Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Justice V. KAMESWAR RAO, Hon'ble Justice ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Case No.: WP (Civil) No. 7642/2022
Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, & Ors.
Next Date of Hearing: 06/10/2023
Case Brief:
The petitioner Jayant Singh Raghav, is a person with a disability has raised this litigation alleging rights infringement of individuals with disabilities in accessing suitable facilities within residential communities against the Chandanwari Society (a residential housing society) with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as the resondents.
The petitioner emphasizes what he perceives as a
violation of the rights of persons with disabilities to access appropriate
facilities within residential communities. He contends that the environment lacks
provisions tailored to his specific needs, obstructs equal opportunities, and
disrupts harmonious communal living.
In response, the Chandanwari Society, represented
by the respondents, counters these claims by asserting their consistent efforts
to ensure unimpeded accessibility for the petitioner. The Society argues that
it has taken substantial measures to establish a barrier-free environment
within the apartment complex.
Before approaching the high court, petitioner had
lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government
of NCT of Delhi, citing the society's perceived inaction. The complaint pointed
out a violation of Rule-15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule,
2017. A subsequent directive highlighted shortcomings and mandated
rectifications. However, the complaint was closed without comprehensive
justification by passing an order.
Unsatisfied with the complaint's closure, the
petitioner turned to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds for the petition include
alleged breaches of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about non-compliance with the
"Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-free Built
Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons" 2016.
Differing viewpoints emerged regarding the
application of the Unified Bye-Laws where the petitioner contends that the
society's layout and infrastructure do not conform to the Unified Bye-Laws,
2016. However, the respondents assert that the apartment complex was
constructed under the Unified Bye-Laws, 1983, making substantial reconstruction
impractical after 33 years. Despite this, the respondents assert their ongoing
commitment to enhance accessibility within existing structural constraints.
Mr. Raghav is critical of the changes implemented
by the society, suggesting that they are cosmetic and, in some cases,
potentially hazardous to disabled individuals. He expresses concerns over the
safety and effectiveness of the alterations, arguing that hurried modifications
might inadvertently lead to harm.
Throughout the legal process, the petitioner filed
various ancillary applications alongside the primary writ petition, including
inter-locutary application, early hearing application, and urgent application.
The petitioner further claims that the
modifications initiated by the respondents are confined to Tower-3 of the
society, where he resides. However, he contends that the issue extends beyond
his personal access to encompass the entire society. He emphasizes that the
concern is not solely about Common area accessibility of the block where the
petitioner resides but pertains to the community's overall inclusion.
In conclusion, the case underscores the intricate
interplay between an individual with disabilities striving for equitable access
and a residential society working within practical limitations to achieve
accessibility standards. The legal journey encompasses a range of stages, from
pre-court complaints to constitutional writ petitions, highlighting the
petitioner's pursuit of enforcing rights. Consequently, the petitioner has
filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before The Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
an expedited grant of the interim relief as prayed for.