Welfare law for disabled persons can't be misused to settle spats between residents of apartment: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court on Friday warned against invoking the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act to settle scores in ordinary disputes that do not involve any discrimination against persons with disabilities [Y Venkateshwara Prasad & others v. State Commissioner].

Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while quashing a warning issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) against residents of an apartment complex.

The Court found the complaint that had led to the warning did not disclose any allegation of discrimination. The matter, therefore, fell outside the scope of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court said.

"These are all beneficial legislations. If people start abusing it, people who genuinely require it will not get the benefit out of it," Justice Govindraj orally remarked.

The Court noted that the RPwD Act and the Rules are beneficial laws enacted to address genuine grievances of persons with disabilities and that the present complaint amounted to an abuse of the statutory process.

Justice Govindaraj further observed that the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities would be well advised to scrutinise such complaints in future to prevent any abuse of the law.

The Court was dealing with a plea by certain apartment owners challenging a warning order dated February 19, 2026, issued by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The warning followed a complaint lodged by fellow flat owner, a person with a physical disability (complainant).

Appearing for the petitioners (apartment owners), advocate Balaraj AC contended that the complaint was frivolous and arose out of disputes relating to apartment maintenance.

He submitted that the petitioners had responded to a notice earlier issued in the matter by the Commission by filing detailed objections denying the allegations. However, without granting a personal hearing or assigning reasons, the Commissioner issued a warning order.

According to the petitioners, the warning order was then used by the complainant to create further difficulties for other residents.

It was argued that the complainant sought special privileges in the apartment complex by relying upon his caste and physical disability, despite there being adequate security arrangements in the premises.

Advocate Avani Chokshi, representing the complaint countered that the complainant had been subjected to discrimination because of his disability. She argued that the apartment residents had collectively made it impossible for him to reside peacefully by instructing security guards not to assist him, refusing to open gates, verbally abusing him and installing CCTV cameras facing his apartment entrance.

She acknowledged that the complaint might appear vague but maintained that the complainant had suffered humiliation.

After examining the complaint, the Court found that its allegations related to installation of CCTV cameras, the reference to the complainant as a 'loafer', the publication of maintenance dues on WhatsApp groups and notices displayed within the apartment complex.

Justice Govindaraj held that none of these allegations disclosed discrimination arising on account of the complainant's physical disability.

"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?" the judge asked.

The Court further remarked that there was absolutely no allegation of discrimination, the PwD Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute.

The Bench also observed that displaying the names of maintenance defaulters in apartment WhatsApp groups or on notice boards could not by itself amount to harassment.

"Let them pay the maintenance charges. Nobody will harass him. Obviously, on the WhatsApp group it will be posted that the maintenance has not been paid. Everybody's name will be there. Advocates' Association also puts outside the doors who the defaulters are. Is that harassment? It is only information," the Court remarked.

Emphasising that apartment living necessarily involves collective coexistence, Justice Govindaraj urged residents to resolve disputes amicably.

"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," the Court observed.