1. Writ petition seeking meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities — compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and Accessible India Campaign. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1011
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Rajive Raturi – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005 And with Writ Petition (C) No. 228 of 2006
Decided On : 08-11-2024
Important Points
The judgment mandates the delineation of enforceable accessibility rules under the RPWD Act, emphasizing that existing guidelines are insufficient for ensuring compliance and equal access for persons with disabilities.
Subject
Disability Rights - Accessibility Standards
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.19, Art.21
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: R.15, S.2(z)(e), S.44, S.45, S.46, S.89
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Art.13, Art.19
RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: R.15, S.2(z)(e), S.44, S.45, S.46, S.89
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Art.13, Art.19
Headnote
(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Sections 40, 44, 45, and 46 – Accessibility – The Court addressed the slow compliance with accessibility standards for persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need for mandatory rules under the RPWD Act. The existing guidelines were found to be recommendatory rather than enforceable, leading to a directive for the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules within three months. (Paras 49-76)
(B) Accessibility as a Human Right – The judgment reaffirmed that accessibility is integral to the realization of other rights, emphasizing the necessity of proactive measures to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities. (Paras 19-22)
(C) NALSAR Report – The Court acknowledged the findings of the NALSAR-CDS report, which highlighted significant gaps in accessibility across various sectors, including education, employment, and public infrastructure. (Paras 44-48)
(D) Compliance and Enforcement – The Court mandated that compliance with accessibility standards must be enforced, with consequences for non-compliance as prescribed in the RPWD Act. (Paras 76-79)
(B) Accessibility as a Human Right – The judgment reaffirmed that accessibility is integral to the realization of other rights, emphasizing the necessity of proactive measures to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities. (Paras 19-22)
(C) NALSAR Report – The Court acknowledged the findings of the NALSAR-CDS report, which highlighted significant gaps in accessibility across various sectors, including education, employment, and public infrastructure. (Paras 44-48)
(D) Compliance and Enforcement – The Court mandated that compliance with accessibility standards must be enforced, with consequences for non-compliance as prescribed in the RPWD Act. (Paras 76-79)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- human rights
- statutory law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules is ultra vires the RPWD Act for prescribing self-regulatory guidelines instead of mandatory accessibility standards. (Para 49 , 50 )
3. The court found that guidelines under Rule 15 are recommendatory and aspirational, failing to create the non-negotiable floor of accessibility mandated by the RPWD Act. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 )
4. Delegated legislation must be consistent with the parent Act; rules transforming mandatory statutory obligations into discretionary guidelines are ultra vires the enabling statute. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 )
5. Rule 15(1) declared ultra vires — Union Government directed to prescribe mandatory accessibility rules within three months and implement penalties for non-compliance. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 )
6. What is the legal distinction between accessibility and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities?
Accessibility is an ex-ante duty to proactively remove environmental barriers for groups before a request is made. Reasonable accommodation is an ex-nunc duty to make individualized adjustments to meet the unique needs of a specific person in a particular context to ensure equal rights. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 )
7. How does the Social Model of Disability differ from the Medical Model in legal and design terms?
The Medical Model views disability as an individual impairment to be treated or fixed. The Social Model shifts focus to societal barriers—physical, organizational, and attitudinal—arguing that disability is created by these external factors, which must be removed to ensure inclusion. (Para 28 , 29 )
8. When is delegated legislation considered ultra vires in the context of mandatory statutory standards?
Delegated legislation is ultra vires when it contradicts the legislative intent of the parent Act. If an Act mandates non-negotiable rules with penalties for non-compliance, rules that replace these with recommendatory, aspirational, or self-regulatory guidelines fail to perform the statutory function. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 75 )
9. What are the core principles of Universal Design in the context of accessibility law?
Universal Design is the creation of products, environments, and services usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the need for specialized adaptation. It integrates inclusion from the inception stage rather than as a retrofit. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
| A. | Background |
| i. Genesis of the proceedings | |
| ii. Assignment to NALSAR-CDS | |
| B. | Understanding Accessibility |
| i. International Framework on Accessibility | |
| ii. Accessibility as a Human Right | |
| iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence | |
| C. | Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged Approach |
| i. Integrating a Universal and Inclusive Model of Design | |
| ii. A two-pronged approach to accessibility | |
| iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility | |
| D. | NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise |
| E. | Inconsistencies in the Existing Legal Framework |
| i. Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and Rules | |
| ii. Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD Act | |
| F. | Conclusion |
"Disability only becomes a tragedy when society fails to provide the things we need to lead our lives – job opportunities or barrier-free buildings. It is not a tragedy to me that I'm living in a wheelchair."
- Judith Heumann
1. This judgment arises from a Writ Petition instituted in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities1[“PWDs”]. On 15 December 2017, this Court rendered a judgement containing directions to all the States and Union Territories with eleven action points. In view of the slow progress in complying with the judgement, this Court appointed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law2[“NALSAR-CDS”] to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. We write this judgment in view of the report submitted by NALSAR-CDS to this Court and the submissions filed by the petitioner on the next steps to be taken. Submissions have also been filed by the Union of India.
A. Background
i. Genesis of the proceedings
2. The Petitioner, Rajive Raturi, is a visually challenged person who works with a human rights organisation. He instituted a Writ Petition before this Court in 2005 seeking directions to the respondents to take certain measures towards ensuring safety and accessibility in public spaces, such as roads, public transport and other facilities for visually challenged persons. At the time of filing the petition, the legislation governing the rights of persons with disabilities was the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The current framework is governed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.3[“RPWD Act”]
3. By a judgment dated 15th December 2017,4[“2017 Judgement”] this Court, speaking through Justice AK Sikri, identified eleven action points pursuant to the RPWD Act and the Accessible India Campaign for compliance. These action points pertained to the accessibility of a range of infrastructure, including government buildings, railways, airports, ICT ecosystem and transport carriers. The Union of India, all States and Union Territories were directed to file their compliance affidavits, and the case was re-listed after three months. Most of the States and Union Territories did not provide the required information and failed to file their compliance affidavits within the period of three months.
4. This Court issued several orders directing the States and Union Territories to provide the requisite information with details of the status of completion and compliance reports. On 25 July 2018, this Court noted that while the Union of India had filed its affidavit, the response was not in accord with the directions in the 2017 judgement and “lacked material particulars”. This Court stipulated a format in which affidavits were to be filed by the Union of India, the States and the Union Territories.
5. On 15 January 2019, when the case was placed before a bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Abdul Nazeer, all the States and Union Territories had filed their affidavits. However, this Court noted that many States and Union Terr
