Mere Disability Doesn't Deprive Person of Right to Carry on Occupation, Business: Delhi HC

Mere disability does not deprive a person of his constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, the Delhi High Court has said. Justice Sachin Datta has said it would be “wholly retrograde” and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees to deny a disabled person his right to carry on any trade or business.

The court’s observations came on a petition filed by tenants, challenging a lower court order evicting them from a rented shop in the Ajmeri Gate area of Delhi on the ground that the landlord required the premises for her dependent son to start a business.

The petitioners assailed the order on several grounds, including that the son was suffering from low vision, which could not be improved in spite of treatment, and he was, therefore, not in a position to run a business independently.

Rejecting the contention, the court said the eviction order did not merit any interference and the stand was contrary to constitutional principles as well as the objectives and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

“Mere disability of a person does not deprive such a person of his constitutional right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This submission on behalf of the petitioners not only undermines sacrosanct constitutional principles, it also runs afoul to the objectives and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,” the court said in an order passed on Thursday.

“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under articles 14, 19 and 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business. As such, the alleged low vision or disability of (the landlord’s son) cannot undermine his bonafide necessity for the premises in question for the purpose of carrying on his business,” it added.

The court further said the petitioners’ assertion that the landlord’s son was not capable of running a business due to his impaired vision was “most reprehensible and deserves to be rejected outright”.