INTRODUCTION
In response to a writ petition and PIL filed by Rajive Raturi, the Supreme Court has recognized loopholes in the areas of accessibility in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. A judgement was delivered on 8 November, 2024 by the Supreme Court Bench comprising the then Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices J.B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, which marked a significant progress of accessibility rights of disabled persons. The petitions were postponed for compliance reporting until March 7, 2025, according to the ruling.
BACKGROUND
Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged advocate filed a writ petition in 2005 which sought the respondents, Union of India to take measure to ensure increased safety as well as advancement of accessibility rights for disabled persons in roads, transport and other
facilities.
In the 2017 judgement which identified eleven action points pertaining to accessibility of a range of infrastructure, the Union of India, all States and Union Territories were directed to file their compliance report. However, most of them either failed to file or provided inadequate information. So was the case in 2018 as well.
Due to the slow action and compliance adopted by the Union, the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS), NALSAR were called upon to submit reports about the status of accessibility rights and to recommend measures for compliance.
In the 2024 judgement, the Bench addressed the issue of non-compliance of Union and the States in response to the 2017 judgement and also highlighted the fact that they had undermined the importance of changing Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules from being merely guidelines to legally binding standards.
KEY ASPECTS
1. Two-pronged approach: The Court suggests upgrading existing infrastructure and implementing accessibility criteria in the early phases of new projects and infrastructure.
2. Accessibility Requirements: Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, 2017, which was before framed as “guidelines,” was deemed ultra vires by the Court because it lacked enforceability, which was the intention of the RWD Act 16. Within three months, the government must replace these aspirational suggestions with legally obligatory regulations, according to this ruling.
3. Slow progress in Compliance: On the basis of the court order, CDS, NALSAR was appointed to evaluate the implementation status when it was discovered that compliance was deficient despite the passage of almost 3 years.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
Firstly, the Court has identified a conflict between the RPWD Act and Rule 15. While the RPWD Act uses imperative terms like ‘shall’ in the provisions on accessibility implying a mandatory obligation for the government to ensure that buildings, transport and infrastructure
are accessible to disabled persons, Rule 15 uses recommendary language like ‘may’ implying that compliance is optional. Thus, it was ruled that Rule 15 is ultra vires the Act. Secondly, in its two-pronged approach, the Court suggests upgrading existing infrastructure and implementing accessibility criteria in the early phases of new infrastructure and projects.
CONCLUSION
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, the rights of those with disabilities in India have made great progress. This decision sets a solid precedent for future legal actions aimed at defending the equality and dignity of individuals with disabilities, in addition to necessitating structural improvements.
“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 BAVYA PRESSAD
