Service providers must ensure digital interfaces for transport applications are inherently accessible and compatible with assistive technologies under S. 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, with a continuous regulatory duty on the government to monitor compliance under R. 15(2) of the Rules.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

a) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to direct Respondent No. 1 to

take immediate, effective, and comprehensive steps in effecting the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, ensuring that the rights and accessibility of persons with disabilities are safeguarded. These steps should include, but not be limited to, mandating accessibility audits, providing accessibility training for staff, implementing clear and enforceable accessibility standards, and improving the features of the app as suggested earlier, all within a strict timeframe of 1 month.

b) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to direct Respondent No.1 to immediately conduct a comprehensive accessibility audit of its ride booking mobile app to identify and address all accessibility barriers for individuals with disabilities, especially those with visual impairments and ensure that the issues are promptly rectified within a reasonable timeframe of 6 months.

c) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to direct Respondent No. 1 to collaborate with experts in the field of digital accessibility and provide specialized training to its customer care representatives to effectively address accessibility-related cosncerns and provide timely resolutions to customers with disabilities and ensure comprehensive and holistic end-to-end accessibility of its offering.

d) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one imposing penalty on Respondent No. 1 under Section 89 of the RPWD Act, 2016 for failing to make their app accessible despite repeated attempts by the petitioners to address the same.

e) Directed the Respondent No.2 to put in place a strong legal mandate and operational guidance on all app aggregators, to ensure that their digital offerings and functional processes are disabled friendly.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a corporate lawyer, policymaker and a disability rights activist. He has been blind since birth. Petitioner no. 2 is a banker at the Indian Bank at Siliguri, West Bengal and has total visual impairment. The respondent no. 1 is a mobile application that provides Indian-type taxis and logistic services.

3. The present petition arises out of the grievances relating to the alleged inaccessibility of the mobile application operated by respondent no. 1, particularly for persons with visual impairments.

4. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the application of respondent no. 1 is not fully compatible with assistive technologies such as screen readers and lacks essential accessibility features, thereby making it difficult for visually impaired users to perform core functions such as booking, cancelling, tracking rides, or interacting with various interface elements without assistance. The petition, thus, seeks directions on the strength of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

5. The petitioners have highlighted the difficulties in daily commuting needs, who are essentially relying on Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd. (“hereinafter Rapido”) mobile ride application. According to them, the mobile applicat