Supreme Court of India Upholds the Right to Accessible Footpaths as a Fundamental Right under Article 21

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Number: IA No. 50798 OF 2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.  295/2012
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: 14 May 2025

Cases Referred: 

• Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors  (1985) 3 SCC 545
• Bombay HC in High Court on its own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21221
• Karnataka HC in the case of D.S. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore & Ors  2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12223

Brief:

In a historic development for pedestrian safety and disability rights in India, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty. This judgment, rooted in constitutional guarantees and grounded in empathy for the lived realities of persons with disabilities (PwDs), marks a significant leap forward in the recognition of accessible urban infrastructure as a legal and human right.

The Background

The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest matter that raised critical concerns about the lack of proper footpaths, rampant encroachments, and the resulting safety hazards to pedestrians — especially those with disabilities. The Court acknowledged the urgent and widespread nature of the problem, noting that without accessible and continuous footpaths, pedestrians are effectively forced onto the streets, putting their lives at constant risk.

Key Observations and Findings

The Bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, made a series of pointed observations that reflect both the legal urgency and the human costs of inaccessibility:

• "Right to have unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court unequivocally stated.
• The safety of pedestrians is not a luxury, but a constitutional obligation of the state.
• The absence of accessible footpaths disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, older persons, and others who rely on mobility aids.

Supreme Court's Directions

The Court issued a set of sweeping directions to ensure nationwide compliance and structural reforms:

1. Mandatory Accessibility: Footpaths must be designed and maintained to be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

2. Encroachment Removal: All encroachments from footpaths must be removed without exception.

3. Universal Footway Standards: Every public road must have proper, inclusive footpaths or walkways.

4. Policy Mandate: All States and Union Territories must evolve and implement policies for the construction, maintenance, and protection of accessible footpaths.

5. Compliance Timeline:

• States and UTs must frame guidelines in line with those issued by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and DS Ramchandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police.
• The Union of India is directed to place on record existing or new national guidelines within two months.
• The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 1st August 2025, to review compliance.

Relevance of the Bombay High Court Model

The Supreme Court emphasized that States should refer to the Bombay High Court’s earlier directions, which already set a progressive precedent on footpath design, accessibility, and encroachment-free pedestrian zones. This reinforces the principle that access to infrastructure must be inclusive by design, not adjusted retroactively.

A Constitutional and Human Rights Milestone

This judgment is not merely about footpaths. It is a profound reiteration that urban design and infrastructure planning are constitutional issues. For persons with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure is not an amenity; it is a prerequisite for dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.

The Supreme Court’s order stands as a powerful reminder that accessibility is not optional — it is a mandated right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment sets the stage for a nationwide shift in how cities and towns approach pedestrian infrastructure to ensure accessible and dignified mobility for all people with disabilities.

Next Steps for Advocates and Stakeholders

• Monitor Compliance: Civil society organizations, disability rights groups, and urban planners must actively engage with State governments to ensure meaningful implementation.
• Participate in Policy Making: Stakeholders must demand participation in the framing of guidelines to reflect diverse accessibility needs.
• Use as Precedent: This order provides strong judicial backing to challenge inaccessible infrastructure in any city or district.

Taking note of standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress and other authorities, the Court directed: All State Governments and Union Territories shall frame guidelines in line with the High Court directions and file compliance reports within two months. The Union of India shall also place on record the policy/guidelines issued for protecting the rights of pedestrians within two months. 

As we approach the next hearing on 01 August 2025, this judgment offers a foundation to push for inclusive, safe, and equitable urban mobility — not just as a policy goal, but as a constitutional promise.

Read the Order dated  14 May 2025 above.

Supreme Court issues directions to make the process of Digital KYC accessible for persons With disabilities, declares it an integral part of fundamental right under Article 21.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 & W.P.(C) No. 49/2025

Case Title: Pragya Prasun v. Union of India & Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 30 April 2025

Published on: May 1, 2025
By: Disability Rights India Team

Brief

In a historic and far-reaching judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to digital access is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent-setting decision is a major milestone in the struggle for disability rights in India, specifically addressing the systemic digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements.

The judgment was delivered in two writ petitions:
Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289/2024 and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025  —filed by advocates and disability rights activists seeking digital accessibility in the e-KYC process for individuals with blindness and acid attack survivors.

Key Directions Issued by the Court

A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued 20 binding directions that mark a significant overhaul of the digital architecture for service delivery, with inclusivity and accessibility at the center.

Here are some of the landmark directives:

Digital KYC Must Be Inclusive

• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) must issue new guidelines that incorporate alternative methods to verify "liveness" or live photographs, moving beyond the default “blinking of eyes” method.
• Entities must now accept thumb impressions as valid authentication for visually impaired users during the e-KYC process.

Right to Reasonable Accommodation

• All reporting entities (REs), whether public or private, are directed to adhere to accessibility standards, appoint digital accessibility nodal officers, and undergo periodic audits by certified professionals.
• All apps, websites, and platforms must involve persons with visual impairments in user acceptance testing for any new digital service.

Mandatory Accessibility for Government and Private Services

• All government websites and digital services must comply with Section 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates both electronic and print media be accessible.
• WCAG 2.1 and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) are now mandatory for all government platforms.

Communication and Service Delivery

• Public services must provide information in alternative formats—including Braille, easy-to-read formats, and audio-described content.
• Helplines, grievance redressal mechanisms, and human review of rejected KYC applications must be set up for PwDs.

Sensitization and Training

• Disability awareness and inclusion modules must be part of training for employees of all regulated entities.
• RBI is directed to monitor implementation and regularly conduct public awareness campaigns about inclusive KYC processes.

A Game-Changer for Digital Equality

This judgment unequivocally affirms that access to digital services is no longer a privilege—but a constitutional right, especially for persons with disabilities who have been persistently sidelined in India’s digital revolution. The Court has not only addressed the how (mechanisms and guidelines) but also the why—the deep need to treat persons with disabilities as equal citizens entitled to dignity, convenience, and autonomy.

This move will have far-reaching consequences across all sectors—from banking and governance to education and healthcare. It is a wake-up call to both government and private entities that accessibility is not an afterthought—it is a non-negotiable obligation under the law.

Next Steps and Accountability

As disability rights advocates, it is now essential to monitor the implementation of these directions and hold entities accountable. Civil society must collaborate with regulators, tech developers, and service providers to translate these orders into practice on the ground.

The judgment reinforces the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and aligns with the Accessible India Campaign. It is now up to us—activists, organizations, and allies—to ensure that these rights are not just declared but delivered.

Download/Read the judgement 

All Disabilities Must Get Equal Treatment: Supreme Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Retirement Policy

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case Title: Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Case No.: Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1091-1092/2023

Date of Judgement: 03 April 2025

Brief

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle of equality for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court has ruled that prescribing different retirement ages based on the type of disability amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that all benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) constitute a single homogenous class for the purposes of service-related benefits—and must be treated equally.

Case Background:

The case arose when Kashmiri Lal Sharma, an electrician with 60% locomotor disability, was compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. However, under an Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 29, 2013, employees with visual impairments were permitted to serve up to 60 years of age. Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the appellant challenged the policy as arbitrary and discriminatory, invoking both the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

After unsuccessful representations before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ruled in the appellant’s favour. The Court struck down the impugned policy, declaring that prescribing different retirement ages solely based on the nature of disability lacks any rational basis and violates Article 14.

“There is no intelligible differentia to justify extending the retirement age benefit to only one category of benchmark disability while denying it to others. Such discrimination is arbitrary,” the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that all benchmark disabilities listed under the 1995 and 2016 disability laws must receive uniform service benefits, including retirement age.

Reference to Precedent:

The Bench relied on its earlier approval of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which also upheld the principle of parity in service benefits across all recognized disability categories.

Relief Granted:

While the State had later withdrawn the 2013 OM on November 4, 2019, the Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to continue in service until that withdrawal. As a result, the Court ruled:

“The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. He is also entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, along with all consequential benefits impacting his pension.”

The Court thus partly allowed the appeal and set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision dated 28.07.2021, which had earlier upheld the retirement.

Significance:

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional and statutory mandate of non-discrimination in employment policies affecting persons with disabilities. It sends a strong message that disability-based classifications in service benefits must meet the test of reasonableness and equality.

The decision underscores the spirit of the RPwD Act, which aims to ensure equal opportunity, protection of rights, and full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life—including public employment.

Read the Judgement

Kashmiri Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. 

Delhi HC Clarifies CCPD’s Powers Under RPwD Act, 2016: Interim Recommendations Are Binding Unless Validly Rejected

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 980 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2025
Relevant Law: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Sections 75 and 76)
Cases Referred:

• Anamika vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1084
• Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 876 of 2017, SC
• Ramanand vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3292

Introduction

In a significant judgment delivered on 2 April 2025, the Delhi High Court examined the powers and authority of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), especially regarding the issuance of interim recommendations in service-related matters.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Mukesh Kumar, a government employee with locomotor disability, was posted at the National Power Training Institute (NPTI), Faridabad. He was transferred to NPTI's regional centre at Durgapur, which he challenged as being unreasonable, discriminatory, and in violation of his rights under the RPwD Act.

Alleging mala fide intent and harassment due to frequent transfers, he filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD). The CCPD, after preliminary review, directed the Institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance. NPTI challenged this direction before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who set aside the CCPD’s order, prompting the present intra-court appeal.

Issues Considered

1. Whether the CCPD can interfere in service matters such as transfers under the RPwD Act?
2. Whether orders or recommendations of the CCPD are binding on authorities?
3. Whether the CCPD can issue interim directions during the pendency of proceedings?

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Court undertook a comparative reading of the 1995 and 2016 disability laws. Under the 1995 Act, the Chief Commissioner’s powers were primarily recommendatory and lacked enforceability. However, the 2016 Act brought a “remarkable change”, especially under Section 76, which prescribes that authorities must provide valid reasons if they choose not to implement the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner.

The Court observed:

“The law now mandates not merely that the recommendations be considered, but that they are presumed to be binding unless compelling reasons are given for their non-acceptance.”

It further clarified that even interim recommendations—like directing an employer to defer a transfer—are within the scope of CCPD’s authority, provided they are aimed at preventing potential violations of rights under the RPwD Act.

Importantly, the judgment reaffirms that service-related matters, while generally the employer’s domain, become subject to the scrutiny of the CCPD if they infringe upon statutory rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Final Order

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the earlier Single Judge order. It held that:

• The CCPD’s direction to keep the transfer in abeyance should be treated as an “interim recommendation” under Sections 75 and 76 of the RPwD Act.
• The respondent, National Power Training Institute, is bound to consider this interim recommendation and, if rejecting it, must furnish valid reasons to both the CCPD and the complainant, Mukesh Kumar.

Significance of the Judgment

This is a landmark clarification on the enforceability of the CCPD’s role under the RPwD Act, 2016:

• Affirms the CCPD’s powers to intervene and issue interim relief.
• Elevates the status of its recommendations from mere advice to conditionally binding directives.
• Empowers persons with disabilities with a more robust and responsive mechanism for redress.

The ruling strengthens the quasi-judicial character of the office of the Chief Commissioner and reinforces the statutory teeth of the RPwD Act, particularly in employment and service-related disputes involving persons with disabilities.

Read the Judgment below:

Supreme Court Upholds Equal Access to Judicial Services for Persons with Disabilities [Judgement Included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

Case Title:  Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Vs. The Registrar General , The High Court of Madhya Pradesh  (Suo-Motu)

Case No.: SMW(C) No. 2/2024  (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2024

Date of Judgement: 03 March 2025

Brief: 

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs) by holding that no candidate can be denied consideration for judicial service recruitment solely due to their disability. The ruling strikes down discriminatory provisions and upholds the principles of equality and affirmative action enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

A Victory for Inclusive Judiciary

The judgment is a significant milestone in the journey toward an inclusive and equitable judicial system. The Supreme Court explicitly held that persons with disabilities must not face discrimination while seeking employment in the judiciary and that the state is responsible for ensuring an inclusive framework. The Court emphasized that any indirect discrimination—such as unreasonable cutoffs or procedural barriers—must be removed to uphold substantive equality.

By striking down a provision in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules that barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service, the Court has sent a strong message against systemic exclusion. The ruling makes it clear that visually impaired candidates are fully eligible to participate in the selection process for judicial positions.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court invalidated Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, which disqualified visually impaired candidates.

• Rule 7, which imposed additional requirements such as a three-year practice period or a minimum of 70% aggregate marks, was also struck down to the extent that it discriminated against PWD candidates.

• The Court held that reasonable accommodations must be provided to PWD candidates during the recruitment process, in line with the RPwD Act, 2016.

• The judgment extends relief to PWD candidates in Rajasthan who were denied a separate cutoff in the Rajasthan Judicial Service preliminary exams, ensuring they will be considered in future recruitments.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the mother of a visually impaired candidate wrote to then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud about the exclusion of her son from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Examination. Taking cognizance of the matter, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court subsequently issued notices to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Union of India.

The issue gained prominence after the Civil Judge Class-II examination in 2022 failed to provide reservation slots for visually impaired candidates, contradicting the provisions of the RPwD Act. Interim measures were taken by the Court to ensure participation of visually impaired aspirants, but their selection was made subject to the final outcome of the case.

A Step Forward for Disability Rights

The judgment underscores a rights-based approach to disability inclusion in the judiciary. It affirms that disability is not a limitation but a social barrier that must be addressed through reasonable accommodations and affirmative action. The Court recognized that once recruited, judicial officers with disabilities must be provided the necessary training and support to discharge their duties effectively.

The ruling aligns with Section 34 of the RPwD Act, which mandates reservation for PWDs in government jobs, including judicial positions. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, acting as Amicus Curiae, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, already provide for a 6% reservation in state services, further reinforcing the need for compliance with disability rights legislation.

Implications for the Future 

The Supreme Court’s verdict sets a crucial precedent for other states and institutions in India. It reaffirms that arbitrary barriers preventing PWDs from equal participation in public service must be dismantled. Moreover, it highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring substantive equality for persons with disabilities.

For aspiring judges with disabilities, this ruling is a ray of hope. It not only paves the way for their rightful inclusion in the legal profession but also strengthens the foundation of a truly representative and diverse judiciary.

This judgment is a reminder that the fight for disability rights is far from over, but each legal victory brings us closer to a more inclusive society.

Judgement

Read the Judgement below: