Back
Orders Rapido to Keep Ride App Forever 'Disabled Friendly' for Blind Users
In a landmark ruling on digital inclusion, the has mandated ride-hailing giant Rapido to ensure its mobile app remains fully accessible to visually impaired users indefinitely. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav a by two visually impaired professionals, emphasizing a " " on service providers under the . The court's order underscores that accessibility isn't a one-off fix but an ongoing obligation in the digital age.
Blind Activists' Daily Struggle with Rapido's App
The case stems from Amar Jain , a corporate lawyer and disability rights activist blind since birth, and the second petitioner, a visually impaired banker at in Siliguri. They rely on Rapido's app—operated by —for essential mobility but faced severe barriers. Core functions like booking rides, cancellations, tracking, and customer support were inaccessible due to incompatibility with screen readers and missing accessibility features.
Filed as , the petition invoked , demanding audits, staff training, app upgrades, penalties under , and broader guidelines for app aggregators. During hearings, the court issued interim directions, prompting Rapido to file compliance affidavits showing updates in its Android version incorporating petitioner feedback.
Petitioners Push for Total Access, Rapido Claims Partial Fixes
Petitioners argued the app's flaws denied " ," violating . They detailed how missing labels, non-navigable elements, and untrained support staff blocked independent use, seeking strict timelines: 1-month fixes, 6-month audits, expert collaborations, and government enforcement via .
Rapido countered with affidavits confirming reviews and implementations, while the highlighted its ( ) mandating accessibility. However, Jain, appearing in person, pressed for quarterly audits and further tweaks, citing prior court assurances from .
Court's Deep Dive: Accessibility as a Statutory Imperative
Justice Kaurav clarified that Section 42 imposes a "clear and affirmative obligation" extending to dynamic platforms like ride-hailing apps, which qualify as "information and communication technology." He rejected a narrow view, stressing compatibility with assistive tools to uphold under Section 3 .
No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling interprets RPWD provisions alongside
guidelines, critiquing mere policy issuance without
"periodic monitoring, compliance verification, and corrective enforcement."
The court noted Rapido's steps but insisted on continuous vigilance, aligning with external reports like those affirming the app must stay "disabled friendly" perpetually.
Key Observations
"The obligation under Section 42 read withmust be understood as imposing aupon service providers to ensure that digital interfaces are inherently accessible and compatible with assistive technologies."
"Accessibility is not confined to traditional or static forms of communication but extends to dynamic and technology-driven platforms which form part of everyday civic and commercial life."
"The statutory obligation... is not discharged upon mere formulation or issuance of guidelines, but extends to ensuring their effective, uniform and verifiable implementation."
"The directions and the undertaking of the respondent contained in paragraph no. 6 of the order datedshall remain in force so long as the application stays in operation."
A Continuing Mandate, Not a Closed Chapter
The petition stands without penalties, but with binding directives: - Rapido must consider Jain's latest suggestions, explain any infeasibilities, and invite further input. - Conduct ongoing accessibility audits per RPWD Act and Rules. - Ministry to operationalize Rule 15(2) for real enforcement beyond guidelines.
Petitioners can file afresh if issues persist. This sets a precedent for app-based services, compelling proactive design and oversight. As noted in contemporary coverage, the ruling reinforces that visually impaired users deserve seamless access to mobility tech—no excuses in a screen reader era.
