Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 858 (8 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 8 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 858
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J
Can guidelines alone ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, or are mandatory rules necessary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the need for a robust legal framework to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities (PWDs). The Court directed the Union Government to establish mandatory accessibility rules, highlighting the existing inconsistencies in the legal framework. This judgment underscores the importance of accessibility as a fundamental right, ensuring that PWDs can participate fully in society. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case originated from a Writ Petition filed in 2005 by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person working with a human rights organization. The petitioner sought directions to ensure safety and accessibility in public spaces for visually challenged individuals. At the time, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 governed the rights of persons with disabilities. The current legal framework is under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

On 15 December 2017, the Supreme Court issued a judgment outlining eleven action points for compliance with the RPWD Act and the Accessible India Campaign. These action points covered various aspects of accessibility, including government buildings, railways, airports, and transport carriers. The Union of India, all States, and Union Territories were directed to file compliance affidavits within three months. However, most States and Union Territories failed to provide the required information within the stipulated time.

The Court issued multiple orders directing the States and Union Territories to provide the necessary information and compliance reports. On 25 July 2018, the Court noted that the Union of India’s affidavit lacked material particulars and stipulated a format for future filings. On 15 January 2019, the Court observed that many States and Union Territories had not filed their affidavits in the correct format or provided incomplete information. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this indifferent attitude, emphasizing that the RPWD Act grants persons with disabilities the right to necessary facilities.

The Court granted a final opportunity for compliance, directing Chief Secretaries of non-compliant States and Union Territories and the Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to be personally present at the next hearing if they failed to comply. Additionally, the Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking facilities for visually handicapped lawyers in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, directing responses from all High Courts and the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

On 29 November 2023, the Supreme Court, noting the poor progress in implementing the RPWD Act, directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law (NALSAR-CDS) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the situation. The NALSAR-CDS was tasked with submitting a report on the steps required to make all State and Central Government buildings, airports, railway stations, public transport carriers, government websites, public documents, and the ICT ecosystem fully accessible to PWDs. The report was to be completed within six months, with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities providing logistical assistance.

On 12 January 2024, the Court noted NALSAR-CDS’s acceptance of the assignment, directing that expenses be borne by the Union Ministry of Justice and Empowerment. The head of NALSAR-CDS was granted the liberty to chalk out the modalities for implementing the work, including engaging requisite experts and field workers.

The NALSAR-CDS submitted its report, titled “Finding Sizes for All: A Report on the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India,” documenting accessibility barriers across various spheres based on surveys, expert interviews, and first-person accounts.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following key legal provisions:

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act): This Act aims to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• Section 2(b) of the RPWD Act: Defines “appropriate government”.
• Section 2(ze) of the RPWD Act: Defines “universal design” as the design of products, environments, programs, and services to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design, and shall apply to assistive devices including advanced technologies for particular groups of persons with disabilities.
• Section 39 of the RPWD Act: Imposes an obligation on the appropriate government to conduct awareness campaigns and sensitization programs in relation to the protection of the rights of PWDs.
• Section 40 of the RPWD Act: Mandates the Central Government to 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 41 of the RPWD Act: Deals with access to transport, mandating the appropriate government to provide facilities for PWDs at bus stops, railway stations, and airports, conforming to accessibility standards.
• Section 42 of the RPWD Act: Pertains to information and communication technology, mandating the appropriate government to ensure that all content in audio, print, and electronic media is in accessible format.
• Section 43 of the RPWD Act: Stipulates that the appropriate government shall take measures to promote the development, production, and distribution of universally designed consumer products and accessories for general use of PWDs.
• Section 44 of the RPWD Act: Stipulates that no establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules formulated by the Central Government under Section 40, and no establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules formulated by the Central Government.
• Section 45 of the RPWD Act: Deals with the retrofitting of existing public buildings to comply with accessibility rules within a prescribed time period.
• Section 46 of the RPWD Act: Pertains to the time limit for compliance with accessibility rules by service providers.
• Section 89 of the RPWD Act: Prescribes punishment for contravention of provisions of the RPWD Act or its allied rules.
• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (RPWD Rules): These rules were issued by the Central Government and came into force on 15 June 2017.
• Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules: Contains the accessibility standards.
• Rule 16 of the RPWD Rules: Mandates a review of accessibility standards.
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): An international human rights treaty that recognizes accessibility as a cross-cutting right.
• Article 9 of the CRPD: Sets out explicit obligations for States Parties to promote accessibility as an essential right.

The Court also highlighted that 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.

Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Counsel, argued that Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules uses the term “shall” and, therefore, all the standards prescribed under the RPWD Rules are mandatory. He sought a declaration from the Court that Rule 15 and the various standards prescribed in the rule are mandatory. According to the petitioner, this would mean that new establishments not complying with the standards under Rule 15 cannot get clearances, and old establishments must be mandatorily retrofitted in accordance with these rules.

The Union of India, represented by Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, conceded that Rule 15, read with Sections 44 to 46 of the RPWD Act, prescribes a mandatory compliance framework. The Union also filed written submissions detailing the steps taken to comply with the standards prescribed in Rule 15 and towards the targets in the Accessible India Campaign.

The NALSAR-CDS report highlighted an inconsistency in the legal framework, stating that while the RPWD Act creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with accessibility rules, the RPWD Rules create a mechanism that only prescribes self-regulatory guidelines. The report contended that Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules is ultra vires the RPWD Act due to the absence of non-negotiable rules and excessive reliance on guidelines.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the accessibility standards prescribed in Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules are mandatory or merely guidelines.
2. Whether Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules is ultra vires the RPWD Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the authorities as follows:

• Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India [2018] 2 SCC 397:* This case was used to emphasize the importance of accessibility in educational institutions.
• State of Himachal Pradesh v Umed Ram Sharma (1986):* This case was used to highlight that the right to life under Article 21 incorporates the right to accessibility.
• Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India 2016 INSC 412, Rajive Raturi v Union of India 2017 INSC 1243, Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India 2021 INSC 916, Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission 2021 INSC 78:* These cases were used to emphasize that the right to dignity and the right to a meaningful life under Article 21 necessitate conditions that enable PWDs to enjoy the same freedoms and choices as others.
• Szilvia Nyusti, Péter Takács and Tamás Fazekas v. Hungary:* This case was used to emphasize that all public services must be accessible in accordance with Article 9 of the CRPD.
• Lárusson v. Iceland:* This case was used to emphasize that accessibility falls within the scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673:* This case was used to emphasize the difference between rules and guidelines.
• Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 558:* This case was used to emphasize the limits of delegated legislation.
• Sections 2(b), 2(ze), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act:* These sections were used to highlight the various provisions of the RPWD Act pertaining to accessibility and mandatory compliance.
• Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules:* The Court analyzed this rule to determine if the standards prescribed are mandatory.
• Rule 16 of the RPWD Rules:* The Court referred to this rule to highlight the requirement for review of accessibility standards.
• Article 9 of the CRPD:* This article was used to highlight the explicit obligations for States Parties to promote accessibility.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of legal and factual considerations. The court emphasized the following points:

• Mandatory Compliance: The court stressed that the RPWD Act intended for mandatory compliance with accessibility standards, as evident from the use of “shall” in Section 40 and the consequences for non-compliance in Sections 44, 45, 46, and 89. The court noted that the Act creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with accessibility rules.
• Inconsistency in Legal Framework: The court found that the RPWD Rules, particularly Rule 15, did not align with the mandatory compliance mechanism envisioned by the RPWD Act. The court observed that the rules have transformed into self-regulation by way of delegated legislation.
• Nature of Guidelines: The court highlighted that the “standards” prescribed in Rule 15 were mostly in the form of guidelines issued by various ministries, which are not mandatory or non-negotiable. The court noted that these guidelines contain discretionary terms and aspirational language, making it difficult to enforce them as mandatory rules.
• Practical Enforceability: The court noted that the guidelines contained in Rule 15 are difficult to enforce as mandatory rules, as they contain different standards for similar accessibility requirements and technical errors.
• Progressive Realization: While the court acknowledged that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization,” it emphasized that this does not mean there should be no baseline of non-negotiable rules. The court held that creating a minimum floor of accessibility cannot be left to the altar of “progressive realization.”
• Delegated Legislation: The court emphasized that delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law. The court found that Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines.

The court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to ensure that the RPWD Act’s intent for mandatory accessibility is effectively implemented. The court found that the current legal framework, particularly Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules, was inadequate to achieve this objective.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the clear legislative intent of the RPWD Act and the practical issues with enforcing the current guidelines as mandatory rules.

The court’s decision was that Rule 15(1) of the RPWD Rules is ultra vires the scheme and legislative intent of the RPWD Act. The Court directed that the Union Government must delineate the mandatory accessibility rules within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Dissenting Opinion

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra concurred.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities in India. By mandating the Union Government to establish mandatory accessibility rules, the Court has addressed the existing inconsistencies in the legal framework and emphasized the importance of accessibility as a fundamental right. This judgment is expected to have a far-reaching impact on the lives of PWDs, ensuring they can participate fully in society.

The Court’s decision highlights the need for a robust legal framework that not only sets standards but also ensures their effective implementation. The emphasis on mandatory rules rather than mere guidelines is crucial for achieving meaningful accessibility. The judgment also underscores the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind the RPWD Act and aligning subordinate legislation with the parent act.

The Court’s decision is a call to action for the Union Government to take immediate steps to formulate and implement mandatory accessibility rules. This will require a comprehensive review of existing guidelines, collaboration with experts and stakeholders, and a commitment to ensuring that accessibility is not merely an aspiration but a reality for all persons with disabilities.