Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Case Title: Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005
Date of Judgement: 08 Nov 2024
Summary
On November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India & Ors., reshaping the landscape of accessibility rights for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in India.
One of the major difficulties faced in enforcing the accessibility mandate and making accessibility a real right had been that the language in RPWD Rule 15 incorporated no compulsion to comply. Despite this absence, the Union of India kept claiming that the rules were mandatory. The Supreme Court bench called off the bluff and asked the Union of India to create a mandatory floor on accessibility. The bench directed the Union Government to frame mandatory rules as required under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for ensuring that public places and services accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court held that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the parent Act, since it does not provide mandatory guidelines on accessibility.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed this judgment in a PIL filed by Mr Rajive Raturi, a person with visual impairment, in 2005 seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities. In 2017, the Court had passed a slew of directions to the Union and States for making public buildings accessible. In November 2023, while considering the compliance of the direction, the Court had directed the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law, to make a report on steps to be taken to make public buildings and spaces fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
The latest judgment was passed in the light of the report submitted by NALSAR - Centre for Disability Studies, headed by Professor Dr. Amita Dhanda titled “Finding Sizes for All- A Report on the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India” which was prepared by the Centre in collaboration with persons with disabilities, disabled persons organizations and experts on accessibility.
The judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud, after analysing international treaties such as United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities & judgments, culled out the following principles:-
a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and
b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives.
The Court noted that the CDS report opined that while the RPwD Act 2016 creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, whereas the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, create a mechanism which only prescribes self- regulatory guidelines.
Agreeing with this view, the Court observed :
"Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules have transformed into self- regulation by way of delegated legislation. The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of the RPWD Act While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non- negotiable floor. A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act."
The Court therefore directed the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months. "This exercise may involve segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR- CDS is directed to be involved in the process. It is clarified that 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," the Court observed.
Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories were directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented in cases of non- compliance with Rule 15.
The judgement in para 22 highlights the importance of Accessibility as a Human Right in the following words:-
"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 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."
Para 37 of the judgement explains relationship between Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility in following terms:-
"At this stage, it is also crucial to understand the relationship between reasonable accommodation and accessibility, as both are essential for achieving equality for PWDs. While accessibility generally refers to the removal of barriers in the environment or infrastructure to ensure equal access for all, reasonable accommodation is more individualised. It involves making specific adjustments to meet the unique needs of a person with a disability. In other words, accessibility ensures that environments are designed to be inclusive from the outset, while reasonable accommodation ensures that individuals who face specific challenges can enjoy their rights on an equal basis in particular contexts."
The judgement in Para 39 reiterates the duty of state vis-à-vis accessibility as below:-
"It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning that the State is required to implement accessibility measures proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. The State must establish broad, standardised accessibility standards in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring that these standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all relevant stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests".
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. Mandatory Accessibility Standards
The Court found that Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, 2017, previously framed as "guidelines," was ultra vires (beyond legal authority) as it lacked enforceability, which was the intent of the RWD Act 2016. This judgment mandates the government to replace these aspirational guidelines with binding rules within three months. This reading down of Rule 15 from voluntary guidelines to mandatory standards in light of the mandate of the RPWD Act is a major advancement in accessibility rights, aiming to provide PWDs with meaningful access to public spaces and facilities, which is critical for them to exercise other rights.
2. Historical Context and Slow Progress
This ruling traces its roots to an earlier Supreme Court judgment on December 15, 2017, that directed states and union territories to take actions towards accessibility. Despite the passage of several years, compliance was found lacking, prompting the appointment of NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) to assess the implementation status based on a court order. The report by NALSAR-CDS, coupled with submissions from both the petitioner and the Union of India, formed the basis for this historic judgment.
3. Highlighting Legislative Gaps and Need for Uniformity
The judgment underscores discrepancies in accessibility standards across different sectors, such as the Ports and Civil Aviation sectors. Rule 15(1) and its various standards were criticized for presenting conflicting guidelines on fundamental requirements, like accessible toilets, and for the presence of non-enforceable, technical errors. By declaring Rule 15(1) ultra vires to the RPWD Act, the Court has called for a single, enforceable accessibility framework aligned with the Act's legislative intent.
4. Principles for Accessibility and Universal Design.
The Court directed that the following principles of accessibility should be considered while carrying out the above exercise:
a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations or specialized design;
b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis;
c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers, audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure digital and informational accessibility across public and private platforms; and
d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.
5. Government Accountability and Timelines
The Union Government has been directed to frame these mandatory rules within three months, in consultation with NALSAR-CDS and stakeholders. Compliance with the redefined Rule 15 will be monitored under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the RPWD Act, ensuring accountability through penalties and non-issuance of completion certificates for non-compliance.
Moving Forward: A Collective Win for Accessibility Rights
This ruling is not merely a judicial milestone; it reflects the resilience and advocacy of India’s disability rights movement. By transforming accessibility from an aspirational goal into a mandatory legal standard, the Supreme Court has advanced India towards becoming a more inclusive and accessible society. The judgment enshrines accessibility as a prerequisite for realizing the rights and dignity of all citizens, ensuring that everyone can participate fully and equally in public life.
As the government works to implement the Court’s directives, the ongoing role of DPOs, NGOs, and individuals in shaping and monitoring these standards will be crucial. This collective approach will uphold the inclusive spirit of the RPWD Act, reinforcing that accessibility is not just a right but a shared responsibility.
The Writ Petitions have been adjourned to 07 March 2025 on which date, the Union Government must report compliance to this Court.
Read the judgement here:
