Karnataka HC Quashes Disability Commissioner's Warning in Apartment Maintenance Row, Finds No RPwD Act Nexus

The Karnataka High Court held that a dispute over CCTV cameras, WhatsApp notices, and maintenance dues in an apartment complex falls outside the jurisdiction of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, sitting singly at the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, allowed a writ petition filed by four residents of Adith Bhavan Apartment, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, and quashed a warning issued to them by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability. The warning arose from a complaint filed by a co-resident who is physically disabled, alleging misconduct relating to CCTV camera placement, verbal abuse, and circulation of maintenance dues on a WhatsApp group. The Court found that none of these allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclosed any violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“the RPwD Act”), and that the Commissioner had therefore acted without jurisdiction. The judgment draws a clear line between civil disputes involving a person with disability and disputes that genuinely arise from the denial of rights under that statute.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The four petitioners — Sri Y Venkateshwara Prasad, his wife Smt Yalamanchili Hyma, their daughter Ms Vennela, and Sri B.G. Venkataramana Reddy, a retired Joint Director of Co-operative Societies (Audit) — all reside in Flat No. 201 and Flat No. 401 respectively at Adith Bhavan Apartment, 3rd Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru.

Respondent No. 2, Sri Sendil Murugan, a physically disabled person residing in the same apartment complex, filed a complaint on 30 July 2025 before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability, Respondent No. 1, making allegations against the petitioners. The complaint raised three specific grievances: first, that a CCTV camera had been installed near the entrance of his flat in a manner that infringed his privacy; second, that he had been verbally abused and called a “loafer”; and third, that arrears of maintenance charges owed by him had been circulated on the apartment's WhatsApp group and that notices about the outstanding dues had been affixed within the apartment premises, including near the car parking area.

On the basis of these allegations, Sri Sendil Murugan invoked Section 82 of the RPwD Act and sought directions for repositioning of the CCTV cameras. The State Commissioner took up the complaint and, without passing any adverse order, issued a warning to the petitioners. It is this warning, contained in proceedings bearing No. An ANiVi-2:32/2024-25/1098 dated 19 February 2026, that the petitioners challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Jurisdictional Argument

Advocate Sri A.C. Balaraj, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Sri Sendil Murugan had not made payment of maintenance amounts and was using the complaint mechanism to interfere with the management of the apartment complex. More critically, he submitted that the complaint did not contain any allegation of differential treatment or discrimination on the ground of disability. The conduct complained of — camera placement, recovery of dues, verbal altercation — had no nexus with the RPwD Act. Accordingly, the State Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under that statute.

Counsel for Sri Sendil Murugan submitted that he had been humiliated, and that this formed the basis of his application before the Commissioner.

The State was represented by the Additional Government Advocate for the Commissioner, and Advocate Smt Avani Chokshi appeared for Sri Sendil Murugan.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Govindaraj examined the complaint dated 30 July 2025 in detail. He found that the grievances were directed at the location of CCTV cameras, the use of an abusive expression, and the manner in which the apartment association sought to recover outstanding dues. These acts, even if true, did not by themselves constitute an infraction of any right or obligation under the RPwD Act.

The Court went further. The complaint did not allege that any of these acts were committed because Sri Sendil Murugan is a person with disability. It did not disclose that he was denied any statutory right, reasonable accommodation, accessibility measure, equal opportunity, protection or benefit guaranteed under the Act. The dispute was, as the Court put it, essentially one arising out of interpersonal differences between residents of the same apartment complex concerning the management of the association and recovery of maintenance charges.

The Court set out the governing principle: the RPwD Act is a welfare and beneficial legislation enacted to protect, promote and secure the rights, dignity and equal participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life. The authorities constituted under it have jurisdiction confined to matters having a nexus with the rights and protections conferred by the statute. That jurisdiction cannot be expanded to cover every dispute in which a person with disability happens to be a party, irrespective of whether the dispute has any connection to the rights created under the Act.

The Court described the invocation of the RPwD Act machinery in a private apartment dispute as a misuse of the statutory mechanism. It warned that if such complaints were routinely entertained, statutory authorities would be unnecessarily diverted from genuine grievances involving discrimination, denial of accessibility, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and other substantive rights the Act was designed to address. The Court advised the State Commissioner to exercise greater scrutiny while entertaining complaints so that the beneficial jurisdiction is invoked only in cases that genuinely disclose an issue under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

On the appropriate forum for the underlying dispute, the Court observed that the differences between the petitioners and Sri Sendil Murugan, if any, are better resolved through mechanisms available under the apartment bye-laws, the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, other competent civil forums, or through amicable settlement. Residents of a common residential community are expected to resolve day-to-day disputes in a spirit of mutual accommodation and not resort to statutory remedies enacted for a wholly distinct legislative purpose.

Order

Since none of the allegations in the complaint disclosed any violation of the RPwD Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the Court held that the State Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or to issue the warning. The impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed.

The writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability in proceedings No. An ANiVi-2:32/2024-25/1098 dated 19 February 2026, at Annexure-U, was quashed.