REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: WHAT EX-CJI’S HOUSING ROW SPEAKS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DIFFRENTLY-ABLED

Background

In a recent row, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs seeking ex-CJI Justice Chandrachud to vacate the official bungalow allocated at 5, Krishna Menon Marg during his judgeship, after which Justice Chandrachud came under a storm of criticism from various quarters as he prolonged his stay beyond the permissible six-month period under Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022. Justice Chandrachud had retired in November 2024 and was formally given permission to stay in the said bungalow till April 30th however, the stay was informally extended till May 3rd. Explaining the reason behind the delay, Justice Chandrachud shared that his two daughters, Priyanka and Mahi, aged 16 and 14 respectively, suffer from nemaline myopathy, which is a rare genetic condition. The girls are wheelchair bound and need constant medical care. The family had to recently set up an ICU facility at home since the elder daughter experienced severe respiratory illness during a family trip to Shimla. Living with children with special needs means being able to provide an accessible and supportive environment where the dignity and privacy of the girls are not compromised. It is clear from the statements given by Justice Chandrachud that finding a special needs-friendly accommodation is no less than a challenge in the capital city, where the smallest details like availability of ramps in the building and wide doorways in the rooms have to be taken care of. However, the mainstream news media, in this case, cast aspersions on Justice Chandrachud, reducing the issue to “bungalow politics” without going deep into the facts of the case. A widely held presumption exists that politicians, officers, and judges often delay vacating official bungalows after retirement, using various means to prolong their stay, burdening public resources and denying rightful allotment to successors. At the same time, the rationale for the delay was glossed over, which could have invited a healthy engagement on the social inclusion of the differently-abled and mitigating factors. While the general public perception may still view this as a case of illegitimate delay, the underlying issue speaks of the structural challenges in establishing a society on the values of substantive equality, especially the principle of reasonable accommodation in accommodation. Therefore, retired Justice DY Chandrachud’s delay in vacating the designated residence on time should be factored in as a mitigating circumstance, given his daughters’ special condition, who deserves the right to a safe, accessible and dignified space.

Rights of the Differently-Abled and Reasonable Accommodation

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is an international human rights treaty that as per Article 1 seeks “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” The Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006 and came into force in 2008, with 177 states, including India, ratifying it under Article 253 of the Constitution of India, 1950. India thereafter passed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act in 2016, which earlier existed as the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

While highlighting the importance of the 2016 Act, the Supreme Court in Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3130 observed: “26. The Act harmonises the Constitutional promise of full citizenship with action - by creating a framework in which persons with disabilities may translate their rights into remedies.”

In fact, the UNCPRD and RPwD Act, 2016 are based on the principle of reasonable accommodation, which can be conceptualised as “the right to have rights.” An appropriate understanding of reasonable accommodation needs its clarification with universal accessibility on the one hand, and discussing what reasonable in reasonable accommodation means on the other hand. Universal accessibility is an indivisible and inalienable part of human rights and, concomitantly, disability rights, as also highlighted in the UNCRPD. Resultingly, it is the state’s responsibility to take effective measures to provide public services in both urban and rural areas to persons with disabilities. The “universal accessibility is integrated and grounded in the CRPD by reference to three other major rights: the right to an independent living, to a full participation in society and equal opportunity.” Reasonableness can be understood in terms of goals and values. Reasonableness has essentially nothing to do with rules, while the rules can be reasonable. Reasonableness is rather related to practical wisdom, arguments and principles. For instance, it can be used to assess the constitutionality and the substantive due process of law vis-à-vis any decision. The principle is also used to distinguish between differentiation and discrimination when we evaluate the value of equality. In the case of the specially-abled, the need for universal accessibility determines the reasonableness of accommodation.[1] While the 1995 Act did not explicitly acknowledge the principle of reasonable accommodation, the 2016 Act does so in line with the UNCRPD, which under Article 2 defines reasonable accommodation as “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” In pursuance of the principle of reasonable accommodation, the RPwD Act, 2016 discusses a rights and entitlement-based approach for the specially-abled, which includes provisions for education, skill development and employment, social security and health, among others, where duties and responsibilities of appropriate governments have been delineated. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the principle in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission and Others SLP (Civil) No (s). 29275 of 2024. In this case, the appellant, being a PwD, was denied admission to the MBBS UG course on the grounds of disability despite proving his merit for medical education, which was termed “grossly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” This Hon’ble Supreme Court (Kabir Paharia Supra) elaborating on the principle of reasonable accommodation observed:

“15. The constitutional promise of equality is not merely formal but substantive, requiring the State to take affirmative measures to ensure that PwD and PwBD can meaningfully participate in all spheres of life, including professional education. We emphasize that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313 further noted that the principle of reasonable accommodation is an integral part of the Fundamental Rights. In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

“29. The principle of reasonable accommodation is not only statutorily prescribed but also rooted in the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities under Part III of the Constitution. Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right. It is a gateway right for persons with disabilities to enjoy all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution and the law. Without the gateway right of reasonable accommodation, a person with disability is forced to navigate in a world which excludes them by design. It strikes a fatal blow to their ability to make life choices and pursue opportunities. From mundane tasks of daily life to actions undertaken to realise personal and professional aspirations - all are throttled when reasonable accommodations are denied. Reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality and its failure constitutes discrimination.”

Mitigating Circumstances and Reasonable Accommodation

High-ranking government offices are subject to public scrutiny – and rightly so. The same can be seen in this case as well. Many opinions are floating in the digital space. For instance, social media has perpetuated a state of extraneous public outrage; the widespread belief being that Justice Chandrachud is taking undue advantage of his position by continuing when he did not deserve to do so. The social media has even trolled him, asking questions like why he should be given a free ride at the expense of taxpayers, and how to get him down in the dungeons, since this is taxpayers’ money, and it is a fall from grace. Questions have rightly been raised, especially when law and precedent require such residences to be vacated. Concerns include where the CJI, Justice Gavai, will reside and whether the rule of law is being upheld. However, even retired Justice Chandrachud has admitted the law and facts is not on his side and has only sought accommodation on humanitarian grounds, citing the need for a safe home for his disabled daughter. While the debate has merit, these mitigating circumstances rooted in disability rights deserve careful and compassionate consideratio. However, it should be noted that extensions to housing or the provision of alternate accommodation to retired Supreme Court judges is a well-established practice. Other examples are the cases of Justice UU Lalit and Justice NV Ramana, who were given post-retirement alternate accommodation, and that of Justice Hima Kohli, who left her official residence in February 2025, some months after her retirement in September 2024. These cases indicate that the delay during housing transitions is a known practice, especially when there are logistical problems.

Nevertheless, in this particular case, the mitigating circumstances, that is, the medical condition of the specially-abled daughters and the responsibility of their parenting in an inclusive space, can be considered as a part of the principle of reasonable accommodation based on respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy, non-discrimination, effective participation and inclusion in society, equality of opportunity, accessibility, respect for difference and acceptance and the evolving capacities of children with disabilities along with the respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities as mentioned at the beginning of RPwD Act, 2016. While Justice Chandrachud himself acknowledged that the delay was due to special circumstances like not being able to find a suitable rental accommodation for a short period and the simultaneous impediments in renovations at his allotted alternative accommodation at 14, Tughlaq Road, which was lying vacant since past two years that needed repairs and alterations to suit the needs of the daughters.

Conclusion

Justice DY Chandrachud’s longer tenure at the CJI Bungalow creates a conflict between the legal rule and personal requirements. Although, the Supreme Court Judges’ Rules have provided the specific timeframes within which the official residences have to be vacated, the special medical circumstances of his daughters, Priyanka and Mahi, require that a more sensible approach be adopted. There is a high possibility of neglecting these vital issues by the public perception, which is usually developed quickly and eventually becomes unfair. With Justice Chandrachud ready to shift into the house allotted by the government within the next couple of weeks, it is pertinent to put such circumstances in perspective with a degree of compassion and understanding of the situation at hand. This debate on the matter reminds society that a balance between emotions and rationality must dictate our opinion in matters, particularly those that involve people going through great personal issues. Also, the issue brings to our notice that despite a rights framework at the international and national level being in place, the discourse of rights of the specially disabled remains at the margins, where those bearing the brunt face daily level challenges as simple yet as complex as accessible living. The idea of reasonable accommodation should therefore, include the practicalities of increasing the ease of living by pressing for the need for spatial inclusion and not spatial exclusion, as it exists in our designs and architectures today.

[1] Rafael De Asís Roig. 2016. ‘Reasonableness in the Concept of Reasonable Accommodation.” The Age of Human Rights Journal. 42-59. DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.v0i6.2929