Legal Review and Analysis of Ravi Shankar Bhushan vs Union of India & Ors 2026 INSC 50
Synopsis
This judgment represents the culmination of a long-standing judicial effort to ensure the creation and proper funding of a national fund for the empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). It stems from the landmark decision in Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service (2004), which directed banks to contribute to a Trust Fund. The present order examines the final compliance report submitted by a Supreme Court-monitored Committee, acknowledges the completion of its mandate, and formally dissolves the Committee. The Court holds that with the advent of a comprehensive statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, further judicial supervision is unnecessary, and the management of the fund is now an executive function governed by law.
I. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Ravi Shankar Bhushan vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 50
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Bench Type: Division Bench (Not a Constitutional Bench)
Jurisdiction Exercised: Civil Original Jurisdiction (in a Miscellaneous Application arising from a Writ Petition)
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026
Nature of Proceeding: Miscellaneous Application No. 2327 of 2025, filed in the disposed-of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 2009.
II. Legal Framework & Governing Precedents
A. Primary Statutes:
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): The cornerstone of the new legal regime.
Section 86: Establishes the "National Fund for Persons with Disabilities" and specifies the sources from which it shall be credited, including sums recovered pursuant to the Supreme Court's 2004 judgment.
Rule 42 of the RPwD Rules, 2017: Prescribes the manner of utilization, investment, and management of the National Fund.The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: The predecessor legislation, now repealed, under which the initial judicial directions were issued.
The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890: The statute under which the initial "Trust Fund for Empowerment of PwDs" was formally created via a 2006 Government Notification.
B. Key Judicial Precedent:
Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. v. Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 1: This is the originating judgment. The Supreme Court directed the creation of a Fund for effective implementation of the 1995 Act, to be managed under the chairmanship of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
C. Relevant Judicial Orders:
Order dated 14.10.2014 (in WP(C) 360/2009): Constituted a Monitoring Committee comprising representatives from the RBI, CAG, SIDBI, Union of India, and Indian Banks' Association to oversee implementation and determine recoverable amounts from banks.
Order dated 11.08.2017: Formally disposed of the writ petitions with a direction for the aforementioned Committee to oversee the implementation.
III. Relevant Factual Background
The genesis lies in the 2004 judgment which mandated banks to pay certain amounts towards a disability fund. To ensure its implementation, the Supreme Court, in 2014, constituted a high-level Committee. The present Miscellaneous Application was filed to bring before the Court the final actions taken by this Committee.
The Committee, chaired by the CAG, held several meetings and in its final meeting on 28.02.2025, accepted a recovery methodology proposed by the RBI. The methodology pragmatically addressed various categories of banks:
Banks without Records: Six banks to be pursued for notional excess interest.
Merged/Non-existent Banks: Eight banks; a token lump-sum recovery proposed due to lack of records.
Specific Foreign Banks (Commerzbank & Dresdner): Recovery from funds already withheld by RBI.
Sonali Bank: Lump-sum recovery based on its small operational size in India.
Sikkim Bank: No recovery required as the Interest Tax Act was not applicable to Sikkim at the material time.
ING Vysya Bank: Paid ₹50 lakhs under protest, disputing liability.
Cooperative & Regional Rural Banks: Explicitly exempted as per the Court's 2017 order.
Concurrently, the legal landscape evolved. The 1995 Act was replaced by the RPwD Act, 2016. The old "Trust Fund" was statutorily merged into the new "National Fund for Persons with Disabilities" under Section 86 of the RPwD Act. The RBI reported total cumulative recoveries of ₹212,39,42,612. The CAG, citing fulfilled mandate and the new statutory audit role under the Act, sought discharge from the Committee.
IV. Issues Before the Court
Whether the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 14.10.2014 have been satisfactorily complied with.
Whether the continued existence of the Court-appointed Monitoring Committee is necessary in light of the operational statutory framework under the RPwD Act, 2016.
Whether the CAG should be relieved of the responsibility as Chairperson of the said Committee.
V. Ratio Decidendi & the Court's Holding
The Supreme Court, after perusing the compliance affidavit and the statutory provisions, held as follows:
Compliance Acknowledged: The Court recorded its satisfaction that the directions issued on 14.10.2014 had been duly complied with. The Committee had executed its mandate by finalizing a recovery mechanism and overseeing the collection of substantial funds.
Statutory Supersession of Judicial Monitoring: The Court ruled that with the enactment of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the framing of its Rules, a complete statutory regime for the National Fund is now in place. The management, investment, and utilization of the Fund are now governed by Section 86 and Rule 42, making it an executive function.
Dissolution of the Committee: Consequently, the Court held that no further judicial monitoring was necessary. The Committee, having fulfilled the purpose for which it was constituted, was discharged of its obligations and stands dissolved.
Relief to CAG: The CAG was formally relieved of the responsibility as Committee Chairperson. The Court noted that the CAG's role under the new law is that of a statutory auditor of the National Fund's accounts, which is distinct from the earlier monitoring function.
VI. Establishment of a New Legal Framework
This judgment does not create new law but formalizes the transition from a judicially-monitored scheme to a statutorily-governed one. It establishes the principle that once a comprehensive parliamentary law occupies a field earlier overseen by court directions, the judiciary should withdraw, entrusting the execution to the executive arm of the state, backed by legislative mandate and statutory accountability mechanisms (like CAG audit).
VII. Judicial Analysis and Examination
The Court's analysis followed a structured, step-wise process:
Verification of Compliance: The Court began by physically examining the sealed-cover compliance affidavit, ensuring the actions reported were concrete and specific.
Scrutiny of Recovery Rationale: It implicitly approved the Committee's pragmatic and differential approach to recovery, recognizing practical impediments like bank mergers, defunct entities, and unavailability of decades-old records. This demonstrates the Court's focus on substantive, workable compliance rather than a rigid, unattainable formula.
Interpretation of the New Statute: The Court meticulously analyzed Section 86 of the RPwD Act, noting its explicit inclusion of court-mandated recoveries, and Rule 42, which details fund management. This examination confirmed that the statute had absorbed and provided for the continuation of the judicial initiative.
Application of the Doctrine of Judicial Restraint: The core of the analysis rests on the principle that courts should not perpetually supervise executive functions when a democratic legislature has stepped in with a detailed law. The Court correctly identified that its role as a monitor had been rendered redundant by the statutory framework.
VIII. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
Positive Aspects: The judgment exemplifies sound judicial policy. It shows the Supreme Court acting as a catalyst for social welfare, patiently monitoring implementation over years, and then gracefully withdrawing once an institutionalized, democratic framework is established. It balances judicial activism with appropriate restraint.
Practical Resolution: The endorsed recovery methodology reflects a realistic approach to enforcing historical liabilities, prioritizing the mobilization of substantial funds over futile litigation against untraceable or exempt entities.
Strengthening Disability Rights: By anchoring the fund within a dedicated rights-based legislation, the judgment ensures its permanence and legitimacy, moving it from an ad hoc judicial remedy to a core component of state policy for PwDs.
Final Outcome:
The Monitoring Committee is dissolved.
The CAG is relieved from his role as its Chairman.
The National Fund for Persons with Disabilities will henceforth be managed and utilized strictly in accordance with the RPwD Act, 2016, and Rules of 2017.
The Miscellaneous Application is closed, bringing the two-decade-long judicial proceedings originating from the 2004 judgment to a formal conclusion.
IX. (MCQs)
1. Which statutory provision of the RPwD Act, 2016, specifically provides for the incorporation of funds recovered as per the Supreme Court's 2004 judgment in Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service?
A) Section 42
B) Section 34
C) Section 86
D) Section 12
2. Under which vintage Act was the initial "Trust Fund for Empowerment of PwDs" created by the Central Government in 2006?
A) The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
B) The Registration Act, 1908
C) The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890
D) The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
3. What was the primary reason cited by the Supreme Court for dissolving the Court-appointed Monitoring Committee?
A) The Committee failed to perform its duties.
B) The petitioner withdrew the case.
C) A comprehensive statutory framework under the RPwD Act, 2016, had been established.
D) All banks had fully paid their dues.
4. As per the judgment, what is the designated role of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) concerning the National Fund for Persons with Disabilities under the RPwD Act?
A) Chairman of its Governing Body
B) Chief Executive Officer managing its investments
C) Statutory Auditor of its accounts
D) Has no role under the Act