CASE NAME: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
CASE NO.: Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005
DATED: November 08, 2024.
QUORUM: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Rajive Raturi, a blind man, initiated the case by filing a writ petition in 2005. He sought directives from the Supreme Court of India to make public spaces disabled-friendly, which could be roads, transport, etc., and all such amenities. The relevant legislation when the present petition was filed was the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which has now been replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act, 2016). An outcome of the petition was the judgment from the Supreme Court on December 15, 2017, wherein this Court, speaking through Justice AK Sikri, directed all States, Union Territories, and the Union Government to implement eleven directives aimed at making public infrastructure more accessible. However, the compliance was slow, which prompted the Supreme Court to engage the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) at NALSAR University to assess the compliance and suggest further actions. The CDS thoroughly investigated the issue and submitted a report revealing a lack of continuing accessibility challenges in the core areas of transportation, educational institutions, public buildings, and digital platforms, though the situation is quite challenging.
With all these efforts at trying to surmount the problems, progress has been inconsistent.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the accessibility standards mandated under the RPWD Act are being fully implemented.
- Whether Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules is legally enforceable as a mandatory standard.
- Whether there is adequate accountability and enforcement to ensure accessibility compliance.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The case revolves around several key provisions in the RPWD Act, 2016:
-
- Section 40 : Under the provision of section 40 of RPwD Act 2016, the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Commissioner formulate rules for persons with disabilities laying down the standards of accessibility for the physical environment, transportation, information and communication, including appropriate technologies and systems and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.
- Section 44: Mandatory observance of accessibility norms.
- Section 45: Time limit for making existing infrastructure and premises accessible and action for that purpose; all existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years from the date of notification of certain rules.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELANT
The petitioner submits that although Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules is couched in the form of a guideline, it is to be interpreted as legal standards. The appeal submitted that public buildings, services and infrastructure should not be allowed to operate or approve unless they complied with the requirements for accessibility. In this regard, the petitioner again emphasized that the non-uniform and non-binding implementation of Rule 15 compromises the principles enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the principles of equality and dignity guaranteed to PWDs.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Union of India accepted that Rule 15 together with Sections 44-46 of the RPWD Act constituted part of a mandatory compliance framework, and filed affidavits asserting what they had done towards enhancing accessibility. However, the Union claimed that putting into place such provisions themselves involved significant coordinating and logistical integration efforts among levels of the government and entailed definite resource costs. While attesting their commitment to the accessibility standards, the Union of India admitted that full implementation continued to be challenging owing to implementation complexities.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court pronounced a verdict making it clear that the accessibility standards provided in Rule 15 and in RPWD Act were deemed binding in law. The Court held that since the RPWD Act was enacted to make accessibility standards something not negotiable but enforceable; the petitioners’ view did stand on the grounds of such judgment. The Court mandated compliance, holding that no new building or infrastructure shall be permitted to receive operational clearance without strictly adhering to accessibility standards. The court adopted the two-pronged scheme of the RPWD Act-that there will be accessible new public construction from the beginning, and that existing infrastructure will be retrofitted over specified periods of time to become accessible. The court ordered an intensive compliance audit across states by fixing timelines for each state’s presentation of its accessibility status reports from all relevant public institutions.
ANALYSIS
The judgment reflects the enlarged definition of accessibility as an unalienable human right. The court recognized the imperative place of the RPWD Act’s standards of accessibility within the constitutional “right to equality” under Articles 14, “right to movement and freedom to live anywhere,” under Article 19, and “right to life and its dignity,” under Article 21. The report of the CDS showed deficiencies in the various sectors, ranging from transport to healthcare and education and employment, demonstrating systemic failure in the implementation of accessibility standards. Incisively, the judgment attended to the inconsistencies in the language of Rule 15-often using the term “guidelines,” while there is constant and true use of “standards.” This proved to be an instance of discretionary interpretation and limited enforceability and practical application in effect. The Court thus clarified that accessibility standards must be held universally enforceable, and left to discretionary power rather than being made to comply with and reinforce penalties.
CONCLUSION
Such a conclusion in the judgment of the Supreme Court makes available the above rights as a judicially enforceable, undeniable right under the Act of RPWD, to which the Act’s standards shall be treated as enforceable and binding in the public and private sectors. It ordered a stiff review into compliance, strengthened timelines for providing accessibility to infrastructure, and penalties for violations. This judgment also acknowledged that the access approach should be holistic and integrated; that is, broader social, economic, and political rights can be realized only when the access of PWDs to public spaces, services, and infrastructure becomes essential.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.
