Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan and Justice Atul Sreedharan
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5663 of 2026
Case Title: M/s SCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others
Date of Judgment: 26 February 2026
In a progressive ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to accessibility is not limited to public infrastructure, but extends equally to residential complexes involving community living. This judgment strengthens the jurisprudence around disability rights by clearly situating accessibility within the framework of Article 21 (right to life and dignity) and Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that residential buildings with shared amenities—such as lifts, parking, pavements, playgrounds, community centres, and gyms—must be designed and maintained in a manner that ensures unhindered access for persons with disabilities (PwDs).
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute involving a homebuyer with 90% locomotor disability, who had been allotted a designated parking space in a residential project in Ghaziabad. Years later, the builder unilaterally divided the allotted parking space into two, allocating part of it to another buyer.
This alteration significantly affected the complainant’s ability to access the lift conveniently from the parking area, thereby undermining her independence and mobility within the residential complex.
Following a complaint, the authorities conducted a site inspection and found that the modification indeed created barriers. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ruled in favour of the complainant. The builder challenged this decision before the High Court.
Key Findings of the Court
1. Accessibility as a Fundamental Right in Residential Spaces
The Court relied on established precedent, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, to reiterate that accessibility is a fundamental right under Article 21. Importantly, it clarified that:
Accessibility is not confined to public spaces—it extends to “community living” environments, including private residential complexes.
This marks a crucial expansion in the interpretation of accessibility obligations in India.
2. Community Living Must Be Barrier-Free
Recognising the nature of modern urban housing, the Court held that common facilities in residential buildings must be fully accessible, including:
Parking spaces
Lifts
Pathways and pavements
Playgrounds
Community centres
Gymnasiums
Any obstruction or redesign that hampers access to these facilities—especially from critical points like parking to lifts—would amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
3. Builder’s Action Violated Accessibility Rights
The Court found that splitting the originally allotted parking space:
Was done without the consent of the allottee
Resulted in practical barriers to accessing the lift
Could not be justified, especially given the complainant’s high support needs
The Court upheld the findings of the Commissioner and refused to interfere, noting that the proceedings were fair and based on admitted facts and inspection reports.
4. Mandatory Compliance Under the RPwD Act, 2016
Referring to Section 44 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court reiterated that:
No building plan can be approved unless it complies with accessibility standards
No completion certificate can be issued without such compliance
The Court underscored that accessibility must be ensured both at the planning stage and at the completion stage of construction.
Directions Issued by the Court
The High Court issued broader systemic directions to improve accessibility in residential developments:
Development Authorities in Uttar Pradesh must frame and incorporate guidelines ensuring accessibility in housing projects
Building plans for community living must include:
Dedicated accessible parking spaces
Barrier-free access to lifts and other common facilities
The State must ensure strict enforcement of accessibility norms at:
The stage of granting building permission
The stage of issuing completion certificates
Significance of the Judgment
This decision is particularly important for several reasons:
a. Expanding the Scope of Accessibility Law
The ruling firmly establishes that private residential developments are not outside the ambit of accessibility obligations, especially where shared infrastructure is involved.
b. Strengthening Everyday Rights
By focusing on something as routine as parking-to-lift access, the Court highlights how accessibility is central to independent living and dignity, not merely a technical compliance issue.
c. Reinforcing Accountability of Builders and Authorities
The judgment sends a clear message that post-allotment alterations affecting accessibility will not be tolerated, and that authorities must actively ensure compliance.
d. Aligning with International Obligations
The Court’s reasoning aligns with India’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), particularly the principle of accessibility as a precondition for inclusion.
Commentary
This judgment is a welcome and necessary development in Indian disability jurisprudence. It bridges a long-standing gap between legal standards and lived realities, particularly in urban housing.
While accessibility norms often exist on paper, their enforcement in residential contexts has been weak. By recognizing accessibility in community living as a fundamental right, the Court has elevated the issue beyond mere regulatory compliance to a matter of constitutional importance.
Going forward, this ruling can serve as a strong precedent to challenge inaccessible housing designs, retrofitted barriers, and exclusionary urban planning practices across India.
This case is a reminder that accessibility is not an optional add-on—it is integral to equality, dignity, and the right to live independently.