Court Decision
Subject : Disability Rights - Accessibility Law
In a landmark judgment delivered on November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed a writ petition filed in 2005 by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged human rights advocate. The petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). The court had previously issued directives in 2017, but due to inadequate compliance from various states and union territories, it appointed the Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR University of Law to assess the situation and recommend necessary steps.
The petitioner argued that the existing guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act were not being effectively implemented, leading to continued barriers for PWDs in accessing public spaces and services. The Union of India, while acknowledging the need for compliance, contended that the guidelines provided a framework for gradual improvement rather than immediate enforcement.
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions from both parties and the report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. It found that the current accessibility standards were largely recommendatory and lacked the necessary enforceability to ensure compliance. The court emphasized that accessibility is a fundamental right and must be treated as a non-negotiable requirement, rather than an aspirational goal. It highlighted the need for a clear distinction between mandatory rules and guidelines to ensure effective implementation.
The court concluded that Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules, which outlines accessibility standards, was ultra vires the RPWD Act as it failed to provide mandatory compliance mechanisms. The Union Government was directed to delineate mandatory rules within three months, ensuring that accessibility standards are enforced with tangible consequences for non-compliance. This decision is expected to significantly enhance the rights and accessibility of PWDs across India, promoting a more inclusive society.
#DisabilityRights #Accessibility #LegalReform #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.