Disposed¶23

Reshma Bano Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/2944/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability certificate reassessment; acid-attack survivor; 30% permanent disability in one eye vs claimed 70%; revised guidelines dated 12.03.2024; UDID portal lacks reassessment option; Government of India notification dated 13.06.2024 SOP for change in type/percentage of disability; liberty to apply for reassessment; consideration with due expedition; petition disposed of; Delhi High Court; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J; 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to apply for reassessment of her disability as per the applicable guidelines (via the UDID portal), with a direction that her application be considered with due expedition without further delay. ¶23

Reshma Bano Qureshi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's disability certificate showing 30% permanent disability in one eye should be quashed and reassessed in line with the revised guidelines dated 12.03.2024, under which the petitioner claims the disability would be at least 70%. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

In view of the mechanism in place since 13.06.2024 (SOP notified by the Government of India for cases where type or percentage of disability has changed), the petitioner is granted liberty to apply for reassessment of the disability as per the applicable guidelines.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner applies for reassessment, her application is to be considered with due expedition without causing any further delay.

¶22

Key takeaways

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of; the Court did not adjudicate the correctness of the 30% certification versus the claimed 70%, leaving that to the reassessment process.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 2944/2026 | Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J | Order dated 10.03.2026. An acid-attack survivor petitioner, who had been issued a disability certificate diagnosing 30% permanent disability in one eye after evaluation by an ophthalmic specialist and Medical Board recommendation, sought quashment of the certificate and reassessment under revised guidelines dated 12.03.2024, claiming the disability would be at least 70%. She submitted that the UDID portal provides no option for reassessment despite her representations to the respondents. Counsel for the respondents stated that a Government of India notification dated 13.06.2024 lays down an SOP for cases where the type or percentage of disability of a PwD has changed. Noting this mechanism, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply for reassessment as per the applicable guidelines and directed that her application be considered with due expedition; the petition was disposed of without deciding the disputed disability percentage.

¶1

$~94

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2944/2026

¶4

RESHMA BANO QURESHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Huda Naaz, Ms. Sija Nair Pal, Ms. Madiah Shahjar, Mr. Arnav Abhishek, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshat Agarwal, SPC with Mr. Raj Karan, Ms. Rashi Agarwal and Mr. Sumit Ranjan, S.P. for R-1.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R % 10.03.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 14198/2026 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 2944/2026

¶14

The petitioner is seeking quashment of the disability certificate issued by the respondents and for reassessment in line with the revised guidelines dated 12.03.2024.

¶15

The petitioner claims to be an acid-attack survivor. She had applied for a disability certificate and upon evaluation by ophthalmic specialist (Eye) Specialist and subsequent recommendation by the Medical Board, she has been diagnosed with 30% permanent disability in one eye. The

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:49:43

¶18

petitioner submits that as per the guidelines, the percentage of the disability would be at least 70%.

¶19

The petitioner submits that she attempted to apply for reassessment, however, the Unique Disability ID [‘ UDID ’] portal through which applications for assessment are to be made, does not provide for reassessment. The petitioner has also made representations before the respondents seeking reassessment and reissuance of her disability certificate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that as per the Government of India, notification dated 13.06.2024 the Standard Operating Procedure to handle the cases where type or percentage of disability or both of PwD had changed; or where PwD who has already been issued UDID card/disability certificate migrates permanently to other State/UT, has been laid down.

¶20

Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner will have to visit the UDID portal and to apply for reassessment.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid mechanism, which has been in place since 13.06.2024, the petitioner is granted liberty to apply for reassessment of the disability as per the applicable guidelines.

¶22

If the petitioner does so, let her application be considered with due expedition without causing any further delay.

¶23

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶25

MARCH 10, 2026/P

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:49:43

Reshma Bano Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma Bano Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Gaurav Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Nav Rashtra Party Vs Election Commission of India

Mohd. Suleman Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Braham Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Ms. Fatima Argawan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Telecom Regulatory Ahthority of India Vs Virajoo Kumar

Yashpal Singh & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dal Chand Yadav Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (Dusib) & Ors.

Lucky Star Estate (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India