Back
directs to build disabled-friendly quarters within two years
A two-year deadline that cannot be postponed by budget uncertainty has been imposed by the
on the
. Justice M.G.S. Kamal directed the institute to complete construction of disabled-friendly quarters at its
within two years,
any
"
"
.
The order came in a filed by Prof Dr Kaushik Majumdar, a specially-abled Associate Professor at the institute, who had been living in a single guest-house room and using its attached washroom for all his needs, including cooking.
A promise with a catch
At an earlier hearing on , the institute filed an stating that the proposed construction of disabled-friendly accommodation would be completed within two years. However, paragraph 11 of that carried a : completion was "subject to fund availability."
The petitioner's counsel objected to that as unclear. In response, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the institute told the court that the was placed only as a matter of "." Since the site, plan, estimated cost and timeline had all been finalized, the institute assured the court that construction would be completed within two years irrespective of the fund .
The court accepted that assurance and recorded it in clear terms:
"Thus, it is made clear the regarding availability of fund, the respondent-institute shall complete the proposed construction within two years from today."
The court also permitted the petitioner to use the kitchen adjacent to his present accommodation until the new quarters are ready.
One room, attached bathroom and no kitchen
The petitioner's core grievance concerned basic accessibility. He said he had not been provided disability-friendly accommodation within the campus. Instead, he was residing in a guest house comprising one single room and an attached washroom, which he was using for all purposes, including cooking.
That grievance formed part of a wider filed under , seeking: - appropriate infrastructural facilities, accommodation and transportation for persons with physical disabilities; - a permanent committee at each ISI centre to address issues faced by disabled persons; - recruitment and promotion policies consistent with the ; - reservation for candidates with disabilities in recruitment and promotions; - a review committee to evaluate ISI's functioning; - reconstitution of the of the ; and - resolution of a headship issue in the .
What remained and how it was resolved
At the final hearing on , the petitioner's counsel stated that concerning the advisory committee and the headship issue were not pressed.
The demand for a permanent committee was met by an existing body called the 'Rights of Persons with Disability' committee, of which the petitioner himself is the chairman.
On recruitment and promotion, the respondents referred to office orders showing that the petitioner had received periodic promotions and increments from the date of his appointment. They submitted that a policy under the 1995 Act was already in place.
The court found no reason to examine those contentions further:
"There is no dispute to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any reason to delve into the merits or otherwise of the contentions urged with regard to aforesaid aspects of the matter."
At the same time, the court preserved a safety net for the petitioner:
"However, should there be any breach of any rights of the petitioner, in not adhering to the policies referred to above, he is always at , seeking reddressal of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law."
What this means
The judgment turns an institutional assurance into an . It also makes clear that lack of funds cannot indefinitely postpone an institution's obligation to provide accessible living and working spaces for persons with disabilities.
By disposing of the petition while retaining the petitioner's liberty to return to court, the has kept the door open for future enforcement if the institute fails to adhere to the policies and commitments recorded during the proceedings.
