1. PIL seeking accessibility for visually disabled persons in public places, roads, and transport facilities — Compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Rajive Raturi - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 243 of 2005 & 228 of 2006
Decided On : 15-12-2017
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Sweta, Ms. Romila, Mr. V.N. Ragupati, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta
For the Respondent: Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. Chirag Jain, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Mr. Edward Belho, Mr. K.E. Sema, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Mr. Milind Kumar, Mr. Jogy Scaria, Mr. M. Yogesh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Mr. Raj Bahadur, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. T.V. Talwar, Ms. Narmada, Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Diksha Rai, Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Pranab Prakash, Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. Aditya Raina, Mr. Shreyas Jain, Mr. Kumar Milind, Ms. Ambika Gautam, Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. M.T. George, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. V.K. Verma, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Mr. Anil Grover, Mr. Piyush Hans, Mr. Satish Kapoor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. T. Mahipal, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Mr. Gopal Prasad, Ms. Susmita Lal, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Mr. C.K. Sasi, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mr. B.S. Banthia
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Sweta, Ms. Romila, Mr. V.N. Ragupati, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta
For the Respondent: Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. Chirag Jain, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Mr. Edward Belho, Mr. K.E. Sema, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Mr. Milind Kumar, Mr. Jogy Scaria, Mr. M. Yogesh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Mr. Raj Bahadur, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. T.V. Talwar, Ms. Narmada, Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Diksha Rai, Mr. Gopal Singh, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Pranab Prakash, Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. Aditya Raina, Mr. Shreyas Jain, Mr. Kumar Milind, Ms. Ambika Gautam, Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. M.T. George, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. V.K. Verma, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Mr. Anil Grover, Mr. Piyush Hans, Mr. Satish Kapoor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. T. Mahipal, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Mr. Gopal Prasad, Ms. Susmita Lal, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Mr. C.K. Sasi, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mr. B.S. Banthia
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
People with disabilities should not be viewed only as ill, different from their non-disabled peers, and in need of care.
People with disabilities should not be viewed only as ill, different from their non-disabled peers, and in need of care.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
COMPANIES ACT: S.2
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(c), Art.21, Art.38(2), Art.41
DISABILITIES ACT: S.44, S.45, S.46, S.40, S.41, S.60, S.66
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(c), Art.21, Art.38(2), Art.41
DISABILITIES ACT: S.44, S.45, S.46, S.40, S.41, S.60, S.66
Headnote
(a) Disabled or differently-abled persons – Instantly, visually impaired – Need to change traditional attitude to view them as abnormal, deserving of pity and care – People with disabilities should not be viewed only as ill, different from their non-disabled peers, and in need of care – They have their fundamental rights and are entitled to enjoy them – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Not providing them adequate access to all the facilities on the road as well as convenient access to transport facilities etc. may even be treated as infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)© and Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to accessibility – Right to dignity – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Provision relating to barrier free environment. (Para 5, 10, 11, 12, 16)
(1981) 1 SCC 608; (1986) 2 SCC 68; (2016) 7 SCC 761 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 41 – Imposing a duty on State to make an effective provision for public assistance to disabled persons – Section 45, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 providing for time limits for making infrastructures etc – Section 44 obliges all kinds of establishments to mandatorily observe accessible norms while building any structure. (Para 20)
(1991) 1 SCC 28 – Relied upon
© Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Sections 44 and 45 – Respondents already taking action on ten points action prayed by petitioner – Further directions given to the Union and the States with time frame to achieve desired result. (Para 27, 28)
(2014) 14 SCC 383; 2017 (5) Scale 288 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The petitioner herein, who is a visually disabled person, has filed this petition for proper and adequate access to public places. In particular, this petition seeks providing all accessibility requirements to meet the needs of visually disabled persons in respect of safe access to roads and transport facilities.
Finding of the Court:
Respondents are already taking action but much is required to be done.
Result: Court monitoring to continue.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- international law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks mandatory time-bound accessibility measures — Union of India contends implementation is a work in progress subject to funding and technical feasibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 27 )
3. Accessibility is essential for human dignity and the right to life — The 2016 Act imposes a mandatory statutory duty to ensure barrier-free environments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 20 , 28 )
4. Right to accessibility is a constitutional right under Articles 19 and 21 and a mandatory statutory obligation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 28 )
5. Time-bound directions for building identification, retrofitting, accessibility audits, and constitution of Central and State Advisory Boards under the 2016 Act. (Para 28 )
6. How does the right to accessibility relate to the Constitution of India?
Accessibility is an integral part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 and the right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d), ensuring disabled persons can lead meaningful lives without suffering indignity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the nature of the State's obligation to provide a barrier-free environment under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
The Act mandates the creation of a barrier-free environment in public buildings and transportation systems. Unlike the 1995 Act, the 2016 Act does not make these obligations contingent upon the availability of economic resources. (Para 16 , 20 , 28 )
8. How have international human rights principles influenced Indian disability law?
Principles of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation from international covenants shifted the approach from a medical/charity model to a human rights model, viewing disabled persons as equal members of the community. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
9. What constitutes a public building or transportation system requiring accessibility under the 2016 Act?
Public buildings include government or private buildings accessed by the public, such as hospitals, schools, and railway stations. Transportation systems encompass road, rail, air, and water transport, including street infrastructure. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
The petitioner herein, who is a visually disabled person, is resident of Gurgaon (now ‘Gurugram’) and works in Delhi with a human rights organisation. He has filed this petition in public interest on behalf of the disabled persons (though better expression to describe these persons is ‘differently-abled persons’) for proper and adequate access to public places. In particular, this petition seeks providing all accessibility requirements to meet the needs of visually disabled persons in respect of safe access to roads and transport facilities. It is stated in the petition that there are sixty to seventy million disabled persons in India and almost 50% thereof suffer from visual disability. The fundamental concern of these visually impaired persons is safe accessibility to movements on footpaths and accessibility to roads and transport. It is stated in the petition that internationally acceptable mandatory components of physical accessibility are the following:
a. Safety: the environment must be such where disabled people can move around safely.
b. Independence: the environment must be such where disabled persons can use the facilities independently.
c. Affordability: the barrier free or accessible environment should not come with a premium.
d. Logical layout: the environment must be such where disabled persons are able to navigate without too much physical exertion i.e. not having to move to the length and breadth of the building to access information or make use of the facilities [Based on a paper by Sunita Singh titled ‘Accessibility Issues’ in book called ‘Disability Management in India – Challenges and Commitment’, edited by C.S. Mohapatra and published by the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA).].
2. As per the petitioner, physical accessibility when translated vis-a-vis road and transportation facilities for the benefit of visually disabled persons would imply the following features:
MEASURES IN RESPECT OF ROADS:
a. Installation of auditory signals at every red light so as to aid visually disabled persons to cross the roads safely. This signal emits a series of sounds, which would indicate the opportune time to cross the road.
b. Construct zebra crossings at a slight incline so as to aid in guidance to visually disabled persons and to enable them to navigate along this raised safe passage of zebra crossings. This slightly raised level wo9uld indicate the course of the zebra crossing to visually disabled persons, who would be able to sense the slight level difference with the aid of their walking stick.
c. Insert guiding blocks in zebra crossings so as to aid in guidance to visually disabled persons and to enable them to navigate along with safe passage of zebra crossings.
d. Placing warning blocks along the edges of the pavement or footpath so as to denote a level difference between the road and the pathway and to ensure the continuity of the pathway. Warning blocks refers to a standard cement block, such as is used on pavements and footpaths, consisting of a series of small blisters on them so as to warn visually disabled persons wherever there is a gap in the pavement, a level difference or to indicate the point where the pavement or footpath ends and a road or a zebra crossing starts.
e. Providing for unobstructed footpaths with minimum hindrances in such manner so as to leave obstacle-free walking areas in a straight line on the footpath at either left or right edges of the footpath.
f. Placing guiding blocks on pavements and footpaths so as to aid visually disabled persons in directional guidance. Guiding blocks are constructed on the same lines as warning blocks, the only difference being that while warning blocks consist of blisters made on a block, guiding blocks comprise of lines engraved on a block. These engraved lines on the cement block, which the visually disab
