Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi case holds the recommendatory nature of Sectoral Accessibility Guidelines under Rule 15 as ultra vires the RPWD Act. Grants 3 months to UOI to make corrections in consultation with stakeholders

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:

Supreme Court of India appoints Committee for Accessibility Audit of Supreme Court Premises on International Day of Persons with Disabilities

05 Dec 2022, New Delhi, India

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D Y Chandrachud has decided for a comprehensive accessibility audit of the Supreme Court premises, with an aim of ensuring accessibility in the justice system and understanding the hardships faced by the specially-abled persons, in their interface with the Supreme Court.

On the International Day of Persons with Disabilities observed on December 3 every year, the CJI has constituted a "Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility" chaired by a sitting judge of the apex court. The initiative by the CJI is in lines with the World Health Organisation's this year theme "Transformative solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling an accessible and equitable world".

Justice S Ravindra Bhat will be in charge of the “Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility,” which has been tasked with carrying out an extensive accessibility audit of the Supreme Court’s facilities extending to both physical as well as technological accessibility. .

The committee’s member secretary will be an officer from the Supreme Court registry.  In addition, the committee consists of:

• A Bengaluru-based professor from NLSIU;
• Supreme Court employee with different abilities;
• A Supreme Court Bar Association-nominated Differently Abled Advocate;
• A person suggested by NALSAR University’s Centre for Disability Studies (Mr. Nilesh Singit)

The audit will cover both technology and physical accessibility. A questionnaire for people with disabilities who visit the Supreme Court premises to determine the nature and scope of their issues has also been assigned to the Committee for preparation and distribution. 

The Committee will also solicit input from advocates, litigants, interns, and other members of the Supreme Court. The Committee will prepare a report that will include the audit and survey results and recommendations for removing access barriers.

Supreme Court of India- Degree of disability no ground to deny reasonable accommodation [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1882 of 2021 

Case Title: Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others.

Date of Judgement: 11 February 2021  

Cited as:  2021 SCC OnLine SC 84

Cases refered/quoted: 

• Jeeja Ghosh vs. Union of India (2016)  7 SCC 761; 
• V Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu;  
• Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 ; 
• Disabled Rights Group and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 397.

Case Brief:

On February 11, 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (Vikash Kumar) held that that an individual with Writer’s Cramp or dysgraphia which is neither an identified disability in the Act nor has been certified as benchmark disability, is entitled to a scribe in India’s Civil Services’ Examination (CSE). 

The judgement is a significant step towards ensuring inclusivity for persons with disabilities as it emphatically affirms their position as rights bearers. It represents a move from a medical model of disability wherein disability is viewed as an affliction to a human rights model in consonance with the mandate of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCPRD).

This judgement proposes reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination as the fulcrum of contemporary disability jurisprudence. The judgement goes on to valorise the social model of disability and rejects the medical model of disability.

Case details:

In a landmark 62-page judgment, the Supreme Court of India has said that the principle of reasonable accommodation, spelt out in the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, captures the positive obligation of the State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. 

The Court further said that “…Cases such as the present offer us an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution in the project of creating the RPwD generation in India… A generation of disabled people in India which regards as its birthright access to the full panoply of constitutional entitlements, robust statutory rights geared to meet their unique needs and conducive societal conditions needed for them to flourish and to truly become co-equal participants in all facets of life.”

The case concerned a person with a chronic neurological condition resulting in Writer’s Cramp, or extreme difficulty in writing. He was denied a scribe for the Civil Services Exam by the UPSC, on the ground that he did not come within the definition of person with benchmark disability (40% or more of a specified disability).  The Court, in rejecting this stand, held that the petitioner was a person with disability and that provision of scribe to him came within the scope of reasonable accommodation.  The Court said ” … the accommodation which the law mandates is ‘reasonable’ because it has to be tailored to the requirements of each condition of disability. The expectations which every disabled person has are unique to the nature of the disability and the character of the impediments which are encountered as its consequence…”

In a detailed analysis of Indian and International disability law, the Court said that disability is a long-term condition which due to barriers in the environment hinders full and effective participation in society. Reasonable accommodation implies looking at the specific disabling condition and providing amenities in accordance. Examples: Blind persons need screen reading software to work on the computer, hearing impaired need sign language interpreters. Reasonable accommodation extends to all persons with disabilities, not just those with benchmark disabilities.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) argued that as per the CSE Rules 2018 a scribe could only be provided to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability and cerebral palsy which resulted in an impairment of function by at least 40%. The Supreme Court observed that the UPSC’s response was contrary to the reply filed by the nodal ministry in India for implementing the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The law had been enacted after India became a party to the UNCRPD in 2007.

The reply of the ministry recognised that there may be certain medical conditions not identified as disability per se but which have a detrimental impact on the writing capability of a person. Therefore, the onus was on the examining body, in consultation with India’s health ministry, to consider such cases for grant of scribe, extra time or other facilities, on production of a medical certificate. 

In this context, the Supreme Court noted that a ‘person with disability’ under the RPwD Act includes individuals with a ‘long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, hinders full and effective participation in society equally with others’. The RPwD separately defines persons with ‘benchmark disability’ as those who are certified to have not less than 40% of the disabilities specified in the Schedule of the RPwD Act.

The Supreme Court opined that the higher threshold of benchmark disability could not be imposed to deny equal access to persons with disabilities contrary to the ethos of non-discrimination enshrined in the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. 

The judgement clarified that the scheme of the RPwD Act imposed a benchmark disability as a precondition only for access to specific entitlements such as affirmative action as under Sections 32 and 34 of Chapter VI. In other words, the absence of benchmark disability could not be used to deny other forms of reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. 

The bench relied upon the landmark precedent of Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India wherein it was held that equality is not only limited to preventing discrimination but also embraces a wide ambit of positive rights including reasonable accommodation. The principle of reasonable accommodation, the Court observed in Vikash Kumar, is a facet of substantive equality set out in General Comment 6 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Court also held that the denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes disability-based discrimination under Section 3 of the RPwD Act. The object of the provision is to ensure that persons with disabilities can overcome insidious barriers of exclusion without the imposition of a disproportionate burden. In this context, the state has an obligation to develop an appropriate environment guaranteeing equality of opportunity to persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodation, such as the facility of a scribe, is therefore an enabling instrument for securing substantive equality.

Further, the state had raised a concern that the provision of a scribe could offer an undue advantage to persons with disabilities. In response, the Court pointed to  the absence of empirical data to hold that this argument of misuse was unsubstantiated. The unfounded suspicion, the Court also remarked, in fact perpetuated the stereotype that persons with disabilities have to resort to state largesse due to their inability to compete on a level-playing field.

Finally, the Court emphasised that it expected the government to consult persons with disabilities in a bid to democratise policy making. It remains to be seen whether such an endeavour results in lasting impact.

Read the judgement embedded below in Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2021 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1882 of 2021 titled as Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others. 

Download the judgement  [418 KB]

Supreme Court - Rights of persons with disabilities are not be diluted but limiting them to only those with benchmark disabilities

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice ,  A.S. Bopanna, Justice

Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2021 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.18591 of 2021)

Case Title: Avni Prakash Vs. National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.

Date of  Order: 23 November 2021

Law//Act: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, 

Judgement Authored by : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice

Background

The Supreme Court (SC) has cautioned that the Rights of persons with disabilities should not be curtailed by the application of a higher threshold prescribed only for ‘persons with benchmark disabilities’.

The bench pronounced its verdict on a plea by a female National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2021 candidate with dysgraphia (which is a learning disability that inhibits the ability to write), who was agrreived by the denial  of an additional one hour’s time for attempting the paper by the examination centre. She had sought that she either be allowed to sit for a re-examination or be reasonably or proportionately compensated by way of grace marks or elimination of negative marking or otherwise.

Case in brief:

The appellant is a person with dysgraphia- a specified disability listed in 2(a) of the Schedule to the RPwD Act. Her disability has been assessed as 40 percent permanent disability-thus falls within the definition of  a person with a benchmark disability under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act. She was denied the compensatory time while appearing for the NEET Examination conducted by the NTA. 

The Bench at SC framed issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to an hour’s worth of compensatory time owing to her PwD status under the NEET Bulletin 2021 and the Guidelines for Written Examination issued by the Union Ministry of Social Empowerment and Justice issued on August 29, 2018.

While the matter was heard at the Mumbai High Court, the National Testing Agency (NTA), had, on October 11, 2021 demanded the procurement of a medical certificate as per the format contained in Appendix VIII-A and from a designated centre specified in Appendix VIII-B of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, in order to claim the one-hour compensatory time. 

However, the Supreme Court observed that it is evident from the format prescribed under Appendix VIII-A that it cannot be issued at a stage before the declaration of results, and will only be considered for admission to the medical courses. The bench held that:

“Para 5.4(b) of the NEET Bulletin 2021 (extracted above) indicates that the appellant was entitled to compensatory time of one hour for an examination of three hours, irrespective of her reliance on a scribe. Para 5.3 indicates that the requirement of a certificate in Appendix VIII-A applies after the results are declared.”

The court clarified that the Right to Inclusive Education is a right enforceable at the examination stage (as per Section 17(i) under Chapter III), distinct from the rights that apply during the admission stage (as per Section 32 under Chapter VI).

The distinction between Person with Disability (PwD) and Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD)

The court then went on to establish the distinction between PwD and PwBD under the RPwD Act. It Reffering to its decision in Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission, in which SC hgad rejected the submission that only PwBD candidates can be provided with the facility of a scribe and held that the petitioner was entitled to reasonable accommodation even if he did not suffer from a benchmark disability.

“These rights and entitlements which are conferred upon PwD cannot be constricted by adopting the definition of benchmark disability as a condition precedent or as a condition of eligibility for availing of the rights. Benchmark disability, as defined in Section 2(r), is specifically used in the context of Chapter VI.  Undoubtedly, to seek admission to an institution of higher education under the 5 per cent quota, the candidate must, in terms of Section 32(1)10, fulfil the description of a PwBD. But equally, where the statute has conferred rights and entitlements on PwD, which is wider in its canvass than a benchmark disability, such rights cannot be abrogated or diluted by reading into them the notion of benchmark disability” clarifid the SC.

Hence, the standards of benchmark disabilities shall apply in situations where admission is sought into an institution of higher education under the five percent quota, in accordance with Section 32(1). However, the right to avail reasonable accommodation cannot be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Thus, the Right to Inclusive Education is a right enforceable at the examination stage (Section 17(i) under Chapter III), distinct from the rights that apply during the admission stage (Section 32 under Chapter VI).

The Court emphasised on the provisions envisaged under the RPwD Act with regard to inclusive education for PwD in Chapter III. Section 17 of Chapter III lays down specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education for students with disabilities. Among other inclusive measures, sub-section (i) provides for the duty of the State to make suitable modifications in the curriculum and the examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This duty can be fulfilled by providing extra time for the completion of examination papers and/or the facility of a scribe. Section 18 provides that the government and local authorities are duty-bound to take measures to promote, protect and ensure participation of PwD in adult education and continuing education programmes on an equal footing with others.

The provision for reservation in Chapter VI specifically directed towards PwBD students is different from the provisions in Chapter III for PwD students. Essentially, it can be concluded that PwD encompasses a wider group, of which PwBD is a sub-set. The principle of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the right to inclusive education, premised on equality and non-discrimination. The denial of reasonable accommodation to a PwD would certainly result in discrimination, especially when the same is denied by applying stricter thresholds meant only for PwBD.

The Court, therefore, held that there was a gross miscarriage of justice in this case by the High Court directing the appellant, who is aggrieved by the denial of a compensatory one hour, to seek a certificate in terms of Appendix VIII-A, on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the NTA. The injustice meted out to the appellant occurred, noted the apex court, because of (i) a vague and imprecisely defined NEET Bulletin 2021, and (ii) the absence of adequate training to the second respondent which was allotted as the appellant’s centre.

Court’s directions

The bench, in accordance with the decision in National Testing Agency vs. Vaishnavi Vijay Bhopale, ruled out the possibility of conducting a re-examination for the appellant owing to impracticability and uncertainty due to delay in results. However, the Court emphasised that the NTA cannot shirk or abrogate its responsibility to rectify the injustice which had been caused to the appellant, and must therefore consider extrapolation of marks or grant compensatory marks or adopt a ‘no negative scheme’, after applying their mind, ruled the Court.

The principle of reasonable accommodation is at the heart of the right to inclusive education, premised on equality and non-discrimination.

The court further directed the NTA to strictly ensure that the provisions which are made at the NEET in terms of the rights and entitlements available under the RPwD Act are clarified in the NEET Bulletin by removing ambiguity. It observed that, “Facilities which are provided by the law to PwD shall not be constricted by reading in the higher threshold prescribed for PwBD.”

Read the judgement below: