. The judgment was delivered in the case of Y Venkateshwara Prasad & others v. State Commissioner, with Justice Suraj Govindaraj presiding.
The court quashed a warning previously issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities against residents of an apartment complex. The warning stemmed from a complaint by a resident with a physical disability. However, Justice Govindaraj noted that the complaint lacked any specific allegations of discrimination, thereby placing it outside the purview of the RPwD Act, 2016.
Justice Govindaraj highlighted the potential for abuse of beneficial legislation such as the RPwD Act. He remarked, “These are all beneficial legislations. If people start abusing it, people who genuinely require it will not get the benefit out of it.” He further advised the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to diligently assess complaints to prevent such misuse.
The case arose from a petition by several apartment owners challenging a warning order dated February 19, 2026, issued by the Commissioner. The residents argued that the complaint was frivolous, relating merely to apartment maintenance disputes. Advocate Balaraj AC, representing the petitioners, contended that the warning was issued without a proper personal hearing or reasoning, thus exacerbating tensions among residents.
The complainant, represented by Advocate Avani Chokshi, alleged discrimination due to his disability, claiming that other residents impeded his peaceful residence through actions such as instructing security guards to deny assistance and installing CCTV cameras directed at his apartment entrance.
More Read
Upon reviewing the complaint, the court found the allegations, which included derogatory references and publicizing maintenance dues, did not indicate discrimination based on physical disability. Justice Govindaraj questioned, “What is the allegation on disability? Somebody called you a loafer. Somebody called you something, that caused distress. How does that come under the Act?”
Justice Govindaraj concluded that the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities lacked jurisdiction in this matter, as it did not involve discrimination. He noted that displaying names of maintenance defaulters on WhatsApp groups or notice boards did not constitute harassment, but was rather informational.
The judgment also underscored the importance of harmonious living in apartment complexes. Justice Govindaraj advised residents to resolve conflicts amicably, stating, “All of you have to learn to live in a community. It’s an apartment complex. It requires a different thought process. You are not living in an independent house where you can do whatever you want. This is community living. We are seeing a lot of these matters coming up where one person doesn’t like the other… Please don’t misuse these things. It becomes a problem.”
