# Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 858
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-11-08
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 243 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajive-raturi-v-union-of-india-ors-37300
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to
public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were
issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however,
in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for Disability
Studies, NALSAR University of Law was appointed to assess the
situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance
with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the
petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.40 - Right
of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 - r.15(1) - r.15(1),
if ultra vires the 2016 Act:
Held: Yes - Guidelines prescribed in Rule 15 are recommendatory
under the garb of mandatory rules - Rule 15(1) is ultra vires the
scheme and legislative intent of the RPWD Act which creates a
mechanism for mandatory compliance - Union Government to
delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within three
months from the date of this Judgment - This exercise may involve
segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines
already prescribed in Rule 15 - Union Government must conduct
this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders - NALSARCDS to be involved in the process - Progressive compliance with
the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress
towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue
unabated - However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules
must be prescribed in Rule 15 - Once these mandatory rules are
prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories are
directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44,
45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
971
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented
in cases of non-compliance with Rule 15 - Various principles of
accessibility to be considered while carrying out the aforesaid
exercise, enumerated - Union Government to meaningfully consider
the recommendations proposed by the petitioner and NALSARCDS with regard to the existing legal framework, while reworking
the content of Rule 15. [Paras 76, 77]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Disability as
a Social Model- United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities - Universal and Inclusive Model
of Design - Goal, stated - Accessibility - Reasonable
Accommodation and Accessibility - Two-Pronged Approach
to accessibility:
Held: State cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying
solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests -
Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs
to exercise other rights meaningfully - Accessibility requires a
two-pronged approach (i) that focuses on ensuring accessibility in
existing institutions/activities and (ii) that focuses on transforming
new infrastructure and future initiatives - Both are essential to
achieving true inclusivity in society - Explained. [Para 34-36]
Accessibility - International Framework - Evolution,
Recognition - Accessibility as a Human Right - International
human rights treaties/conventions - United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - r.9 - International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons
with Disabilities - Principle 2 - Universal Declaration of
Human Rights - International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights - Discussed.
Right to Accessibility - Accessibility Jurisprudence -
Foreign Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Indian Jurisprudence, stated -
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - ss.2(b), 39, 40-46,
89, 100 - Chapter VI - Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2017 - r.15 - Rules for Accessibility - Scheme of the Act -
Inconsistencies between r.15 and the RPWD Act, highlighted.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.40 - Right
of P

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 100,209. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 970 : 2024 INSC 858
Rajive Raturi
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 243 of 2005)
08 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to
public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were
issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however,
in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for Disability
Studies, NALSAR University of Law was appointed to assess the
situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance
with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the
petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS.
Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.40 - Right
of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 - r.15(1) - r.15(1),
if ultra vires the 2016 Act:
Held: Yes - Guidelines prescribed in Rule 15 are recommendatory
under the garb of mandatory rules - Rule 15(1) is ultra vires the
scheme and legislative intent of the RPWD Act which creates a
mechanism for mandatory compliance - Union Government to
delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within three
months from the date of this Judgment - This exercise may involve
segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines
already prescribed in Rule 15 - Union Government must conduct
this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders - NALSARCDS to be involved in the process - Progressive compliance with
the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress
towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue
unabated - However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules
must be prescribed in Rule 15 - Once these mandatory rules are
prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories are
directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44,
45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
971
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented
in cases of non-compliance with Rule 15 - Various principles of
accessibility to be considered while carrying out the aforesaid
exercise, enumerated - Union Government to meaningfully consider
the recommendations proposed by the petitioner and NALSARCDS with regard to the existing legal framework, while reworking
the content of Rule 15. [Paras 76, 77]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Disability as
a Social Model- United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities - Universal and Inclusive Model
of Design - Goal, stated - Accessibility - Reasonable
Accommodation and Accessibility - Two-Pronged Approach
to accessibility:
Held: State cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying
solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests -
Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs
to exercise other rights meaningfully - Accessibility requires a
two-pronged approach (i) that focuses on ensuring accessibility in
existing institutions/activities and (ii) that focuses on transforming
new infrastructure and future initiatives - Both are essential to
achieving true inclusivity in society - Explained. [Para 34-36]
Accessibility - International Framework - Evolution,
Recognition - Accessibility as a Human Right - International
human rights treaties/conventions - United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - r.9 - International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons
with Disabilities - Principle 2 - Universal Declaration of
Human Rights - International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights - Discussed.
Right to Accessibility - Accessibility Jurisprudence -
Foreign Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Indian Jurisprudence, stated -
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - ss.2(b), 39, 40-46,
89, 100 - Chapter VI - Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2017 - r.15 - Rules for Accessibility - Scheme of the Act -
Inconsistencies between r.15 and the RPWD Act, highlighted.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - s.40 - Right
of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 - r.15 - NALSAR
Report - Methodology in preparing its report, findings
972
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
summarized - Inadequate accessibility measures in various
sectors like Courts, Prisons, Educational institutions, Buildings
and Transport, employment etc., discussed.
Case Law Cited
Disabled Right Group v Union of India [2017] 12 SCR 988 :
(2018) 2 SCC 397; Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India [2016] 4 SCR
638 : 2016 INSC 412; Rajive Raturi v Union of India [2017] 12
SCR 827 : 2017 INSC 1243; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union
of India [2021] 13 SCR 823 : 2021 INSC 916; Vikash Kumar v
Union Public Service Commission [2021] 12 SCR 311 : 2021 INSC
78; Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 10 SCR
536 : (2014) 10 SCC 673; Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
[2024] 7 SCR 1489 : 2024 INSC 558 - referred to.
Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács (represented by Tamás Fazekas,
Hungarian Helsinki Committee) v. Hungary; Molka v. Poland,
application no. 56550/00; Zehnalová and Zehnal v. Czech Republic;
Botta v. Italy; Lárusson v. Iceland, [43] - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Finding Sizes for All: A Report on the Status of the Right to
Accessibility in India; World Health Organization and World
Bank, World Report on Disability (2011); 6 Fréderic Mégrét,
'The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with
Disabilities or Disability Rights?', Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2
(2008) : 507; World Programme of Action (WPA), titled 'Equalization
of Opportunities,' as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution
37/52, adopted on 3 December 1982; UN Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities; Referred
to Francesco Seatzu, 'Article 9 [Accessibility]', in The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and
Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229; International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with
Disabilities (2019). Issued by Special Rapporteur on the rights of
persons with disabilities; Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment No. 14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard
of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000; European
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
973
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as
a human right for persons with disabilities; Michael Oliver, 'If I had a
Hammer', in Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and
Research, ed. Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer (Leeds: The Disability
Press 2004), 18-31; Anna Lawson, 'Reasonable Accommodation
in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Non-Discrimination in Employment: Rising to the Challenges?',
in Disability Law and Policy: An Analysis of the UN Convention,
ed. Charles O'Mahony and Gerard Quinn (Dublin: Clarus Press,
2017), 366; Anna Lawson, 'Reasonable Accommodation and
Accessibility Obligations: Towards a More Unified European
Approach?', European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11 (2011):
11-21; Roma Bhagat and Associates-Accessibility of Courts in
India; Rajesh Deoli - The Court System Accessibility and Echoes
from the Mountains Districts of Uttarakhand; Mission Accessibility -
Addressing the need for Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
along with Access to Justice Checklist; Murali Karnam- Access to
Prisons; ASTHA -Present but Forgotten: CDS Report on Access to
Education of Children with Disabilities in Government Schools in
India; Enable India-Accessibility of Employment and Allied Areas of
Persons with Disabilities; Dr.Suman Kalani, SVKM's Pravin Gandhi
College of Law-A study of Lego/ Framework and its Implementation
About Accessibility of Public Buildings in Mumbai; Abhishek
Annica -Accessibility and sexual rights; Doctors With Disabilities:
Agents of Change (DwDAoC)- Focussed group Discussion Access
to health:Stories from Health Professionals with Disabilities; Vidya
Sagar -1)Accessibility Audit Survey for sports facilities in India 2)
Accessibility of sports facilities in Chennai; Right of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Amendment) Rules, 2023; Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Amendment) Rules, 2024; Disability Rights Alliance -Accessibility
in Elections-2024.
List of Websites
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=
CELEX:52013IE3000
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; Right of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
974
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Disability; Persons with disabilities (PWDs); Access to public spaces
for persons with disabilities;Accessibility; Right to Accessibility;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Inadequate accessibility
measures; Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of
Law; Human rights; Disable people; Reasonable Accommodation;
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities; International Principles and Guidelines on Access to
Justice for Persons with Disabilities; Visually challenged persons;
World Health Organization; World Bank; European Economic
and Social Committee; Accessibility Jurisprudence; International
Jurisprudence; Indian Jurisprudence; European Court of Human
Rights; Inclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights
framework; Inclusion and equality for PWDs; Universal or inclusive
design; Accessibility guidelines; Visual impairments; Hearing and
speech impairments; Locomotor disabilities; Neuro developmental
disorders and learning disabilities; Acid attack survivors; Right
to Health; Guidelines recommendatory; Mandatory rules;
Non-negotiable rules.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of
2005
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 228 of 2006
Appearances for Parties
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Rajanmani, Ali Qambar Zaidi, Satya
Mitra, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Vikramjit Banerjee, K.M. Natraj, A.S.Gs., Shiv Mangal Sharma,
Gaurav Dhama, A.A.Gs., Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen/Sr. Adv.,
Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Nachiketa Joshi, Wasim Quadri, Sr.
Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gopal Prasad, T. Mahipal, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Susmita Lal, M.T. George,
V.K. Verma, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Raj Singh Rana, Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, V.N. Raghupathy, Amrish Kumar,
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
975
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat
Wali, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh,
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Siddharth Sinha, Mrs. Sunita
Sharma, Abhishek Atrey, Nachiketa Joshi, R.R. Rajesh, Wasim
Qadri, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,
Omkar Deshpande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Anil Nag, Shibashish Misra, Milind Kumar, Jatinder Kumar
Bhatia, Sandeep Jindal, Vishwanathan Iyer, Arman Sharma,
Ms. Shimpy Sharma, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Ms. Yeshasvi Srivastava,
Akshat Kumar, Advitiya Awasthi, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Ms.
Pragati Neekhra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sameer Abhyankar,
Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Sarthak Dora, Aryan Srivastava,
Anil Shrivastav, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Vikas Bansal, T.K. Nayak,
Daniel Lyngdoh, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Pooja
Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Amit Kumar, Abhishek Verma, Mrs. B.
Sunita Rao, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Sumeer Sodhi,
Rushab Aggarwal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Sunny Choudhary,
Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, C.K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose,
Gopal Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi,
Jogy Scaria, M. Yogesh Kanna, M/s. Plr Chambers & Co., Sahil
Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam
Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Anando Mukherjee, Akshay Amritanshu,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Swati Mishra, Mrs. Anil
Katiyar, Chirag M. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rajeeva Ranjan
Rajesh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. G. Indira, Gandepan, Sudarshan
Singh Rawat, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Ms. Tharanisre, Kanu Agrawal,
Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Bhuvan Kapoor, Piyush
Beriwal, Shashwat Parihar, Harish Pandey, Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
Krishan Kant Dubey, Apoorv Kurup, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar
Mihir, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Naman Jain, Ramesh
Babu M.R., T.G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Pai Amit,
Mahesh Thakur, Naresh K. Sharma, Shovan Mishra, Kunal Chatterji,
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay
Siddhanta, Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Govindarajan J., Arjun Garg,
Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Sahil Tagotra, Sujay Jain, Zoheb
Hossain, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh
Anand, Punishk Handa, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ashok Mathur,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Vishakha, Pramod
976
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Dayal, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Arvind Kumar
Tripathi, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Aniket Singh, Ms. Manisha
Ambwani, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Uday B. Dube, Naresh Kumar,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Prashant Shrikant
Kenjale, Ms. Sindoora Vnl, Ms. Thithikash Padmam, Advs. for
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*
A.
Background ........................................................................
3
i.
Genesis of the proceedings .......................................
3
ii.
Assignment to NALSAR-CDS ....................................
6
B.
Understanding Accessibility ...........................................
8
i.
International Framework on Accessibility ................
9
ii.
Accessibility as a Human Right ................................. 12
iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence ........................................ 14
C.
Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged
Approach ........................................................................... 16
i.
Integrating a Universal and Inclusive Model of
Design ............................................................................ 17
ii.
A two-pronged approach to accessibility ................. 18
iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility ........ 20
D.
NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise ............... 23
E.
Inconsistencies in the Existing Legal Framework ......... 31
i.
Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and
Rules .............................................................................. 32
ii.
Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD
Act .................................................................................. 42
F.
Conclusion ....................................................................... 48
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
977
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
"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 disabilities.1 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 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
3.
By a judgment dated 15th December 2017,4 this Court, speaking
through Justice AK Sikri, identified eleven action points pursuant to
1
"PWDs"
2
"NALSAR-CDS"
3
"RPWD Act"
4
"2017 Judgement"
978
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 Territories had not filed their
affidavits in the stipulated format or provided incomplete information
about all the targets; and in cases where information was provided,
it was not complete as target dates were not mentioned. The Court
took strong exception to this and opined:
"More than a year has passed since the judgment was
delivered The indifferent attitude of the States and the
Union Territories shows that they are not serious in
complying with the directions contained in the judgment.
It may be recapitulated that the directions which were
given in the judgment dated 25.07.2018 are simply to the
effect that provisions contained in the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the
said Act") by providing necessary facilities to the persons
suffering from different disabilities, should be provided with.
The said Act specifically makes provisions for these
facilities. The said Act also sets down the timelines within
which these are to be provided. It is in the consonance
with the aforesaid provisions that directions were given
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
979
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
in the judgment and order dated 15.12.2017 whereas the
Parliament has passed an enactment which entitles the
persons suffering from different disabilities to get the said
facilities as a matter of right and the States and the Union
Territories cannot shy away from giving these facilities to
such persons."
(Emphasis Supplied)
6.
Accordingly, the States and Union Territories were granted a final
opportunity to submit the complete information in the stipulated
format within three weeks. This Court directed that the Chief
Secretaries of States and Union Territories which do not comply
with these instructions to be personally present on the next date of
hearing. This Court also noted that the Union of India had failed to
submit a proper affidavit and granted an additional three weeks to
comply, failing which the Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disability) was directed to be personally present.
7.
This Court also recorded the prayers in an interlocutory application
seeking certain facilities for visually handicapped lawyers in the High
Courts and this Court. All the High Courts and the Secretary General
of this Court were directed to submit their response to the reliefs
sought in the application before the next date of hearing.
ii.
Assignment to NALSAR-CDS
8.
On 29 November 2023, when the case was placed before this Court,
it was noted that several orders had already been passed regarding
the poor progress made by the Union, States and Union Territories in
implementing the provisions of the RPWD Act. Therefore, this Court
was of the view that a comprehensive exercise was necessary to
assess the situation on the ground. Accordingly, the NALSAR-CDS
was directed to submit a report on the steps required to be taken in
accordance with the guidelines and the Accessible India Campaign to,
inter alia, make all State and Central Government buildings, airports,
railway stations, public transport carriers, all Government websites, all
public documents and the ICT ecosystem fully accessible to PWDs.
It was directed that the report be completed within six months and
the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Union
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment cooperate with the
NALSAR-CDS by providing necessary logistical assistance.
980
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9.
On 12 January 2024, pursuant to an email sent by Professor Amita
Dhanda, Head of the NALSAR-CDS, this Court noted that NALSARCDS had accepted the assignment. It was further directed that
the expenses which are incurred by the NALSAR-CDS shall be
borne by the Union Ministry of Justice and Empowerment, and all
reimbursements shall be made within a fortnight of the submission
of invoices. The head of the NALSAR-CDS was granted liberty to
chalk out the modalities for implementing the work, including engaging
requisite experts and field workers to carry out the exercise in the
States and Union Territories.
10. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the NALSAR-CDS submitted
its report, which is aptly titled "Finding Sizes for All: A Report on
the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India" to this Court. The
NALSAR-CDS conducted surveys, expert interviews and first-person
accounts to prepare its report and document accessibility barriers
across various spheres.
11. Before discussing the NALSAR-CDS report, we will briefly discuss the
underlying theoretical framework that governs the right to accessibility
and gives it meaning.
B.
Understanding Accessibility
12. Accessibility refers to the design of products, services, environments,
and systems to ensure that all individuals, including those with
disabilities, can access, use, and benefit from them fully and
independently. This encompasses physical access, such as entry
to buildings and transport, as well as access to information,
communication, and digital platforms. It is essential for promoting
inclusion and enabling participation in all aspects of public life.
13. The World Report on Disability published by the World Health
Organization and World Bank stresses that inaccessibility within the
built environment, transport systems, and communication channels
severely limits the opportunities for PWDs to live fully in society.5
This inaccessibility leads to exclusion from education, employment,
healthcare, and public services, effectively reinforcing the social and
5
World Health Organization and World Bank, World Report on Disability (2011). See Summary, pp. 10.
The report provides the best available evidence about what works to overcome barriers to health care,
rehabilitation, education, employment, and support services, and to create the environments which will
enable people with disabilities to flourish.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
981
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
economic marginalisation of PWDs. Moreover, the lack of accessibility
exacerbates inequalities, as it limits the ability of PWDs to engage in
community life, and often results in dependence on others, restricting
their autonomy and opportunities for self-determination. This, in turn,
results in broader societal costs, as PWDs are often prevented from
contributing to the workforce and society, thus perpetuating a cycle
of poverty and isolation.
i.
International Framework on Accessibility
14. The evolution of accessibility as a right has been influenced by
progressive international legal standards, which recognise it as
integral to the dignity, equality, and autonomy of PWDs.6 The
recognition of accessibility within the international human rights
context highlights its importance as a prerequisite for the enjoyment
of a range of rights, fostering a shift from charity-based approaches
to rights-based ones.7
15. Accessibility is woven throughout the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 8 as a cross-cutting right,
reinforcing its critical role in achieving social inclusion. It is highlighted
in paragraph (e) of the Preamble, which calls for an environment
that supports full personal development and societal participation.9
Article 3 sets out accessibility as a general principle, which highlights
the necessity of removing both tangible and intangible barriers to
ensure that PWDs can fully exercise their rights.10 These barriers
can be physical, such as inaccessible buildings and transportation
systems, or intangible, such as discriminatory attitudes or inaccessible
digital content.
6
Fréderic Mégrét, 'The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities or Disability
Rights?', Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2008): 507.
7
Accessibility was a key element of the third goal of the World Programme of Action (WPA), titled
'Equalization of Opportunities,' as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 37/52, adopted on 3
December 1982. Another crucial document addressing the principle of accessibility is the UN Standard
Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1993 under Resolution 48/96, passed on 20 December 1993.
8
"CRPD"
9
CRPD, Preamble para. (e) states as follows: 'Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the
physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and
communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental
freedoms'.
10
CRPD, Article 3.
982
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. Article 9 of the CRPD11 is particularly significant as it sets out explicit
obligations for States Parties to promote accessibility as an essential
right.12 Article 9(1) mandates that States take proactive steps to
ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to public spaces,
transportation, information, communication systems, and services.13
This directive encompasses the development, implementation,
and monitoring of standards and guidelines that promote access.
Article 9(2)(a) elaborates on these obligations by detailing the areas
that require targeted action, such as ensuring that the design and
construction of buildings and public facilities adhere to universal
design principles.14 This commitment extends to digital spaces and
information technologies, reflecting the need for inclusive approaches
in an increasingly digital world. Accessibility under this article is meant
to influence both public and private sectors, encouraging a society
where all members can participate without barriers.15
11
Article 9 reads:
(1) To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life,
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal
basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications,
including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services
open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the
identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:
a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing,
medical facilities and workplaces;
b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency
services.
12
Referred to Francesco Seatzu, 'Article 9 [Accessibility]', in The United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and Giuseppe
Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229.
13
CRPD, Article 9(1).
14
CRPD, Article 9(2); States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:
a) To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the
accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;
b) To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public
take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
c) To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;
d) To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy-to-read
and understand forms;
e) To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional
sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;
f) To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure
their access to information; g) To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and
communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
h) To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and
communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems
become accessible at minimum cost.
15
General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 4.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
983
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
17. Article 9 emphasises that accessibility requirements for urban and
rural areas must be all-encompassing, ensuring that measures
address the needs of diverse environments.16 While urban areas
may exhibit more advanced infrastructure due to better resources
and policy implementation, they can still present challenges such
as intricate layouts, insufficiently accessible public transit, and
overcrowded spaces that hinder movement. On the other hand, rural
areas frequently face a scarcity of basic facilities, transport options,
and services, creating substantial barriers for PWDs. Recognising
these disparities, Article 9 requires States to tailor their accessibility
strategies to suit the specific conditions of both urban and rural
regions.
18. International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for
Persons with Disabilities reinforce the critical role of accessibility within
legal systems, embedding it as a non-negotiable aspect of justice.17
Principle 2 emphasizes that justice facilities and related services
must be universally accessible, thus preventing discrimination and
ensuring that all individuals, regardless of disability, can fully engage
in legal processes.18 This includes adapting all modes of transportation
within the justice framework to be accessible, allocating financial
resources for necessary infrastructure changes, and embedding
accessibility in both physical and digital environments. Furthermore,
these guidelines call for procedural accommodations such as the use
of assistive technologies, sign language interpreters, and simplified
formats for legal documentation to remove communication barriers.
ii.
Accessibility as a Human Right
19. The right to accessibility is not a new or separate human right,
but rather an integral part of existing human rights frameworks.
Accessibility is embedded within several international human
rights treaties, reinforcing its foundational role in ensuring equality
and dignity for all individuals, including those with disabilities. For
example, access to the physical environment and public transportation
16
Ibid.
17
International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities (2019). Issued
by Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
18
Ibid, Principle 2. Principle 2 lays down that facilities and services must be universally accessible to
ensure equal access to justice without discrimination of persons with disabilities.
984
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is essential for the realisation of freedom of movement, which is
guaranteed under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights19 and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.20 Similarly, access to information and communication
is crucial for exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
as articulated in Article 19 of the UDHR. These rights are foundational
for enabling PWDs to live independently, participate in society, and
enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others.21
20. The European Economic and Social Committee,22 in its 2014 Opinion
on Accessibility as a Human Right for Persons with Disabilities,
recognized that Article 9 of the CRPD represents a human right in
itself.23 The EESC stated that accessibility is a crucial prerequisite
for ensuring the full enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social,
and cultural rights for PWDs.24
21. The accessibility norm, as articulated in Article 9 of the CRPD,
mandates that all individuals with disabilities have equal access
to facilities, goods, and services, providing them with essential
entitlements to ensure they can fully engage with and contribute to
society.25 This framing situates accessibility as an essential human
right that is indispensable for the realisation of broader social,
economic, and political rights.
22. Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental
requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities,
to exercise their rights fully and equally. Without accessibility,
individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society,
whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation
in cultural and civic activities. Accessibility ensures that persons
with disabilities are not marginalised but are instead able to enjoy
the same opportunities as everyone else, making it an integral part
19
"UDHR"
20
"ICCPR"
21
See also United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14
on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000.
22
"EESC"
23
European Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as a human right for
persons with disabilities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013IE3000
24
Ibid.
25
See CRPD, Article 9.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
985
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
of ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity. By embedding
accessibility as a human right within existing legal frameworks, it
becomes clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the exercise
of other rights.
iii.
Accessibility Jurisprudence
23. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has
consistently highlighted accessibility as a key issue in its dialogues
with State parties reviewing their initial reports. Accessibility has also
been a focal point in jurisprudence. In the case of Szilvia Nyusti,
Péter Takács and Tamás Fazekas v. Hungary,26 the Committee
emphasized that all public services must be accessible in accordance
with Article 9 of the CRPD. The State party was specifically urged to
ensure that blind individuals could access automatic teller machines
(ATMs).
24. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights27 has recognized the
importance of accessibility in its judgments, ruling that public buildings
should be equipped with facilities for PWDs.28 In 2022, EtCHR in
Lárusson v. Iceland recognized that accessibility falls within the
scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
which protects the right to respect for private and family life.29 The
case involved the lack of accessibility to cultural event venues in the
applicant's municipality, which hindered his participation in cultural
and social activities, including attending events with his children.30
The Court acknowledged that accessibility is essential for individuals
with disabilities to live independently and fully participate in society.31
The lack of accessibility affected the applicant's personal development
and ability to form relationships.
25. In Indian jurisprudence, several significant decisions have addressed
accessibility within the built environment. This court in a catena
26
CRPD, Communication No. 1/2010, Views of 16 April 2013, Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács (represented
by Tamás Fazekas, Hungarian Helsinki Committee) v. Hungary.
27
"EtCHR"
28
See Molka v. Poland, application no. 56550/00, decision of 11 April 2006; Zehnalová and Zehnal v.
Czech Republic; Botta v. Italy. The complaint concerned the applicant's inability to access the beach in a
town that was not his hometown.
29
Lárusson v. Iceland, [43].
30
Ibid, [43-46].
31
Ibid, [46].
986
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of decisions has reinforced the principle of accessibility in public
infrastructure. In Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India,32 this Court
directed all educational institutions run or aided by the Government to
comply with their obligation to reserve 5% seats for the disabled and
directed them to report their compliance with the same to authorities
set up under the Act.33 This court also directed the setting up of a
committee to suggest measures on how the physical infrastructure
and methods of pedagogy adopted by educational institutions can
be made accessible to the disabled within the stipulated time frame.
26. Similarly, Justice A K Sikri in the 2017 Judgment grounded the right
to accessibility in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution,
emphasizing that access to public spaces and services is an essential
aspect of the right to life and dignity. This Court observed:
"The vitality of the issue of accessibility vis-à-vis visually
disabled person's right to life can be gauged clearly by the
Supreme Court's judgement in State of Himachal Pradesh
v Umed Ram Sharma (1986) where the right to life under
Article 21 has been held broad enough to incorporate the
right to accessibility."
27. The inclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights framework
ensures that PWDs are entitled to full participation in society under
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.