Supreme Court mandates accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 1087 (15 December 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 1087

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can public spaces and transportation be truly accessible for everyone, including those with disabilities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a visually disabled person, seeking to ensure that public infrastructure meets the needs of differently-abled individuals. This case highlights the fundamental rights of disabled persons to have safe and convenient access to public places, roads, and transport facilities.

Case Background

The petitioner, a visually disabled individual working in Delhi, filed this PIL on behalf of all disabled persons, particularly those with visual impairments. The petition highlighted the lack of adequate accessibility in public spaces, roads, and transport facilities, which severely limits the mobility and independence of disabled individuals. The petitioner emphasized that a safe and accessible environment is crucial for disabled persons to move around independently and without undue hardship. The petition outlined specific measures needed to improve accessibility for visually impaired persons, including auditory signals at traffic lights, tactile paving, and accessible public transportation.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several international and national legal instruments to emphasize the rights of disabled persons. These included:

• ✓ International Declarations: The United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971) and the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975) which emphasize equal rights and opportunities for disabled persons.
• ✓ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Which includes provisions for the right to work, adequate living standards, and participation in cultural life.
• ✓ The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: This Act aimed to create a barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities, with specific guidelines for accessible infrastructure.
• ✓ The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: This Act repealed the 1995 Act and reinforces the commitment to providing a barrier-free environment, with specific provisions for accessibility in buildings, transportation, and information systems.
• ✓ Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
• ✓ Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life with dignity, which the court interpreted to include the right to accessibility.
• ✓ Article 41 of the Constitution: A Directive Principle that imposes a duty on the State to make effective provisions for public assistance to disabled persons.

The Court also highlighted the importance of the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, which make it a constitutional obligation for the State to safeguard the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that despite the existence of laws and guidelines, the implementation of accessibility measures for disabled persons was slow and inadequate. The petitioner highlighted specific issues with the lack of auditory signals at traffic lights, inaccessible public transport, and the absence of tactile paving. The petitioner also pointed out that the authorities had not adhered to the Harmonized Guidelines for barrier-free built environments.

The Union of India, while acknowledging the need for better accessibility, presented the measures taken by the government, including the issuance of guidelines and the allocation of funds. However, the petitioner countered that these measures were insufficient, with many deadlines missed and the actual implementation lagging significantly behind the targets.

The petitioner submitted that:

• ✓ The State governments should be directed to submit cost estimates for retrofitting buildings.
• ✓ The Union of India should disburse funds for retrofitting.
• ✓ The retrofitting should be completed by December 2017.
• ✓ Accessibility audits should be conducted after retrofitting.
• ✓ Chief Secretaries of States should be held responsible for implementation.

The Union of India submitted that:

• ✓ It may not be practical to direct states to submit cost estimates within one month.
• ✓ Disbursal of funds depends on availability.
• ✓ Retrofitting completion by December 2017 may not be feasible.
• ✓ States should be given three months to submit lists of buildings.
• ✓ CPWD is the nodal department for GPOA buildings.
• ✓ Ministry of Civil Aviation has been requested to carry out retrofitting.
• ✓ Ministry of Road Transport & Highways to take a view on phasing out.
• ✓ DEPwD has issued a work order for making state government websites accessible.
• ✓ Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) has trained sign language interpreters.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but rather addressed the broad concern of ensuring accessibility for disabled persons in public spaces, roads, and transport facilities, based on the submissions of the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors. [(1981) 1 SCC 608]*: The Court used this case to underscore the expansive interpretation of the right to life, which includes the right to live with dignity.
• ✓ State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Umed Ram Sharma & Ors. [(1986) 2 SCC 68]*: This case was cited to support the inclusion of accessibility as a part of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing the importance of access to roads for hilly areas.
• ✓ Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2016) 7 SCC 761]*: The Court relied on this judgment to reinforce that the rights of disabled persons are rooted in human dignity, which is a core value of the right to life and liberty.
• ✓ Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 282]*: This case was used to highlight that courts should interpret laws in a manner that advances the directive principles, such as Article 41, which mandates public assistance to disabled persons.
• ✓ Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Anr. [(2014) 14 SCC 383]* and Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Anr. [2017 (5) SCALE 288]*: These cases were mentioned to show the ongoing monitoring of accessibility issues by the court and to emphasize the need for compliance with previous directions and the new provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the constitutional and statutory rights of disabled persons to live with dignity and have equal access to public infrastructure. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions in the Disabilities Act, 2016, and the need for the government to take concrete steps to ensure compliance. The Court’s reasoning was also driven by the need to address the long-standing issues of inadequate implementation and missed deadlines, which have continued to marginalize disabled persons.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides several practical implications:

• ✓ All government and private entities must adhere to the accessibility standards outlined in the Disabilities Act, 2016.
• ✓ Specific deadlines have been set for various accessibility measures, including retrofitting of buildings, making public transport disabled-friendly, and ensuring accessible websites.
• ✓ The government is required to conduct accessibility audits and upload them on websites.
• ✓ The judiciary will actively monitor the implementation of these measures.
• ✓ The States and Union Territories are mandated to form advisory boards to oversee the implementation of the Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• ✓ Government Buildings: All government buildings providing services to the public must be fully accessible by June 2019.
• ✓ State Capitals: Remaining States to identify buildings by February 28, 2018, with retrofitting completed by December 2018.
• ✓ Important Cities: States to identify cities and complete audits by February 28, 2018, with retrofitting by December 2019.
• ✓ Central Government Buildings: Retrofitting to be completed by August 2018.
• ✓ Airports: Civil Aviation Ministry to follow the IIT Roorkee template and complete audits by June 2018.
• ✓ Railways: Competent authority to assess and report on timelines for providing facilities within three months.
• ✓ Public Transport: Government to lay down a plan with timelines for making public transport disabled-friendly within three months.
• ✓ ICT Ecosystem: Union of India to conduct a study and report on compliance timelines within three months.
• ✓ Sign Language Interpreters: Government to file an affidavit within three months stating the time period for training.
• ✓ Advisory Boards: All States and Union Territories to constitute advisory boards within three months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that accessibility for disabled persons is a fundamental right, stemming from the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016, and requires active implementation by both the Central and State Governments. The court has also set specific timelines for compliance, thereby ensuring that the rights of disabled persons are not merely theoretical but are translated into practical action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring that disabled persons have equal access to public spaces and transport. By setting clear deadlines and mandating specific actions, the Court has underscored the importance of accessibility as a fundamental right. This ruling serves as a reminder that the rights of disabled persons are not to be overlooked and that concrete steps must be taken to ensure their full participation in society.