SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 1249

1998(9) Supreme 446
Supreme Court of India
(Under Article 32 of Constitution)
K. Venkataswami & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Javed Abidi -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 326 of 1997
Decided on 17-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, K.N. Rawal, Additional Solicitor General, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, P.N. Mishra, Sr. Advocates, Anis Dayal, Indra Makwana, V.G. Pragasam, Aruneshwar Gupta, R.S. Sodhi, Lokesh Kumar, Ms. S.A. Chitale, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Sushma Suri, K.R. Nagaraja, Arvind Verma, Pradeep Misra, B.S. Chahar, Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Ashok Mathur, S.K. Agnihotri, K.K. Rai, Ms. Samitha Inna, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Amita V. Duggal, Rajiv Mehta, Sunil Jain, G. Prakash, Ms. Beena Pra­kash. Ms. A. Subhashini, Sudhir Walia, Prem Malhotra, Ranjan Mukher­jee, R.S. Jena, Anil Srivastava, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Bankey Bihari, Advocates.

Important Point
Orthopaedically impaired persons who are suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 80% and above would be entitled to benefit of concession for travelling by air in view of Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Headnote:(i) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995-Writ petition seeking direction for implementation of provisions-Claim for provision aisle chair in aircraft to Orthopaedically impaired persons-Ambulift on all Air­ports - Appointment of Chief Commissioner by Central Govt.-Constitu­tion of Central and Coordination Committees - Central Government and various State Government filing affidavit indicating constitution of various committees - Committees expected to discharge obligations under the Act so as to achieve objectives for which Act has been enacted-Indian Airlines indicates steps taken to provide aisle chairs to Orthopaedically impaired persons and provision for ambulift in all airports-Further direction not warranted. (Paras 1 & 2)

       (ii) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995-Section 2(i)-Disabled persons-Concession for travelling by air-Claim by Orthopaedically impaired persons - Airlines giving concession to those suffering from blindness-Airlines stand that in view of economic conditions of Airlines it is not feasible to concession and it is considering withdrawing concession granted to other disabled persons-Locomotor disability above certain percentage will find enormous difficulty in travelling by train or bus-Airlines direc­ted to give concession to those suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 80% and above.

       Held : The economic capacity is a germane consideration while deciding the question as to whether all persons suffering from disability as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act should be granted concession like blind persons for travelling by Air, at the same time we cannot ignore the true spirit and object with which the Act was enacted. To create barrier free environment for persons with disability and to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream apart from the protection of rights, provision of medical care, educa­tion, training, employment and rehabilitation are some of the prime objectives of the Act. In this context the question that arises for consideration is whether atleast persons suffering from locomotor disability to a particular extent can be granted the facility of concession while travelling by Air which facility is already being given to those suffering from the disability of blindness. When we consider the different types of disabilities mentioned in Section 2(i) of the Act and examine the same in relation to the difficulties one may face by travelling by train to far off places, say from Delhi to Trivandrum, those who are suffering from locomotor disability would stand by a separate class itself because of their imobility and the restriction of the limbs. It may not be difficult for a person with low vision or a person with hearing impairment or mental retardation or a person suffering from leprosy to travel by train even to far off places whereas a person suffering from locomotor disability above certain percentage of the same will find enormous difficulty in travelling by train or bus. We are considering the question of such disabled persons in the context of granting them the facility of concession for travelling by Air. (Para 4)

       Bearing in mind the discomfort and harassment a person suffering from locomotor disability would face while travel­ling by train particularly to far of places we are inclined to issue direction to the Indian Airlines to grant them the same concession which the Airlines is giving to those suffering from blindness. But each and every person suffering from such disability would not be entitled to get the concession in question as it would depend upon the degree of disability. We think it appropriate to direct that those suffering from the aforesaid locomotor disability to the extent of 80% and above would be entitled to the concession from the Indian Airlines for travelling by Air within the country at the same rate as has been given to those suffering from blindness on their furnishing the neces­sary certificate from the Chief District Medical Officer to the effect that the person concerned is suffering the disability to the extent of 80%. Such District Medical Officer wherein the disabled ordinarily reside will constitute a Board with Specialist in Orthopaedic and one other Specialist whom he thinks suitable for the purpose and examine the person and would grant necessary certificate for that purpose. We are quite conscious of the financial position of the Indian Airlines but yet we are issuing the aforesaid direction keeping in view the broad objectives of the Act, as already narrated, and keeping in view the fact that concession is already being granted by the Airlines to the persons suffering from blindness. (Para 4)

       

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-Shri Javed Abidi has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Union of India to implement the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, alleging inter alia that though the Act is intended to grant opportunities to the people with disabilities for their full participation and the Act has come into operation with effect from 7.2.1996 but no effective steps are being taken for im­plementation of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner himself is an Orthopaedically impaired person and has incurred the disability within the meaning of Section 2(i)(v) of the Act. He appeared in person in this Court and successfully presented his case indicating several infirmities as well as callousness of the different organisations of the State in Imple­menting the provisions of the Act. In the Writ Petition the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Direct the Indian Airlines to immediately provide for aisle chairs in every aircraft;

(b) Direct the Indian Airlines to provide ambulift on all the Airports of the country;

(c) Direct the Indian Airlines to provide 50% concession to all the disabled persons as defined in Section 2(I) of the Act because to provide this concession only to visually impaired persons in discrimi­natory and directly violative of the fundamental rights of the other disabled, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

  (d) Direct the Central Government to appoint only disabled persons defined under Section 2(I) of the Act as per the provisions of Section 3(2)(I) and not to include any other person who is not a disabled person under the Act;

(e) Direct the Union of India to immediately appoint the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners as per Section 57 of the Act;

(f) Direct the Central Government to immediately constitute the Central Executive Committee as defined under Section 9 of the Act;

(g) Direct all the State of the country to form their own State Coordination Committee as defined under Section 13 of the Act;

(h) Direct all the State Government to immediately constitute their respective State Executive Committee for the implementation of the Act;

(i) Direct the State Government to appoint a Commissioner for their States for proper implementation of the Act in the States of the Country;”

As one of the grievance of the petitioner was that the Central Government has not constituted the Central Co-ordination Committee under Section 3 of the Act and States also have not constituted the State Co-ordination Committees as required under Section 13 of the Act, this Court issued notice to all the State Governments and the Union Territories by order dated 20th October, 1997 to get responses from them. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice the Union of India through its Secretary in the Ministry of Welfare Department filed an affidavit on 30th September, 1997, indicating the steps taken by the Union Government for implementation of the provisions of the Act including the Constitution of the Central Committee under Section 3 thereof. Different States also filed their respective affidavits indicating the constitution of the State co-ordination Committees under Section 13. In view of the constitution of the Central Co-ordination Committee as well as the State Co-ordination Committees in most of the States we do not think any further direction is necessary in that regard, but, we hope and trust that the respective Committees will discharge their obligation under the Act so as to achieve the objectives for which the Act has been enacted. It may be borne in mind that the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region held a meeting at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 and adopted the Proclamati













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top