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

2017 Supreme(SC) 1202

A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
Rajive Raturi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


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

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. Ind





















































































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top