MP High Court Permits Intervention in PIL Seeking Enhanced Court Accessibility for Vulnerable Groups

Introduction

In a procedural advancement that underscores the judiciary's commitment to inclusivity, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 5, 2026, allowed an especially abled individual to intervene in a public interest litigation (PIL) demanding comprehensive facilities for persons with disabilities, women, senior citizens, and those suffering from chronic diseases in High Court and District Court premises. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, also granted additional time to the State Government and the High Court administration to file their replies. This interim order in Surendra Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP-34380-2025) highlights ongoing efforts to address accessibility barriers that hinder meaningful access to justice, a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Filed by advocate Surendra Verma, the PIL spotlights persistent infrastructural shortcomings post the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially paving the way for systemic reforms in judicial infrastructure across the state.

The case arises amid growing advocacy for disability rights and equitable access to public institutions, integrating concerns from daily litigants who face undue hardships at court entry points and within premises. By permitting intervention, the court not only broadens the petition's scope but also amplifies voices from affected communities, setting a tone for future hearings scheduled on February 10, 2026.

Case Background

The PIL was instituted by Surendra Verma, an advocate practicing in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to enforce directions ensuring adequate infrastructure for vulnerable litigants in judicial forums. Verma, appearing in person, argued that despite constitutional guarantees, courts remain inaccessible to many, violating principles of equality and dignity. The petition traces its roots to the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed and exacerbated existing barriers in public access to justice.

In May 2021, the High Court constituted an Accessibility Committee aimed at mitigating challenges faced by lawyers and litigants with disabilities. However, Verma contended that several issues persist as of 2025. A primary grievance is the restriction to a single entry gate for litigants, operational since March 2025, requiring Aadhaar verification. This gate, located directly on the main road, forces thousands of daily visitors—many from economically weaker sections—to endure long queues without protection from harsh weather conditions like sun or rain. The petition vividly describes how elderly, disabled, or ailing individuals suffer disproportionately in these scenarios, often waiting for hours without seating or medical aid.

Further, the PIL highlights the absence of essential amenities such as feeding rooms and childcare facilities, critical for women litigants balancing familial responsibilities. On June 2, 2025, Verma submitted a letter petition invoking a recent Supreme Court ruling in Maatr Sparsh - an Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India (decided February 19, 2025), which directed public institutions to provide such facilities to uphold women's rights and facilitate access to justice. Despite a follow-up reminder, no action was taken by the administration. The petition also calls for the implementation of the State Government's MP Deen Dayal Antyodaya Rasoi Yojana, an affordable food scheme, by establishing an outlet near the High Court to support low-income litigants who flock to the premises daily.

At its core, the legal dispute revolves around whether current court infrastructure adequately safeguards the fundamental rights of marginalized groups under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty, encompassing access to justice) of the Constitution. The timeline underscores urgency: the PIL was filed in 2025, with the January 2026 hearing marking an early procedural step, building on unresolved post-2021 committee recommendations. This background not only frames the petitioners' demands for ramps, lifts, resting areas, and other aids but also reflects broader national conversations on inclusive judicial spaces under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act).

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's case, presented by Surendra Verma in person, is rooted in factual hardships and legal imperatives for reform. Verma detailed how the single-entry system creates bottlenecks, exacerbating vulnerabilities for disabled persons who struggle with mobility, women needing private spaces for breastfeeding or childcare, and seniors or those with chronic illnesses requiring respite areas. He emphasized that without interventions like shaded queues, ramps, and lifts, these groups are effectively denied equal access to justice, contravening constitutional mandates. The reference to the Maatr Sparsh judgment was pivotal, arguing that courts, as public institutions, must provide feeding and childcare facilities to enable women's participation in legal proceedings. Additionally, Verma highlighted the economic strain on litigants, advocating for a Deen Dayal Antyodaya Rasoi outlet to offer subsidized meals, aligning with state welfare schemes.

The intervenor, Narendra Kumar Mishra, represented by Advocate Shubham Shukla, reinforced these contentions by focusing on disability-specific needs. Mishra, an especially abled person, sought to join the fray to personally advocate for amenities facilitating access to court premises, such as tactile paths, braille signage, and priority entry. His application stressed that personal experiences of exclusion strengthen the PIL's evidentiary base, without prejudicing the original petitioner's claims.

On the respondents' side, the State Government and High Court administration, represented by Advocates Gurdeep Singh Wadhwa and Sandeep Kumar Shukla respectively, offered limited substantive arguments at this stage. They primarily requested additional time to prepare detailed replies, citing the complexity of infrastructural changes and the need to review existing measures like the 2021 Accessibility Committee. The State Legal Service Authority, also involved, echoed this plea, implying logistical challenges in implementing widespread reforms across District Courts. No counter-affidavits were filed, but the prayer for a four-week extension suggested an intent to address the petition's allegations, potentially outlining current compliance with RPWD Act standards or budgetary constraints.

These arguments collectively frame the PIL as a call for proactive judicial oversight, balancing immediate humanitarian needs with administrative feasibility.

Legal Analysis

The High Court's interim order, while procedural, engages core constitutional principles and precedents that illuminate the path forward. At the heart is Article 21's expansive interpretation, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed includes the right to access justice without discrimination. The bench's willingness to allow intervention aligns with PIL jurisprudence, where impleadment of affected parties enhances the court's fact-finding and ensures representative advocacy—principles echoed in cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), which expanded locus standi in public interest matters.

A key precedent cited in the petition is the Supreme Court's ruling in Maatr Sparsh - an Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India (2025). This judgment mandated feeding rooms and childcare facilities in public spaces to protect women's dignity and enable their societal participation, directly relevant here as courts serve as essential public forums. The petition's reliance on this case distinguishes general welfare from judicial-specific needs, arguing that without such amenities, women litigants face indirect barriers to equality under Article 15. Similarly, the RPWD Act, 2016, imposes obligations on public authorities to ensure barrier-free environments, including ramps, elevators, and accessible restrooms—elements Verma seeks to enforce through court directives.

The court's reasoning in permitting intervention without objection from the petitioner underscores a non-adversarial approach, distinguishing it from traditional litigation where parties might resist joinder. This procedural leniency facilitates holistic adjudication, particularly in social justice PILs, by incorporating lived experiences of disabilities. Legally, it invokes Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for impleadment in writs) and emphasizes that delays in replies should not stall momentum, given the daily impact on litigants.

Distinctions are clear: while the 2021 Accessibility Committee addressed immediate COVID-era needs, the PIL targets enduring gaps, such as weather-exposed queues versus internal facilities. The analysis reveals no conflict with security measures like Aadhaar verification but critiques their implementation for lacking inclusivity. Overall, the order signals judicial endorsement of the petition's merits, potentially influencing interpretations of "reasonable access" under constitutional law.

Key Observations

The court's order provides several pivotal excerpts that emphasize procedural fairness and the urgency of accessibility:

• "By this application, one Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra seeks intervention. Learned counsel submits that he is a especially abled person and seeks provision of amenities to facilitate especially abled persons access to court premises." This highlights the intervenor's stake, personalizing the broader PIL.

• "Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, he has no objection to the intervention being allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed." The bench's prompt allowance underscores collaborative adjudication in public interest matters.

• "Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra is impleaded as respondent. Amended memo of party be filed within one week. Necessary amendment be also incorporated in the petition." These directives ensure efficient case progression amid expansions.

• "Learned counsel appearing for the High Court as well as the State pray for some more time to file reply. Let the same be filed within four weeks." This balanced response acknowledges administrative needs while maintaining timeline discipline.

These observations, drawn directly from the January 5, 2026, order, reflect the judiciary's role in fostering inclusive dialogue.

Court's Decision

The division bench unequivocally allowed the intervention application (I.A. No. 21479/2025), impleading Narendra Kumar Mishra as a respondent and directing amendments to the party memo and petition within one week. Concurrently, the court granted the High Court and State a four-week extension to file replies, listing the matter for February 10, 2026. No final substantive directions were issued, as the hearing focused on procedural aspects, but the order implicitly validates the PIL's foundation by facilitating broader input.

Practically, this decision mandates immediate administrative steps, such as updating case documents, signaling momentum toward potential orders for infrastructure upgrades. If replies reveal compliances or plans, it could lead to monitored implementations; otherwise, the court may issue binding directives for ramps, lifts, childcare rooms, and a Rasoi outlet.

The implications are profound: for Madhya Pradesh's judiciary, it could catalyze compliance with RPWD Act standards, reducing dropout rates among vulnerable litigants and enhancing efficiency. Nationally, it may inspire similar PILs in other High Courts, aligning with Supreme Court emphases on accessible justice. For legal professionals, this reinforces advocacy strategies, including interventions to amplify marginalized voices, ultimately fostering a more equitable system. In an era of increasing litigation volumes, such reforms could transform courts from intimidating fortresses into welcoming bastions of rights.

Broader Implications for Legal Practice

Beyond the immediate case, this development spotlights systemic challenges in India's judicial infrastructure. With thousands accessing the Jabalpur High Court daily, unaddressed barriers not only infringe rights but also strain resources through inefficiencies. Legal practitioners, particularly those representing vulnerable clients, may see heightened opportunities for class-action style PILs, drawing on this precedent to demand audits and timelines for reforms. Advocacy groups could leverage it to push for uniform national guidelines, potentially integrating technology like virtual queues or app-based amenities.

Moreover, the order's emphasis on timely replies pressures administrations to prioritize inclusivity budgets, countering post-COVID backlogs. For the bar, it encourages sensitivity training on disability etiquette, ensuring lawyers can better serve diverse clientele. Ultimately, by humanizing access to justice, this PIL could redefine judicial equity, influencing policy from district to apex levels and reinforcing the Constitution's promise of justice for all.

(Word count: 1,478)