Delhi High Court Closes Long-Running Suo Motu PIL on Railway Accessibility; Expands Rail Concessions for Persons with Visual Impairments

Court: Delhi High Court
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.

Read the Final judgement 

Madras HC | PIL titled Rajiv Rajan Vs. The MTC(C)L & Ors on implementation of PWD Act 1995

Bench:  M.M.SUNDRESH, J. and R.HEMALATHA,J.

Case No. WP No. 38224 of 2005

Case Title: Rajiv Rajan  Vs Chairman and Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corpn (Chennai) Ltd. and 3 others.

Sub: PIL for Accessible and Disabled friendly  Public Infratructure, Railways Stations, Buses, Bus Shelters, Publlic Toilets, Metro Rail etc.  

-----------------

Rajiv Rajan                                                         .. Petitioner 

vs 

1.The Chairman and Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., An Undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 

2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003 

3.The State Co-ordination Committee, Rep. By Chairperson Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 

4.The Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, 15/1, Model School Road Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006                                                 .. Respondents

Brief:

This Writ petition was filed by our colleague Mr. Rajiv Rajan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents more particularly respondents 1 and 2 to implement “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” in its spirit by providing user friendly transport, access and barrier free environment in the public places giving access to the usage of transport system.

The court passed comprehensive order on 02.03.2006 and thereafter the matter has been kept live for follow ups. 

On 10-9-2014, the bench of  Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, The Chief Justice and Mr. Justie M. Sathyanarayanan disposed off the matter in terms of order already passed on 2.3.2006. However, the bench directed the Governemnt to file compliance report every month setting out what action they have taken under Sections 44 to 46 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, separately in that 3 month to comply with the directions. The matter was thus to be listed every month for compliance.

On 06.04 2016 the Learned Amicus suggested that for the time being, the issue which we are required to address is the lack of improvement by Metro Transport Corporation (MTC) and State Express Transport Corporation (SETC) in introducing buses which are disabled friendly. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the MTC and SETC submited that though initially there was some restraint in respect of procuring buses, it had been observed that there may be some buses procured dedicated for the use of persons with special needs, but the passengers found travelling in such buses were few. 

The bench however was of the view that any steps to be taken for the benefit of the persons with special needs has to be inclusive in character. The idea cannot be to have separate buses, but buses which are used daily by passengers meeting the requirement of Persons with special needs. It is not possible to predetermine the route to be travelled, the destination to be reached etc., by introducing buses only for certain routes which are disabled friendly. The objective has to be, over a period of time, to make sure all the buses in use meet the requirement of people with special needs. This can only happen if procurement of such buses which are meant to cater to the people with special needs, as otherwise what has happened would continue to happen – introducing of new buses in the fleets which still do not meet the requirement of the people with special needs. 

The court thus directed that any new buses to be introduced in the fleets must meet the requirement of the people with special needs and as per the norms in consultation with the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. In determining whether a bus is disabled friendly, inter alia, it has to be ensured that there is easy access for boarding and alighting.

On 28.06.2016, The court expressed, "the necessity of new buses meeting the requirement of persons with special needs as per norm and consultation with the Commission for Persons with Disabilities cannot be doubted. However, what is sought to be projected is that in some of the routes, a bus shelter may not be conducive to the ingress and egress for such buses. If that be the position, the first respondent, can always address the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Chennai/2nd respondent which would be mandated to make the necessary adjustments. It has also been stated that a policy decision would have to be taken by the Government, as the first respondent has no funds even to buy buses. In this behalf, all that we can say is that at some stage, the State Government would have to take a call as to how the first respondent is to be managed financially, if it wants the Corporation to continue. There can be buses already on the way out as per norms and we are conscious of the fact that it may be difficult to convert the existing buses and therefore our direction is for buses procured in future to comply with the requirements, so that over a period of time, all buses will become compliant.

on 05.07.2022, the bench directed that a copy of the compliance reports filed in W.P.No. 923 of 2007 shall be kept in this writ petition for reference. And on next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.2022, the Bench of Chief Justice and Justice N. Mala, ordered the matter to be closed based on compliance reports being filed by the Govt.