The Delhi High Court has said the Delhi Government cannot give up on its duties to persons with disabilities, as it sought an affidavit on why a 24-hour attendant ordered for a child with muscular dystrophy has not been provided.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to explain, on affidavit, its failure to provide a 24-hour male attendant for a child with muscular dystrophy, observing that the State cannot “throw up its hand in despair” in the face of its duties under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Smt Rani Devi v. Shri Dinesh Kumar and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar passed the order on 30 September 2026 in an appeal by the child’s mother against a Family Court order.
The background
On 20 July 2022, the Family Court directed the District Magistrate (North East) and the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Delhi Government to provide a 24-hour male attendant for the child, whose condition, muscular dystrophy, is a disability listed under the 2016 Act.
The mother later alleged non-compliance. By an order of 1 October 2024, the Family Court dismissed her application. That order recorded the Government’s position that it could not provide the manpower and that no scheme of the Women and Child Development Department provides a male attendant at a child’s residence. The mother appealed.
The contentions
Counsel for the mother relied on Section 5 of the 2016 Act, under which the appropriate Government is to endeavour to secure arrangements for a dignified life, including community support and personal assistance, and on Section 88, which provides for a State Fund for Persons with Disabilities.
What the Court said
The Bench sought an explanation from the Government for its inability to provide the attendant and observed that neither the Act nor the State’s duties under it allow the Government to “throw up its hand in despair”.
The directions
The Court directed the Government to file an affidavit within four weeks stating:
- whether the Fund contemplated by Section 88 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act has been constituted; and
- what steps are being taken to meet the State’s responsibilities under Section 5.
The matter has been listed on 8 December 2026.
ALSO READ: Disability Alone Cannot Justify Removal Of Reproductive Organ: Delhi High Court Orders Medical Board
Why the order matters
The order treats a shortage of manpower or the absence of a specific departmental scheme as an inadequate answer where a court has already directed support for a child with a disability. By asking whether the Section 88 State Fund exists, the Court has put the funding machinery of the 2016 Act, and not only the individual order, under scrutiny. The affidavit due in four weeks will show what the Government says it has done.
Case Title: Smt Rani Devi v. Shri Dinesh Kumar and Another [MAT.APP.(F.C.) 378/2024]
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: 30 September 2026
Appearances: For the appellant mother and for the Delhi Government: counsel as recorded in the order.