Author’s Note: The question is not whether offences under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 deserve prompt and effective prosecution; they certainly do. The real issue is narrower and jurisdictional: when a Court of Session is notified as a Special Court under Section 84, does that notification alone authorize the court to take direct cognizance or entertain remand at the threshold stage? The safer answer is in the negative unless the parent statute or otherwise applicable criminal procedure expressly permits it.
1. Statutory Background
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a rights-based welfare legislation that also creates penal consequences for specified acts and omissions. Its offences and punishments are contained in Chapter XVI, while Section 84 provides for specification of a Special Court and Section 85 for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.
Section 84 states, in substance, that the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try offences under the Act. The emphasis of the provision is on designation of the forum for trial.
That language is important. Section 84 speaks of a Court of Session being specified as a Special Court “to try offences under this Act,” but it does not in express terms say that the Special Court may take direct cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction.
2. Parent Statute and Notification
A parent statute creates rights, obligations, offences, punishments, and jurisdiction. A notification issued under such statute is subordinate legislation and can operate only within the area that the parent enactment permits.
Accordingly, a notification under Section 84 can validly identify which Court of Session will function as the Special Court for a district. However, it cannot enlarge the court’s substantive criminal jurisdiction beyond what the Act itself confers.
This distinction lies at the heart of the controversy. The notification may create the forum, but it does not automatically create the mode of cognizance.
3. Why “Trial” Is Not the Same as “Cognizance”
In criminal procedure, “taking cognizance” is the stage at which the court first applies its judicial mind to the commission of an offence for proceeding according to law. Trial is a later stage.
Therefore, a statute may validly say that a particular Special Court shall try certain offences, yet still leave untouched the ordinary procedural route by which the case reaches that court. The existence of trial jurisdiction does not, by itself, establish direct cognizance jurisdiction.
That is why courts insist on identifying the exact source of power. If the source shown is only a notification, and not an express statutory provision, the assumption of direct cognizance becomes legally doubtful.
4. Guidance From the Supreme Court
The principle finds strong support in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., where the Supreme Court considered whether a Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being a Court of Session specified to try offences under that Act, could take direct cognizance without committal. The Court held that Section 193 CrPC bars a Court of Session from taking cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction unless the Code or the special statute expressly provides otherwise.
The Supreme Court treated the Special Court there as essentially a Court of Session and held that mere specification of such court for trial of offences did not, by itself, dispense with the ordinary procedural requirement. That reasoning is highly instructive for Section 84 of the RPwD Act because Section 84 also specifies a Court of Session as Special Court “to try” offences.
Thus, unless the RPwD Act expressly confers a distinct power of direct cognizance, a notification under Section 84 cannot by itself supply that omission. Jurisdiction cannot be created by executive designation where the statute has not clearly done so.
5. Internal Indication in the RPwD Act
Section 7(5) of the RPwD Act provides that where the Executive Magistrate finds that the act complained of constitutes an offence under the IPC or any other law, he may forward the complaint to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction. This is an important internal pointer because it shows that the Act itself recognizes the ordinary criminal court structure at the threshold stage.
This provision does not by itself conclusively answer every question of cognizance, but it does caution against reading Section 84 as a self-contained code of direct initiation before the Sessions Court. Put differently, the Act does not say that every RPwD offence must begin directly before the Special Court merely because the court has been notified.
6. Correct Legal Position
The legally careful formulation is this:
-
Section 84 authorizes the State Government to specify a Court of Session as a Special Court to try offences under the RPwD Act.
-
Section 84 does not, in express terms, confer direct cognizance on that Special Court.
-
A notification issued under Section 84 is subordinate legislation and cannot exceed the parent statute.
-
Therefore, a notification may validly designate the court, but it cannot by itself create a fresh power of direct cognizance or original remand jurisdiction if the statute is silent.
One must, however, avoid overstatement. The sound proposition is not that direct cognizance is impossible in every imaginable circumstance, but that Section 84 and the notification under it do not, by themselves, expressly confer it.
7. Practical Importance for Trial Courts
The issue commonly surfaces when the police directly produce an accused before the Sessions Judge on the footing that the court is the notified Special Court under Section 84. The assumption often is that once the Special Court exists, all threshold powers automatically stand transferred to it.
That assumption is unsafe. The court must first ask: what is the legal source of the power presently invoked, whether remand, cognizance, or trial?
If the answer rests solely on the notification, the court should proceed with caution. The notification proves that the court has been designated as the Special Court; it does not necessarily prove that the court may receive the case directly at inception as a court of original jurisdiction.
8. Concluding Position
The RPwD Act, 2016 is a beneficial statute and deserves purposive application. Yet purposive interpretation cannot be stretched to permit delegated legislation to create substantive criminal jurisdiction where the legislature has not clearly enacted it.
Therefore, the better view is that a notification under Section 84 can designate the Special Court for trial of offences under the Act, but it cannot by itself confer direct cognizance or original remand jurisdiction on that Court of Session. The source of such power must be found in the parent statute or otherwise applicable criminal procedure, not in the notification alone.
Quick Takeaways
-
Section 84 creates the forum for trial, not an express power of direct cognizance.
-
A Court of Session notified as Special Court remains bound by the governing procedural law unless the special statute clearly provides otherwise.
-
A notification cannot enlarge criminal jurisdiction beyond the parent statute.
-
If police papers or remand are placed directly before the Special Court, the court must first examine maintainability.
Short Order Format
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016
District:
Misc. Criminal Application / Remand Proceedings No. _ of 20__
State through Police Station
Versus
A.B. and others
Date:
Order
-
The accused has been produced before this Court along with police remand / judicial remand papers in connection with Crime No. _ for alleged offences punishable under Sections _ of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and other allied provisions, if any. The prosecution submits that this Court, having been notified as a Special Court under Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is competent to entertain the present remand request.
-
I have perused the remand papers, case diary extract, and the notification relied upon by the prosecution. Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for specification of a Court of Session as a Special Court to try offences under the Act.
-
The question at this stage is whether the mere notification of this Court as a Special Court under Section 84 is sufficient to confer jurisdiction to entertain the matter directly at the threshold stage. Section 84, however, does not in express terms confer a power of direct cognizance or independent original remand jurisdiction upon the Special Court.
-
It is well settled that a notification, being subordinate legislation, cannot enlarge the scope of jurisdiction beyond the parent statute. A Court of Session can take cognizance as a court of original jurisdiction only where the governing procedural law or special statute expressly so provides.In Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court held that specification of a Court of Session as a Special Court for trial does not by itself displace the ordinary procedural bar unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. The same principle applies while construing Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
-
In the present matter, no express statutory provision has been shown conferring direct threshold jurisdiction upon this Court solely on the basis of the Section 84 notification. In the absence of such demonstrated authority, this Court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because it is the notified Special Court for trial.
Operative Order
Hence, the following order is passed:
-
The request for police remand / direct remand before this Court is declined at this stage for want of demonstrated jurisdiction.
-
The Investigating Officer shall produce the accused and papers before the court competent under the applicable procedural law for appropriate orders in accordance with law.
-
It is clarified that this order does not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
Pronounced in open Court on this _ day of , 20__.
Sessions Judge / Special Court
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
District
Cautious Variant
If local practice is unsettled or there may be binding High Court directions not presently placed on record, the safer alternative is to pass a limited order calling upon the Public Prosecutor to first address maintainability on the question of direct remand / cognizance under Section 84 of the RPwD Act. That approach avoids assumption of jurisdiction while preserving procedural fairness.