Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5666/2017
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 25 November 2024
In a significant judgment advancing accessibility in public transport, the Delhi High Court has closed a seven-year-old suo motu public interest litigation initiated after a visually impaired student was unable to board a reserved railway coach and consequently missed his M.Phil entrance examination at the University of Delhi. While disposing of the matter, the Court recorded important assurances by the Indian Railways regarding accessibility support and expansion of railway concessions for persons with visual impairment.
The judgment marks the culmination of sustained judicial monitoring of accessibility measures in the railway system and builds upon earlier interim directions passed by the Court, including those covered in the earlier blog entry titled: “Delhi HC asks Indian Railways to ensure accessibility for visually impaired passengers.”
Background: Incident That Triggered the Suo Motu Proceedings
The proceedings originated from a news report published in the Times of India on 7 July 2017 titled “Train door shut, disabled misses MPhil test at DU.”
The report narrated the ordeal of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, a person with 100% visual impairment, who was attempting to board the Gorakhdham Express at Unnao railway station to travel to Delhi for his M.Phil entrance examination. However, the coach reserved for persons with disabilities was locked, and occupants inside allegedly refused to open the door despite repeated attempts by his brother and the driver. Since the train halted only briefly and the other reserved coach was located at the far end of the train, Mr. Shukla could not board the train and ultimately missed the examination.
Taking cognizance of this incident, the High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to examine accessibility barriers faced by persons with disabilities within the railway system.
Judicial Monitoring of Railway Accessibility
During the pendency of the PIL, the Court passed several directions concerning accessibility measures at railway stations and in railway services. By the later stages of the proceedings, the principal unresolved issue pertained to the lack of adequate human assistance for persons with visual impairment in navigating railway stations, locating trains and coaches, and accessing support services.
The Court also took note of the fact that wheelchair assistance was often being provided on payment of charges, sometimes exceeding the actual train fare paid by passengers with disabilities. The Bench observed that assistance to persons with disabilities at railway stations ought to be provided free of cost.
Importantly, the Court reiterated the statutory mandate under Section 45 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requiring all railway stations to be made accessible for persons with disabilities.
Court Dissatisfied with Railways’ Affidavit
The judgment records that the Court was initially dissatisfied with the affidavit filed by the Railways on 5 April 2024 regarding compliance and accessibility measures. Consequently, the Chairman of the Railway Board was directed to personally join proceedings through video conferencing.
Thereafter, the Court directed a meeting between the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. S.K. Rungta, and the Chairman, Railway Board, to resolve the remaining issues.
Railways Agrees to Expand Concession Eligibility for Persons with Visual Impairment
One of the most important outcomes of the proceedings was the agreement by Indian Railways to expand eligibility for railway concessions available to persons with blindness and their companions.
The Court recorded the Railways’ statement that concessions were previously restricted only to persons falling under clause 19.1(a)(i) of the Gazette Notification dated 12 March 2024 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, namely persons with “total absence of sight.”
Following discussions with the Amicus Curiae, the Railways agreed to extend the concession to persons covered under clauses 19.1(a)(ii) and 19.1(a)(iii) as well. These categories include:
- Persons with visual acuity less than 3/60 (or less than 10/200) in the better eye even after best correction; and
- Persons with limitation of field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degrees in the better eye.
The Railways acknowledged before the Court that the revised criteria would “eventually cover cases up to 90% visual impairment.”
The Court accepted the assurances contained in the status report and expressly held the Railways bound by those statements. It directed implementation of the decision within two weeks.
Suggestions for Better Accessibility
The judgment also records that the learned Amicus Curiae submitted additional suggestions for improving accessibility for persons with visual impairment within the railway system. The Court directed the Chairman, Railway Board, to consider those suggestions and pass appropriate administrative orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
With these directions, the suo motu PIL was closed.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is important for several reasons. First, it demonstrates how an individual incident of exclusion and inaccessibility can trigger systemic reform through judicial intervention. Second, it reinforces that accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is not confined to physical infrastructure alone but extends to human assistance and support services necessary for independent travel.
Third, the decision to broaden concession eligibility beyond persons with total blindness is a significant recognition of the spectrum of visual disabilities acknowledged under the statutory framework and government notification. The judgment aligns railway concession policy with the legal definitions contained in the disability certification framework under the RPwD Act.
The case also underscores the continuing role played by courts, disability rights advocates, and amicus interventions in pushing public authorities toward meaningful implementation of accessibility obligations rather than merely symbolic compliance.