Madras HC Reinforces Voting Rights and Electoral Accessibility for Disabled Persons in Vaishnavi Jayakumar's petition against ECI

Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Case No.: W.P. No. 34815 of 2025
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.
Date of Order: 30 April 2026

Background

In an important case concerning disability rights and democratic participation, the Madras High Court considered issues relating to accessibility of polling stations, election-related information, and digital electoral systems for persons with disabilities.

The petition was filed by our friend and sector colleague Ms. Vaishnavi Jayakumar seeking systemic reforms to ensure that elections are conducted in a manner consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, and the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.

The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India and other authorities to:

• designate only fully accessible polling stations with all “Assured Minimum Facilities”;
• ensure permanent compliance of polling infrastructure with universal accessibility standards;
• publish complete polling booth data, including geo-coordinates and available accessibility facilities;
• make electoral documents available in accessible formats such as HTML and ePUB; and
• introduce accessible and multi-modal CAPTCHA systems on government websites.

The petition highlighted continuing barriers faced by persons with disabilities during elections despite repeated statutory mandates, judicial pronouncements, and Election Commission guidelines.

A major grievance raised before the Court was the continuing reliance upon temporary arrangements such as makeshift ramps during elections instead of permanent barrier-free infrastructure at polling stations.

The petitioner also pointed out that election-related websites and digital information systems frequently remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities, thereby preventing equal and independent participation in the electoral process.

The matter therefore raised broader constitutional questions concerning accessible democracy and equal political participation for persons with disabilities.

Key Observations of the Court

The Bench recognised accessibility in the electoral process as an essential constitutional and democratic requirement rather than a mere administrative formality.

The Court acknowledged that the RPwD Act imposes a positive obligation upon the Election Commission and State authorities to ensure that polling stations, electoral processes, and election-related information are fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

Importantly, the Court recognised that meaningful exercise of voting rights cannot exist where physical, informational, and digital barriers continue to prevent persons with disabilities from independently exercising their franchise.

The Bench took note of submissions highlighting that many polling stations continue to lack permanent accessibility infrastructure despite repeated judicial and statutory directions.

The Court observed that temporary arrangements introduced only during elections do not satisfy the standards of universal accessibility, dignity, and equal participation recognised under disability rights jurisprudence.

A particularly significant aspect of the proceedings lies in the Court’s recognition that accessibility extends beyond physical infrastructure and includes digital accessibility and accessible dissemination of information.

The Bench acknowledged the importance of ensuring that election-related information published on official websites is made available in formats accessible to persons with visual and other disabilities, including accessible HTML and ePUB formats.

The Court also recognised that inaccessible CAPTCHA systems and inaccessible government websites effectively function as digital barriers excluding persons with disabilities from accessing crucial electoral information and services.

Importantly, the proceedings highlighted the constitutional obligation of public authorities to move beyond symbolic inclusion toward genuine accessibility grounded in universal design principles.

During the hearing, the Election Commission of India informed the Court that directions had already been issued to State authorities to ensure accessibility measures, including permanent ramps and other facilities at polling booths. It was further assured that deficiencies noticed during recent elections would be examined and appropriately addressed.

Accessibility and Democratic Participation

One of the most important aspects emerging from the proceedings is the Court’s recognition that voting rights of persons with disabilities cannot be meaningfully exercised in the absence of accessible infrastructure and accessible information systems.

The case foregrounds the principle that democracy itself becomes exclusionary when public institutions fail to accommodate disabled citizens.

The proceedings therefore reinforce that:

• accessibility is integral to electoral justice;
• political participation forms part of substantive equality; and
• the right to vote necessarily includes the right to independently and dignifiedly access the electoral process.

The matter also reflects the evolving judicial understanding that digital accessibility forms an inseparable component of constitutional accessibility obligations in contemporary governance systems.

Commentary

The proceedings in Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. Election Commission of India & Ors. represent an important development in India’s evolving disability rights jurisprudence relating to political participation and accessible democracy.

Historically, persons with disabilities have faced multiple barriers in exercising their voting rights, including inaccessible polling booths, lack of assistive infrastructure, inaccessible transportation, inaccessible election materials, and digital exclusion.

One of the most transformative aspects of the case lies in its insistence upon permanent accessibility infrastructure instead of temporary election-time arrangements. This distinction is significant because temporary measures often perpetuate dependency, uncertainty, and indignity for disabled voters.

The proceedings also broaden the understanding of accessibility by recognising the central importance of digital accessibility within modern democratic participation.

In contemporary electoral systems, citizens increasingly depend upon online platforms for voter information, polling station details, candidate information, and election procedures. Inaccessible websites and inaccessible CAPTCHA systems therefore operate as structural barriers to democratic participation.

Another important aspect of the case is its emphasis on universal accessibility standards under the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021. By invoking these standards, the petition reinforces that accessibility is a measurable and enforceable legal obligation rather than a discretionary administrative choice.

The matter further contributes to the growing recognition that disability rights are inseparable from democratic rights and citizenship rights.

Importantly, the proceedings reaffirm that inclusion cannot be reduced to token compliance. Accessibility obligations under the RPwD Act require proactive institutional transformation grounded in dignity, autonomy, and equal participation.

At a broader constitutional level, the case reinforces that electoral participation for persons with disabilities must not depend upon charity, assistance, or temporary accommodations, but upon enforceable rights ensuring independent and equal participation within the democratic process.

The proceedings therefore represent a significant step toward strengthening the constitutional vision of an inclusive democracy where accessibility is treated not as an exception, but as an essential prerequisite for equal citizenship and meaningful participation in public life.

Read the Judgement

Court of CCPD Directs Canara Bank to Transfer Visually Impaired Employee to Accessible Branch, Reimburse Withheld Salary, and Conduct Accessibility Audit

Court: Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Case Nos.: CCPD/13498/1024/2022 and CCPD/16130/1022/25
Complainant: Shri Ravinder Jadhav
Respondents: Canara Bank
Date of Order: 23 April 2026

Summary: Accessibility Is Not a Workplace Perk—It Is a Constitutional Requirement

In a significant order reinforcing the rights of employees with disabilities, the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) has directed Canara Bank to transfer a visually impaired employee to an accessible branch, reimburse salary and allowances withheld during the period he was unable to join an inaccessible posting, and undertake a formal accessibility audit of its facilities through auditors empanelled by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

The order, passed by Chief Commissioner Shri S. Govindaraj, reiterates that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are indispensable components of the constitutional guarantee of equality in public employment and cannot be treated as discretionary concessions.

Background: From Systemic Accessibility Concerns to an Individual Employment Dispute

The proceedings arose out of two connected complaints filed by Shri Ravinder Jadhav, a person with 71% benchmark disability employed with Canara Bank. In the first complaint, he raised several issues affecting employees with disabilities, including inaccessible HRMS systems, delays in providing JAWS screen-reading software, irregularities in payment of Special Conveyance Allowance, absence of effective grievance redress mechanisms, and accessibility concerns within the Bank's infrastructure.

During the proceedings, the CCPD repeatedly emphasised the need for accessible digital systems, assistive technology, automated allowance payments, grievance redressal mechanisms and an Equal Opportunity Policy. The Bank informed the Court that it had revised its allowance policy, initiated procurement of JAWS software and designated a Grievance Redressal Officer. However, the matter did not end there.

In 2025, Shri Jadhav approached the CCPD again after being transferred from Canara Bank's Faridabad Sector-9 Branch to the Sanjay Colony Branch. He contended that the new branch was inaccessible and unsafe for a visually impaired employee because access required negotiating a hazardous route involving an open drain and a narrow crossing. He further alleged that when he could not safely report to the branch, his salary and allowances were stopped.

The Bank defended the transfer as a routine administrative rotation after completion of tenure and argued that the branch was accessible and well connected. It also justified withholding salary on the ground that the employee had not reported for duty.

Photographic Evidence Revealed Serious Accessibility Hazards

A critical aspect of the case was the photographic evidence submitted by the complainant.

After examining the photographs, the CCPD recorded that the entrance route to the branch was not merely inconvenient but posed a serious safety risk for a person with visual impairment. The Court noted that the route involved an open drainage canal covered by an uneven and precarious grate, creating a hazardous and inconsistent walking surface. It observed that such conditions could endanger even non-disabled persons and constituted a structural barrier for a visually impaired employee.

The Court consequently concluded that the branch failed to provide a barrier-free environment and that the employee's inability to access the workplace was directly attributable to the inaccessible conditions.

Strong Reliance on Accessibility Jurisprudence

The order is notable for drawing upon recent constitutional developments in accessibility law.

The CCPD referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, where accessibility was recognised as an integral component of the rights to dignity, life and freedom of movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The order also highlighted the Supreme Court's distinction between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, explaining that accessibility addresses systemic barriers while reasonable accommodation addresses individual needs.

The Court further relied upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, where the Supreme Court recognised accessibility and connectivity as essential facets of the right to life.

Importantly, the CCPD also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, which recognised the right to unobstructed and accessible pathways as a fundamental right and mandated compliance with accessibility standards for pedestrian infrastructure.

Equality in Employment Includes Accessible Workplaces

One of the most significant observations in the order concerns the relationship between accessibility and equal opportunity in employment.

The CCPD observed that Article 16(1) guarantees equal opportunity in public employment and that this guarantee must be meaningful for persons with disabilities. The Court emphasised that accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not ancillary benefits but structural prerequisites for equality. Where an employer fails to remove barriers, the opportunity offered to an employee with disability becomes illusory rather than real.

The order makes an important conceptual shift by recognising that a workplace cannot be viewed merely as the office premises. Instead, the workplace must be understood as an integrated environment that includes safe and accessible access to the workplace itself.

Salary Cannot Be Withheld When Inaccessibility Prevents Attendance

The CCPD found that withholding salary and allowances from the complainant during the period he was unable to access the branch was punitive and amounted to a denial of livelihood. Since the inability to attend work arose directly from inaccessible conditions, the consequences could not be visited upon the employee.

Accordingly, the Court advised the Bank to:

• Post the complainant to an accessible branch as close to his native place as possible, subject to administrative constraints; and
• Reimburse all salary and allowances withheld during the period he could not access the branch.

Accessibility Audit Ordered

Going beyond the individual grievance, the CCPD recommended that Canara Bank undertake a formal accessibility audit through auditors empanelled by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

The audit is to cover not only the branch premises but also the route used for accessing the workplace. The Bank has been directed to prepare an Action Taken Report and submit compliance within ninety days. The order warns that failure to comply may invite proceedings under Sections 77, 89 and 93 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Why This Order Matters

This order is important because it expands the understanding of workplace accessibility beyond ramps, lifts and office interiors. It recognises that an employee cannot meaningfully exercise the right to work if the path leading to the workplace itself is unsafe or inaccessible.

The CCPD's reasoning aligns closely with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that views accessibility as a fundamental right rather than a welfare measure. It also reinforces a principle that disability rights advocates have long emphasised: equal opportunity in employment requires more than merely appointing persons with disabilities. Employers must ensure that employees can safely reach, enter, navigate and perform their work with dignity and independence.

For banks, public sector undertakings and government establishments across India, the message is clear. Accessibility audits cannot remain limited to buildings. They must extend to digital systems, assistive technologies, administrative policies, grievance mechanisms and the broader ecosystem through which employees with disabilities access their workplace.

The order is another reminder that accessibility is not a matter of charity or convenience. It is a legal obligation flowing directly from the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the evolving jurisprudence of equality and dignity.

While the Bank was a respondent in this case we also find that municipal bodies, ULBs also continue to ignore accessibility compliance on streets, roads and allow encroachments or leave drains open without a raised boundary or protection, they also issue permission to build structures and issue occupancy certificate with no mechanism to ensure accessibility. The accessibility having been declared a fundamental right, its time we also held the municipal agencies accountable for their lethargy and lack of action.

Read the Court order in Shri Ravinder Jadhav V. Canara Bank