CURRENT AFFAIRS | 17 JUNE 2026
The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance – acting on its own motion – of news reports describing the plight of a poverty-stricken visually impaired man and his aged mother in Odisha, directing the state government to provide them all basic amenities. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana converted a single human-interest report into a structured constitutional inquiry, titling the matter “In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues.”
The facts are stark. The man’s father had died recently, leaving him struggling to sustain himself and his elderly mother. The Odisha government informed the court that a house had been allotted to the mother and that the son lives with her; the court nonetheless sought a status report on the amenities actually being provided. By framing the title broadly – “differently abled citizens living in extreme poverty” – the Court signalled that the case is not about one family alone but about the systemic obligation of the State to secure dignity and social security for persons with disabilities.
This is a textbook example of the Supreme Court’s epistolary and suo motu jurisdiction, a tradition through which the Court has, since the public-interest-litigation era, allowed even a letter or a newspaper report to set the wheels of justice in motion for those who cannot themselves reach the courtroom. It draws together the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act 2016, the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21, and the directive under Article 41 that the State provide public assistance in cases of disablement. The order shows how constitutional and statutory guarantees translate into concrete welfare obligations.
The RPwD Act 2016 (replacing the 1995 Act, aligning India with the UNCRPD) guarantees equality, accessibility and social security to persons with disabilities. Constitutionally, Article 21 protects the right to live with dignity, while Article 41 (a Directive Principle) directs the State to secure public assistance in cases of disablement and old age. The Court’s power to act suo motu and to entertain epistolary PILs, together with Article 32 (direct access for fundamental-rights enforcement), makes such intervention possible.
This case is a high-value Legal Reasoning anchor: it pairs the RPwD Act 2016 and UNCRPD with Articles 21 and 41 and the concept of suo motu/epistolary jurisdiction. Expect passages asking you to distinguish enforceable fundamental rights from non-justiciable Directive Principles, or to identify the jurisdiction under which the Court acted. The same bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justice V Mohana) features in another notice today, useful for cross-linking.
| Jurisdiction | Suo motu cognisance |
| Bench | CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana |
| Beneficiaries | Visually impaired man and aged mother, Odisha |
| Case title | In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity… Differently Abled Citizens in Extreme Poverty |
| Direction | Provide all basic amenities; file status report |
| State’s submission | House allotted to mother; son lives with her |
| Key statute | RPwD Act 2016 |
| Key Articles | Art 21 (dignity), Art 41 (DPSP, disablement) |
“DIGNITY” = Differently abled, In re suo motu, Government to provide amenities, Need-based welfare, In Article 21, Tied to Article 41 DPSP, Yes via RPwD Act 2016 + UNCRPD.
Why This Matters for CLAT: The order demonstrates the bridge between rights on paper and welfare on the ground. For aspirants it sharpens the crucial distinction between justiciable fundamental rights (Article 21) and aspirational Directive Principles (Article 41), shows how the Court reaches the most marginalised through suo motu and epistolary jurisdiction, and situates disability rights within both domestic statute (RPwD Act 2016) and international law (UNCRPD).
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
