2024 INSC 858 Page 1 of 51

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (C) No. 243 of 2005

Rajive Raturi …Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

And with

Writ Petition (C) No. 228 of 2006

Page 2 of 51

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Table of Contents

A. Background ................................................................................................... 3

i. Genesis of the proceedings ..................................................................... 3

ii. Assignment to NALSAR-CDS ................................................................... 6

B. Understanding Accessibility ........................................................................ 8

i. International Framework on Accessibility ............................................... 9

ii. Accessibility as a Human Right ............................................................. 12

iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence ............................................................... 14

C. Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged Approach .... 16

i. Integrating a Universal and Inclusive Model of Design ....................... 17

ii. A two-pronged approach to accessibility ............................................. 18

iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility ................................ 20

D. NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise ........................................ 23

E. Inconsistencies in the Existing Legal Framework ................................... 31

i. Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and Rules .......................... 32

ii. Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD Act ............................. 42

F. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 48

PART A

Page 3 of 51

"Disability only becomes a tragedy when society fails to provide the things we

need to lead our lives – job opportunities or barrier-free buildings. It is not a

tragedy to me that I'm living in a wheelchair."

- Judith Heumann

1. This judgment arises from a Writ Petition instituted in 2005 seeking directions

to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities

1

. On

15 December 2017, this Court rendered a judgement containing directions to

all the States and Union Territories with eleven action points. In view of the slow

progress in complying with the judgement, this Court appointed the Centre for

Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law

2

to assess the situation on the

ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility

standards for PWDs. We write this judgment in view of the report submitted by

NALSAR-CDS to this Court and the submissions filed by the petitioner on the

next steps to be taken. Submissions have also been filed by the Union of India.

A. Background

i. Genesis of the proceedings

2. The Petitioner, Rajive Raturi, is a visually challenged person who works with a

human rights organisation. He instituted a Writ Petition before this Court in 2005

seeking directions to the respondents to take certain measures towards

ensuring safety and accessibility in public spaces, such as roads, public

1

“PWDs”

2

“NALSAR-CDS”

PART A

Page 4 of 51

transport and other facilities for visually challenged persons. At the time of filing

the petition, the legislation governing the rights of persons with disabilities was

the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The current framework is governed by

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

3

3. By a judgment dated 15th December 2017,

4

this Court, speaking through

Justice AK Sikri, identified eleven action points pursuant to the RPWD Act and

the Accessible India Campaign for compliance. These action points pertained

to the accessibility of a range of infrastructure, including government buildings,

railways, airports, ICT ecosystem and transport carriers. The Union of India, all

States and Union Territories were directed to file their compliance affidavits, and

the case was re- listed after three months. Most of the States and Union

Territories did not provide the required information and failed to file their

compliance affidavits within the period of three months.

4. This Court issued several orders directing the States and Union Territories to

provide the requisite information with details of the status of completion and

compliance reports. On 25 July 2018 , this Court noted that while the Union of

India had filed its affidavit, the response was not in accord with the directions in

the 2017 judgement and “lacked material particulars”. This Court stipulated a

format in which affidavits were to be filed by the Union of India, the S tates and

the Union Territories.

3

“RPWD Act”

4

“2017 Judgement”

PART A

Page 5 of 51

5. On 15 January 2019, when the case was placed before a bench comprising

Justice AK Sikri and Justice Abdul Nazeer, all the States and Union Territories

had filed their affidavits. However, this Court noted that many S tates and Union

Territories had not filed their affidavits in the stipulated format or provided

incomplete information about all the targets; and in cases where information

was provided, it was not complete as target dates were not mentioned. The

Court took strong exception to this and opined:

“More than a year has passed since the judgment

was delivered The indifferent attitude of the States

and the Union Territories shows that they are not

serious in complying with the directions contained in

the judgment. It may be recapitulated that the

directions which were given in the judgment dated

25.07.2018 are simply to the effect that provisions

contained in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”)

by providing necessary facilities to the persons

suffering from different disabilities, should be

provided with.

The said Act specifically makes provisions for these facilities. The said Act also sets down the timelines

within which these are to be provided. It is in the

consonance with the aforesaid provisions that

directions were given in the judgment and order

dated 15.12.2017 whereas the Parliament has

passed an enactment which entitles the persons

suffering from different disabilities to get the said

facilities as a matter of right and the States and the

Union Territories cannot shy away from giving these

facilities to such persons.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Accordingly, the States and Union Territories were granted a final opportunity to

submit the complete information in the stipulated format within three weeks.

This Court directed that the Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories

which do not comply with these instructions to be personally present on the next

PART A

Page 6 of 51

date of hearing. This Court also noted that the Union of India had failed to

submit a proper affidavit and granted an additional three weeks to comply,

failing which the Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

(Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disability) was directed to be

personally present.

7. This Court also recorded the prayers in an interlocutory application seeking

certain facilities for visually handicapped lawyers in the High Courts and this

Court. All the High Courts and the Secretary General of this Court were directed

to submit their response to the reliefs sought in the application before the next

date of hearing.

ii. Assignment to NALSAR-CDS

8. On 29 November 2023, when the case was placed before this Court , it was

noted that several orders had already been passed regarding the poor progress

made by the Union, States and Union Territories in implementing the provisions

of the RPWD Act. Therefore, this Court was of the view that a comprehensive

exercise was necessary to assess the situation on the ground. Accordingly, the

NALSAR-CDS was directed to submit a report on the steps required to be taken

in accordance with the guidelines and the Accessible India Campaign to, inter

alia, make all State and Central Government buildings, airports, railway

stations, public transport carriers , all Government websites, all public

documents and the ICT ecosystem fully accessible to PWDs. It was directed

that the report be completed within six months and the Department of

PART A

Page 7 of 51

Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Union Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment cooperate with the NALSAR -CDS by providing necessary

logistical assistance.

9. On 12 January 202 4, pursuant to an email sent by Professor Amita Dhanda,

Head of the NALSAR -CDS, this Court noted that NALSAR-CDS had accepted

the assignment. It was further directed that the expenses which are incurred by

the NALSAR-CDS shall be borne by the Union Ministry of Justice and

Empowerment, and all reimbursements shall be made within a fortnight of the

submission of invoices. The head of the NALSAR-CDS was granted liberty to

chalk out the modalities for implementing the work, including engaging requisite

experts and field workers to carry out the exercise in the States and Union

Territories.

10. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the NALSAR-CDS submitted its report,

which is aptly titled “Finding Sizes for All: A Report on the Status of the Right to

Accessibility in India” to this Court . The NALSAR-CDS conducted surveys,

expert interviews and first-person accounts to prepare its report and document

accessibility barriers across various spheres.

11. Before discussing the NALSAR-CDS report, we will briefly discuss the

underlying theoretical framework that governs the right to accessibility and

gives it meaning.

PART B

Page 8 of 51

B. Understanding Accessibility

12. Accessibility refers to the design of products, services, environments, and

systems to ensure that all individuals, including those with disabilities, can

access, use, and benefit from them fully and independently. This encompasses

physical access, such as entry to buildings and transport, as well as access to

information, communication, and digital platforms. It is essential for promoting

inclusion and enabling participation in all aspects of public life.

13. The World Report on Disability published by the World Health Organization and

World Bank stresses that inaccessibility within the built environment, transport

systems, and communication channels severely limits the opportunities for

PWDs to live fully in society.

5

This inaccessibility leads to exclusion from

education, employment, healthcare, and public services, effectively reinforcing

the social and economic marginalisation of PWDs. Moreover, the lack of

accessibility exacerbates inequalities, as it limits the ability of PWDs to engage

in community life, and often results in dependence on others, restricting their

autonomy and opportunities for self-determination. This, in turn, results in

broader societal costs, as PWDs are often prevented from contributing to the

workforce and society, thus perpetuating a cycle of poverty and isolation.

5

World Health Organization and World Bank, World Report on Disability (2011). See Summary, pp. 10.

The report provides the best available evidence about what works to overcome barriers to health care,

rehabilitation, education, employment, and support services, and to create the environments which will

enable people with disabilities to flourish.

PART B

Page 9 of 51

i. International Framework on Accessibility

14. The evolution of accessibility as a right has been influenced by progressive

international legal standards, which recognise it as integral to the dignity,

equality, and autonomy of PWDs .

6

The recognition of accessibility within the

international human rights context highlights its importance as a prerequisite for

the enjoyment of a range of rights, fostering a shift from charity-based

approaches to rights-based ones.

7

15. Accessibility is woven throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities

8

as a cross- cutting right, reinforcing its critical role

in achieving social inclusion. It is highlighted in paragraph (e) of the Preamble,

which calls for an environment that supports full personal development and

societal participation.

9

Article 3 sets out accessibility as a general principle,

which highlights the necessity of removing both tangible and intangible barriers

to ensure that PWDs can fully exercise their rights.

10

These barriers can be

physical, such as inaccessible buildings and transportation systems, or

intangible, such as discriminatory attitudes or inaccessible digital content.

6

Fréderic Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities or Disability

Rights?’, Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2008): 507.

7

Accessibility was a key element of the third goal of the World Programme of Action (WPA), titled

‘Equalization of Opportunities,’ as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 37/52, adopted on 3

December 1982. Another crucial document addressing the principle of accessibility is the UN Standard

Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the UN General

Assembly in 1993 under Resolution 48/96, passed on 20 December 1993.

8

“CRPD”

9

CRPD, Preamble para. (e) states as follows: ‘Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the

physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and

communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental

freedoms’.

10

CRPD, Article 3.

PART B

Page 10 of 51

16. Article 9 of the CRPD

11

is particularly significant as it sets out explicit obligations

for States Parties to promote accessibility as an essential right.

12

Article 9(1)

mandates that States take proactive steps to ensure persons with disabilities

have equal access to public spaces, transportation, information, communication

systems, and services.

13

This directive encompasses the development,

implementation, and monitoring of standards and guidelines that promote

access. Article 9(2)(a) elaborates on these obligations by detailing the areas

that require targeted action, such as ensuring that the design and construction

of buildings and public facilities adhere to universal design principles.

14

This

commitment extends to digital spaces and information technologies, reflecting

11

Article 9 reads:

(1) To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life,

States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an

equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and

communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other

facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures,

which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply

to, inter alia:

a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing,

medical facilities and workplaces;

b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency

services.

12

Referred to Francesco Seatzu, ‘Article 9 [Accessibility]’, in The United Nations Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A C ommentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and

Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229.

13

CRPD, Article 9(1).

14

CRPD, Article 9(2); States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:

a) To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for

the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;

b) To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the

public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;

c) To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;

d) To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy-to-read

and understand forms;

e) To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional

sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;

f) To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure

their access to information; g) To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and

communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;

h) To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and

communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems

become accessible at minimum cost.

PART B

Page 11 of 51

the need for inclusive approaches in an increasingly digital world. Accessibility

under this article is meant to influence both public and private sectors,

encouraging a society where all members can participate without barriers.

15

17. Article 9 emphasises that accessibility requirements for urban and rural areas

must be all-encompassing, ensuring that measures address the needs of

diverse environments.

16

While urban areas may exhibit more advanced

infrastructure due to better resources and policy implementation, they can still

present challenges such as intricate layouts, insufficiently accessible public

transit, and overcrowded spaces that hinder movement. On the other hand,

rural areas frequently face a scarcity of basic facilities, transport options, and

services, creating substantial barriers for PWDs . Recognising these disparities,

Article 9 requires States to tailor their accessibility strategies to suit the specific

conditions of both urban and rural regions.

18. International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with

Disabilities reinforce the critical role of accessibility within legal systems,

embedding it as a non- negotiable aspect of justice.

17

Principle 2 emphasizes

that justice facilities and related services must be universally accessible, thus

preventing discrimination and ensuring that all individuals, regardless of

disability, can fully engage in legal processes.

18

This includes adapting all

modes of transportation within the justice framework to be accessible, allocating

15

General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 4.

16

Ibid.

17

International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities (2019).

Issued by Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.

18

Ibid, Principle 2. Principle 2 lays down that facilities and services must be universally

accessible to ensure equal access to justice without discrimination of persons with disabilities.

PART B

Page 12 of 51

financial resources for necessary infrastructure changes, and embedding

accessibility in both physical and digital environments. Furthermore, these

guidelines call for procedural accommodations such as the use of assistive

technologies, sign language interpreters, and simplified formats for legal

documentation to remove communication barriers.

ii. Accessibility as a Human Right

19. The right to accessibility is not a new or separate human right, but rather an

integral part of existing human rights frameworks. Accessibility is embedded

within several international human rights treaties, reinforcing its foundational

role in ensuring equality and dignity for all individuals, including those with

disabilities. For example, access to the physical environment and public

transportation is essential for the realisation of freedom of movement, which is

guaranteed under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

19

and

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

20

Similarly,

access to information and communication is crucial for exercising the right to

freedom of opinion and expression, as articulated in Article 19 of the UDHR.

These rights are foundational for enabling PWDs to live independently,

participate in society, and enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others.

21

19

“UDHR”

20

“ICCPR”

21

See also United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.

14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000.

PART B

Page 13 of 51

20. The European Economic and Social Committee

22

, in its 2014 Opinion on

Accessibility as a Human Right for Persons with Disabilities, recognized that

Article 9 of the CRPD represents a human right in itself.

23

The EESC stated that

accessibility is a crucial prerequisite for ensuring the full enjoyment of civil,

political, economic, social, and cultural rights for PWDs .

24

21. The accessibility norm, as articulated in Article 9 of the CRPD, mandates that

all individuals with disabilities have equal access to facilities, goods, and

services, providing them with essential entitlements to ensure they can fully

engage with and contribute to society.

25

This framing situates accessibility as

an essential human right that is indispensable for the realisation of broader

social, economic, and political rights.

22. 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

22

“EESC”

23

European Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as a human right for

persons with disabilities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013IE3000

24

Ibid.

25

See CRPD, Article 9.

PART B

Page 14 of 51

within existing legal frameworks, it becomes clear that it is an essential

prerequisite for the exercise of other rights.

iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence

23. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has consistently

highlighted accessibility as a key issue in its dialogues with State parties

reviewing their initial reports. Accessibility has also been a focal point in

jurisprudence. In the case of Szilvia Nyusti, Péter Takács and Tamás

Fazekas v. Hungary

26

, the Committee emphasized that all public services must

be accessible in accordance with Article 9 of the CRPD. The State party was

specifically urged to ensure that blind individuals could access automatic teller

machines (ATMs).

24. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights

27

has recognized the

importance of accessibility in its judgments, ruling that public buildings should

be equipped with facilities for PWDs.

28

In 2022, EtCHR in Lárusson v. Iceland

recognized that accessibility falls within the scope of Article 8 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and

family life.

29

The case involved the lack of accessibility to cultural event venues

in the applicant’s municipality, which hindered his participation in cultural and

26

CRPD, Communication No. 1/2010, Views of 16 April 2013, Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács

(represented by Tamás Fazekas, Hungarian Helsinki Committee) v. Hungary.

27

“EtCHR”

28

See Molka v. Poland, application no. 56550/00, decision of 11 April 2006; Zehnalová and Zehnal v.

Czech Republic; Botta v. Italy. The complaint concerned the applicant’s inability to access the beach in

a town that was not his hometown.

29

Lárusson v. Iceland, [ 43].

PART B

Page 15 of 51

social activities, including attending events with his children.

30

The Court

acknowledged that accessibility is essential for individuals with disabilities to

live independently and fully participate in society.

31

The lack of accessibility

affected the applicant's personal development and ability to form relationships.

25. In Indian jurisprudence, several significant decisions have addressed

accessibility within the built environment. This court in a catena of decisions has

reinforced the principle of accessibility in public infrastructure. In Disabled

Rights Group v. Union of India

32

, this Court directed all educational

institutions run or aided by the Government to comply with their obligation to

reserve 5% seats for the disabled and directed them to report their compliance

with the same to authorities set up under the Act.

33

This court also directed the

setting up of a committee to suggest measures on how the physical

infrastructure and methods of pedagogy adopted by educational institutions can

be made accessible to the disabled within the stipulated time frame.

26. Similarly, Justice A K Sikri in the 2017 Judgment grounded the right to

accessibility in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution, emphasizing

that access to public spaces and services is an essential aspect of the right to

life and dignity. This Court observed:

“The vitality of the issue of accessibility vis- à-vis visually disabled

person’s right to life can be gauged clearly by the Supreme

Court’s judgement in State of Himachal Pradesh v Umed Ram

Sharma (1986) where the right to life under Article 21 has been

held broad enough to incorporate the right to accessibility.”

30

Ibid, [43-46].

31

Ibid, [46].

32

Disabled Right Group v Union of India [2018] 2 SCC 397.

33

Ibid.

PART C

Page 16 of 51

27. The inclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights framework ensures

that PWDs are entitled to full participation in society under Articles 14, 19, and

21 of the Constitution. Article 14 upholds equal access to spaces, services, and

information; Article 19 guarantees the freedom to move and express oneself;

and Article 21 ensures the right to live with dignity. Together, these provisions

guarantee not only formal equality but also substantive equality, which requires

the state to take positive steps to ensure that individuals can enjoy their rights

fully, irrespective of disabilities. This Court in a plethora of judgments has

repeatedly recognized that the right to dignity and the right to a meaningful life

under Article 21 necessitate conditions that enable PWDs to enjoy the same

freedoms and choices as others.

34

Thus, the right to accessibility is

foundational, enabling PWDs to exercise and benefit from other rights

enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

C. Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged Approach

28. The Social Model of Disability challenges the traditional understanding of

disability, which often views it through the lens of the Medical Model. In the

Medical Model, disability is seen as an individual problem or impairment that

needs to be treated or fixed. However, the Social Model, introduced by disabled

academic Mike Oliver in 1983, shifts the focus from the person’s condition to

the barriers they face in society.

35

It argues that disability is not inherent in the

34

See Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India 2016 INSC 412; Rajive Raturi v Union of India 2017 INSC 1243;

Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India 2021 INSC 916; Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service

Commission 2021 INSC 78.

35

On the social model generally, see Michael Oliver, ‘If I had a Hammer’, in Implementing the Social

Model of Disability: Theory and Research, ed. Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer (Leeds: The Disability

Press 2004), 18–31.

PART C

Page 17 of 51

person, but is created by external factors such as physical, organizational, and

attitudinal barriers. These barriers prevent full participation in society and can

be removed through societal change, promoting inclusion and equality for

PWDs.

29. The Social Model directly relates to the concept of accessibility. By focusing on

removing societal barriers rather than "fixing" individuals, it advocates for

accessible environments, services, and opportunities.

i. Integrating a U niversal and Inclusive M odel of Design

30. The goal of universal design is to create products and environments that are

usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for

adaptation or specialised design.

36

Universal design emphasizes the

importance of creating environments, services, and products that can be

accessed by everyone, regardless of their ability, age, or status. This approach

is rooted in the belief that inclusion should be integrated into the design process

from the very beginning, rather than as an afterthought.

31. Universal or inclusive design goes beyond just making things accessible; it

encourages creative and imaginative engagement with the diverse needs of all

users. This means considering not only physical accessibility but also

addressing social, informational, and technological barriers. The objective is to

36

The 7 Principles of Universal Design were developed in 1997 by a working group of architects, product

designers, engineers and environmental design researchers in North Carolina State University (NCSU).

PART C

Page 18 of 51

eliminate environments that disable people and replace them with enabling

ones for everyone.

32. The RPWD Act and the CRPD both define "universal design" in similar terms.

Under Section 2(ze) of the RPWD Act, universal design refers to the creation

of products, environments, and services that are usable by everyone, to the

greatest extent possible, without the need for specialised adaptation.

37

This

also includes assistive devices and advanced technologies for specific groups

of PWDs. The CRPD expands its scope to include the necessity of assistive

devices for those who need them.

38

33. When considering the design of products and services , it is crucial to account

for environmental and structural factors that impact accessibility. For example,

transportation systems must be designed with features that cater to various

needs - whether through accessible vehicles, infrastructure, or communication

systems. These factors play a critical role in ensuring that all individuals,

including those with disabilities, can engage fully with public services and

transportation.

ii. A two-pronged approach to accessibility

34. Addressing accessibility requires a balanced approach that focuses on both

adapting existing environments and proactively designing new spaces with

37

Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Section 2(ze). “universal design” means the design of

products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to the greatest extent

possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design and shall apply to assistive devices

including advanced technologies for particular group of persons with disabilities.

38

CRPD, Article 2. “Universal design” shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of

persons with disabilities where this is needed.

PART C

Page 19 of 51

accessibility in mind. A two-pronged approach is needed - one that focuses

on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities and the other

that focuses on transforming new infrastructure and future initiatives. Both

are essential to achieving true inclusivity in society.

35. The first prong focuses on ensuring that existing institutions and activities

are made accessible and inclusive for all. This approach emphasizes the

importance of retrofitting existing systems and structures to meet the needs of

PWDs, women, older individuals, children, and other vulnerable groups. While

retrofitting is important, it is often more complex and expensive than designing

inclusive spaces from the outset.

36. The second prong is about transforming infrastructure - rethinking and

redesigning physical spaces to accommodate PWDs. This transformation

involves reimagining public spaces, transportation, educational institutions, and

other facilities to ensure that accessibility is embedded from the very beginning,

rather than retrofitted later. When introducing any new service, product, or

feature - whether physical or functional - accessibility must be considered at the

inception stage. It is far more efficient to integrate accessibility from the start

than to make adjustments later. By embedding universal design principles into

the core of our systems, processes, and infrastructure, we can ensure that they

are usable by all, making inclusivity a foundational element rather than an

afterthought.

PART C

Page 20 of 51

iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility

37. 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.

39

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.

38. As highlighted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in

General Comment 6, reasonable accommodation is integral to the principle of

inclusive equality, acting as a facilitator for substantive equality.

40

The General

Comment articulated the relationship between reasonable accommodation and

accessibility as follows:

“22. Accessibility is related to groups, whereas

reasonable accommodation is related to individuals.

This means that the duty to provide accessibility is

an ex ante duty. States parties therefore have the

duty to provide accessibility before receiving an

individual request to enter or use a place or service.

States parties need to set accessibility standards,

which must be negotiated with organizations of

persons with disabilities, and they need to be

39

Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities and Non- Discrimination in Employment: Rising to the Challenges?’, in Disability Law and

Policy: An Analysis of the UN Convention, ed. Charles O’Mahony and Gerard Quinn (Dublin: Clarus

Press, 2017), 366.

40

General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 25.

PART C

Page 21 of 51

specified for service- providers, builders and other

relevant stakeholders. Accessibility standards must

be broad and standardized. In the case of

individuals who have rare impairments that were not

taken into account when the accessibility standards

were developed or do not use the modes, methods

or means offered to achieve accessibility (not

reading Braille print, for example), even the

application of disability standards may not be

sufficient to ensure them access. In such cases,

reasonable accommodation may apply.

23. The duty to provide reasonable

accommodation is an ex nunc duty, which means

that it is enforceable from the moment an individual

with an impairment needs it in a given situation

(workplace, school, etc.) in order to enjoy her or his

rights on an equal basis in a particular context. Here, accessibility standards can be an indicator, but may

not be taken as prescriptive. Reasonable

accommodation can be used as a means of

ensuring accessibility for an individual with a

disability in a particular situation. Reasonable

accommodation seeks to achieve individual justice

in the sense that non- discrimination or equality is

assured, taking the dignity, autonomy and choices

of the individual into account. Thus, a person with a

rare impairment might ask for accommodation that

falls outside the scope of any accessibility standard.

The decision to provide it or not depends on whether

it is reasonable and whether it imposes a

disproportionate or undue burden.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

39. 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, standardis ed

accessibility standards in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring

that these standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all

PART C

Page 22 of 51

relevant stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by

relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests. For

example, inaccessible information for a person with intellectual disabilities

would require reasonable accommodation (such as a verbal explanation),

whereas accessible information (e.g., in an easy -read format) would eliminate

the need for such accommodation.

41

40. In such cases, reasonable accommodation may be necessary only as a

complementary measure to ensure equal access. The duty to accommodate

plays an important role in enabling people with disabilities to challenge

accessibility barriers in particular, individualised cases. Compliance with the

reasonable accommodation duty for one individual with a disability can, in turn,

enhance the overall accessibility of structures for all people.

41. In Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission,

42

this Court also

highlighted that reasonable accommodation must consider not only the benefit

to the individual but also to others in similar situations in the future. Accessibility

and reasonable accommodation require a departure from the status quo and

that challenges in implementing such measures should not be seen as barriers

to inclusion. Complications in implementation are inevitable, but they should not

be used as an excuse to deny accommodations.

41

There is a ‘close and mutually reinforcing relationship’ between reasonable accommodation and

accessibility measures; See further Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility

Obligations: Towards a More Unified European Approach?’, European Anti-Discrimination Law

Review 11 (2011): 11– 21.

42

Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission, 2021 INSC 78.

PART D

Page 23 of 51

42. The RPWD Act and international frameworks such as the CRPD emphasize

that accessibility should be built into systems and infrastructure from the outset.

However, where this is not enough, reasonable accommodation comes into

play to tailor solutions to individual needs. This dual approach ensures that all

individuals, regardless of their impairments, have equal opportunities and

access to participate fully in society. Both accessibility and reasonable

accommodation must therefore be seen as interdependent and

complementary, each reinforcing the other in the pursuit of full inclusion and

equality.

43. From the above, the following guiding principles emerge:

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.

D. NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise

44. Having discussed the theoretical framework to understand accessibility, we will

now briefly summarise the NALSAR -CDS Report. The NALSAR-CDS

employed the following methodology in preparing its report:

a. The NALSAR-CDS reached out to the Union and State governments, Union

Territories, court administrations, and prison establishments to gather

details on their accessibility initiatives. Responses were received from only

PART D

Page 24 of 51

fourteen States, three Union Territories and the Union Ministry of Social

Justice and Empowerment. The remaining fourteen States and five Union

Territories did not respond;

b. NALSAR-CDS also gathered individual affidavits from PWDs , including

those whose impairments were not covered by the RPWD Act Schedule.

The studies and surveys conducted were undertaken by individuals and

organisations using their own resources;

c. Expertise and lived experiences of PWDs were central to the report. Various

organizations conducted surveys on the right to education, transportation,

and sports to assess how access impacts these rights. Law students

contributed by auditing accessibility in Mumbai;

d. To understand the impact of the existing accessibility guidelines, NALSAR-

CDS conducted interviews with accessibility experts and organised focused

group discussions with doctors with disabilities. Additionally, expert opinions

were sought on how access affects higher education, and personal

testimonies were included to reflect the lived experiences of PWDs ;

e. A draft of the report was shared for feedback with all contributors, ensuring

accountability and recognition of their inputs; and

f. The report was prepared using personal resources, and no financial claims

have been made to the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment .

45. It is now necessary to look at the findings of the report. The report mentions

that the 2021 Harmonising Guidelines marked a significant shift by including a

chapter on "Accessibility, Diversity and Universal Design," broadening the focus

to address all impairments and recognizing accessibility needs for groups

PART D

Page 25 of 51

beyond individuals with disabilities, such as children, the elderly, and those

temporarily disabled. However, the guidelines only briefly covered less-

discussed disabilities. The NALSAR -CDS documented these gaps through

affidavits from individuals with conditions like autism, cerebral palsy, and

ichthyosis.

43

For example, individuals with autism emphasized the benefit of

subsidized communication devices, while those with cerebral palsy highlighted

the need for a register of scribes.

46. The report explored the intersectional nature of the right to accessibility, aiming

to demonstrate its impact on the enjoyment of other rights. It emphasised that

the right to accessibility cannot be viewed in isolation but must be considered

alongside other forms of disadvantage, such as caste, sex, region, and religion.

The report also stressed the importance of addressing the compounded

discrimination that arises when disability intersects with these other factors. It

called for a more inclusive approach that takes into account the multiple

dimensions of vulnerability and disadvantage, ensuring that policies and

practices do not overlook these intersections.

47. The report pointed out that inaccessibility often leads to compounded

discrimination, creating additional layers of disadvantage for PWDs , particularly

when these individuals are also subject to other forms of marginalisation. The

findings emphasised the need for a comprehensive and intersectional approach

to accessibility that recognizes and addresses these overlapping challenges.

43

Ability Development and Inclusion (AADI), Muskaan, Action for Autism, National Platform for the

Rights of the Disabled, and Surbhi Meshram facilitated the filing of affidavits by individuals with cerebral

palsy, intellectual disabilities, autism, and sickle cell disease.

PART D

Page 26 of 51

48. The report found the following with regard to compliance in various sectors:

a. Accessibility in Courts – NALSAR- CDS engaged Ms. Roma Bhagat and

Associates for a pilot survey assessing accessibility in all High Courts. No

responses were received from the High Courts of Allahabad (both at

Allahabad and Lucknow ), Madhya Pradesh (all benches), and Jammu and

Kashmir and Ladakh (Srinagar). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

replied after the data analysis, and Delhi High Court data remained

unvalidated. Out of thirty High Court benches analysed, findings showed

that accessibility for locomotor disabilities was relatively better.

44

However,

only two courts had tactile guiding strips and interpreters for the hearing

impaired. Awareness for intellectual and developmental disabilities stood at

just 6.6%. The report also referenced a separate study by Mr Rajesh Deoli

on accessibility within the courts of Uttarakhand, highlighting additional

challenges and needs. Moreover, suggestions provided by Mission

Accessibility were also noted, offering recommendations on how courts

could be made more accessible for all individuals, including those with

disabilities.

45

b. Accessibility in Prisons - The report found that most states claimed to

provide wheelchairs, crutches, Western toilets, prosthetics, and medical

referrals to civil hospitals, with some offering special diets and counselling.

However, these facilities were mainly available in central and women's

44

Roma Bhagat and Associates-Accessibility of Courts in India.

45

Rajesh Deoli - The Court System Accessibility and Echoes from the Mountains Districts of

Uttarakhand; Mission Accessibility - Addressing the need for Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

along with Access to Justice Checklist.

PART D

Page 27 of 51

prisons, while district and sub- jails were less equipped. Key systemic issues

identified include several shortcomings. First, many states do not officially

recognize all categories of disabilities as defined in the RPWD Act, leading

to underreporting and insufficient provision of services. Second, District and

Sub Jails are significantly underserved. Third, there is a severe shortage of

mental health professionals in prisons. While at least 1,146

psychologists/psychiatrists should be employed, only 69 positions have

been sanctioned, and just 25 are filled.

46

c. Accessibility in Educational institutions - A survey involving 947 parents

of children with disabilities across twenty three states highlighted significant

educational access challenges.

47

While 56% of children were enrolled in

primary classes, enrolment dropped sharply in higher grades. Notably, 4%

never attended school despite being enrolled, due to reasons like schools

asking them not to come or inaccessible transport. Only 2% of students

could access school toilets, and many could not participate in assemblies

or receive mid- day meals. Just 17% were provided with learning materials

and 64% faced barriers due to inaccessible formats. These issues

contribute to children with disabilities feeling marginalized and overlooked,

even when physically present in schools.

d. Accessibility in Employment – NALSAR-CDS relied upon a report from

Enable India which highlights barriers to employment for PWDs, including

those with benchmark disabilities and high support needs.

48

These barriers

46

Murali Karnam- Access to Prisons.

47

ASTHA -Present but Forgotten: CDS Report on Access to Education of Children with Disabilities in

Government Schools in India, In Coodination with 40 Organizations.

48

Enable India- Accessibility of Employment and Allied Areas of Persons with Disabilities.

PART D

Page 28 of 51

occur both pre- and post-employment and vary based on geographic

location and the nature of impairments. Key barriers include inaccessible

job portals, lack of accessible educational facilities, and inconsistent

implementation of accessibility standards. Specific issues for various

impairments include:

1) Visual impairments: Inaccessible job portals and complex application

processes;

2) Hearing and speech impairments: Lack of sign language recognition

and inaccessible application methods;

3) Locomotor disabilities: Physical infrastructure barriers and non-

compliance with accessibility standards;

4) Neurodevelopmental disorders and learning disabilities: Rigid

selection criteria and inaccessible assessment methods;

5) Multiple disabilities: Need for inclusive recruitment processes and

practical assessments;

6) Acid attack survivors: Attitudinal barriers and lack of sensitization.

e. Accessibility in Buildings and Transport - The report emphasizes that

freedom of movement, a fundamental right, relies on both accessible

transport and buildings. Accessibility in transport is essential for disabled

individuals to access education, employment, healthcare, and social

participation. For example, in Delhi, 3,775 low-floor CNG buses make

transport accessible to wheelchair users, whereas Tamil Nadu has only

PART D

Page 29 of 51

1,917 accessible buses out of 21,669.

49

Accessible transport, such as

buses with audio systems, enhances daily activities like healthcare

appointments for visually impaired individuals. In contrast, inaccessible

infrastructure, such as pothole- filled footpaths, hinders mobility and safety.

In terms of building accessibility, a study by Dr Suman Kalani on Mumbai's

infrastructure found mixed results.

50

Newer facilities, like Andheri Metro

Station, meet accessibility standards, but older buildings, such as the

Bombay Art Gallery, lack basic features like accessible restrooms. This

disparity affects the ability of disabled individuals to move freely and access

opportunities. For example, the Andheri Metro Station provides

independent commuting, while the inaccessible entrance of Krishna Curve

Shopping Mall in Santa Cruz limits business and employment opportunities

for PWDs.

f. Right to form relationships - The report highlights the emotional and

relational challenges faced by PWDs , particularly regarding access to love,

desire, and intimacy. Abhishek Annica, a disability activist, emphasized that

disabled life is often lonely and alienating, with public discourse on

accessibility ignoring private, intimate needs like access to sex and

relationships.

51

Emotional needs, such as privacy and self-pleasure, are

often overlooked, leaving disabled individuals, especially those living with

families, without private spaces to express these needs.

49

Yes to Access, The Association of People with Disability - Accessibility in Transportation Systems

50

Dr.Suman Kalani, SVKM's Pravin Gandhi College of Law-A study of Lego/ Framework and its

Implementation About Accessibility of Public Buildings in Mumbai

51

Abhishek Annica -Accessibility and sexual rights.

PART D

Page 30 of 51

g. Right to Health - In the realm of health, significant barriers persist for PWDs

in accessing healthcare, primarily due to the medical establishment's

pathologizing view of disabled bodies and minds. A panel discussion

highlighted the positive impact of having doctors with disabilities in the

healthcare system.

52

However, disabled individuals still face significant

obstacles in becoming healthcare professionals and obtaining necessary

accommodations. Studies have revealed that many healthcare services

lack proper accessibility, and healthcare professionals are often untrained

in accommodating the needs of disabled individuals. A Survey by National

Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People found that

healthcare infrastructure is frequently not designed with accessibility in

mind, which hinders the ability of disabled people to receive timely and

appropriate care.

h. Participation in Sports - In sports, accessibility remains a major issue.

Only 21.4% of surveyed sports facilities had fully accessible restrooms, with

just 3.6% providing sensory rooms for athletes with sensory processing

disorders.

53

89.3% of these venues lacked assistive listening systems.

Additionally, communication accessibility was limited, with only 7.1% of

locations offering captioning or sign language interpretation. When it comes

to digital access, only 25% of sports websites were fully accessible, and

merely 7.1% of apps met accessibility standards.

52

Doctors With Disabilities: Agents of Change (DwDAoC)- Focussed group Discussion Access to

health:Stories from Health Professionals with Disabilities.

53

Vidya Sagar -1)Accessibility Audit Survey for sports facilities in India 2) Accessibility of sports facilities

in Chennai.

PART E

Page 31 of 51

i. Political Participation - while temporary accessibility measures like ramps

are erected during elections, these are removed afterwards, leading to

inconsistent access.

54

The report stresses the importance of permanent

solutions, such as permanent ramps and facilities, to ensure reliable and

ongoing accessibility for PWDs , enabling them to fully exercise their right to

vote.

E. Inconsistencies in the E xisting Legal Framework

49. In addition to reporting on inadequate accessibility measures in various

spheres, as summarised above, NALSAR -CDS has reported that there is an

inconsistency in the legal framework, which lies at the root of the slow progress.

The report states that while the RPWD Act creates a mechanism for mandatory

compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, the Right of Persons

with Disabilities Rules, 2017

55

create a mechanism which only prescribes self-

regulatory guidelines. Therefore, the report states, that Rule 15 of the RPWD

Rules, which contains the accessibility standards , is ultra vires the RPWD Act.

Further, it is contended that the situation on the ground reveals that the absence

of non-negotiable rules and excessive reliance on guidelines, compromises the

effective realisation of accessibility rights.

50. With regard to this contention, Mr Colin Gonsalves , Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules uses the term “shall” and

thus, all the standards prescribed under the RPWD Rules are in fact mandatory.

54

Disability Rights Alliance -Accessibility in Eiections-2024

55

“RPWD Rules”

PART E

Page 32 of 51

He seeks a declaration from this Court to the effect that Rule 15 and the various

standards prescribed in the rule are mandatory. This entails, according to Mr

Gonsalves, that new establishments which do not comply with the standards

under Rule 15 cannot get clearances and old establishments must be

mandatorily retrofitted in accordance with these rules. Mr Vikramajit Banerjee,

the learned Additional Solicitor General, also conceded that Rule 15 read with

Sections 44 to 46 of the RPWD Act prescribes a mandatory compliance

framework. The Union has also filed written submissions detailing the various

steps taken to comply with the standards prescribed in Rule 15 and towards the

targets in the Accessible India Campaign. These submissions have been taken

on record along with the compliance affidavits filed by the States and Union

Territories. In the following section, we analyse the alleged inconsistency in the

legal framework.

i. Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and Rules

a. RPWD Act

51. The RPWD Act came into force on 19 April 2017.

56

The long title of the Act

states that it is “An Act to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters connected therewith and

incidental thereto”.

56

Notification No. S.O. 1215(E)

PART E

Page 33 of 51

52. Chapter VIII pertains to the ‘Duties and Responsibilities of Appropriate

Governments’. The term “appropriate government” has been defined in Section

2(b).

57

Section 39 imposes an obligation on the appropriate government, in

consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner, to conduct,

encourage, support or promote awareness campaigns and sensitisation

programmes in relation to the protection of the rights of PWDs.

53. Section 40 pertains to “Accessibility” and states that the Central Government,

shall, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, formulate rules for “ persons

with disabilities laying down the standards of accessibility for physical environment, transportation, information and communication

including

appropriate technologies and systems, and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.” The word “shall” indicates that

the Central Government is mandated to make rules laying down the standards

of accessibility. Section 40 must be read with Section 100 of the Act, which

prescribes the power of the Central Government to make rules.

54. Section 41 deals with one aspect of accessibility, namely, ‘access to transport’.

Sub-section (1) states that the appropriate government shall take suitable

measures to provide:

57

Section 2(b) states: “(b) “appropriate Government” means, —

(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or substantially financed by that

Government, or a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the

Central Government;

(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or substantially financed by that

Government, or any local authority, other than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.”

PART E

Page 34 of 51

a. facilities for PWDs at bus stops, railway stations and airports conforming

to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing

counters and ticketing machines;

b. access to all modes of transport that conform to the design standards,

including retrofitting old modes of transport, wherever technically feasible

and safe for PWDs, economically viable and without entailing major

structural changes in design; and

c. accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons with

disabilities.

Sub-section (2) mandates that the appropriate government develop schemes

and programmes to promote the personal mobility of PWDs at an affordable

cost to provide for incentives and concessions, retrofitting of vehicles, and

personal mobility assistance.

55. Sections 42 and 43 pertain to “information and communication technology” and

“consumer goods”, respectively. Section 42 mandates that the appropriate

government take measures to ensure that:

a. all contents available in audio, print and electronic media are in accessible

format;

b. PWDs have access to electronic media by providing audio description, sign

language interpretation and close captioning;

c. electronic goods and equipment which are meant for everyday use are

available in universal design.

PART E

Page 35 of 51

Section 43 stipulates that the appropriate government shall take measures to

promote the development, production, and distribution of universally designed

consumer products and accessories for general use of PWDs .

56. Section 44 deals with the mandatory observance of the accessibility rules

framed by the Central Government under Section 40 and the consequence of

non-compliance. Sub- section (1) states that no establishment shall be granted

permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules

formulated by the Central Government under S ection 40. Sub -section (2)

stipulates that no establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or

allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules

formulated by the Central Government. Therefore, at both stages – when the

building plan is made and at the stage of completion – mandatory adherence to

the accessibility rules is envisaged by the Act.

57. While Section 44 deals with mandatory compliance with the accessibility rules

for all new buildings, Section 45 deals with the “retrofitting” of existing public

buildings to comply with the accessibility rules within a prescribed time period,

subject to extensions on a case- by-case basis. Section 45 stipulates that all

existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules

formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years

from the date of notification of such rules. The proviso to sub -section (1) allows

the Central Government to grant an extension of time to the States on a case- to-case basis for adherence with this provision depending on their state of

preparedness and other related parameters. Sub-section (2) states that the

PART E

Page 36 of 51

appropriate government and the local authorities shall formulate and publish an

action plan based on prioritisation, for providing accessibility in all their buildings

and spaces providing essential services such as all primary health centres, civil

hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stops.

58. Section 46 pertains to the time limit for compliance with the accessibility rules

by service providers. It stipulates that all service providers – both Government

and private – shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility

within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules. The

proviso to the provision states that the Central Government, in consultation with

the Chief Commissioner may grant an extension of time for providing certain

categories of services in accordance with the accessibility rules.

59. Section 89 prescribes punishment for contravention of provisions of the RPWD

Act or its allied rules. It states that any person who contravenes any of the

provisions of the RPWD Act or rules made thereunder shall be liable to pay a

fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees for the first contravention, and a

fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to

five lakh rupees, for subsequent contraventions.

b. Chapter VI the RPWD Rules

60. The RPWD Rules, issued by the Central Government, came into force on 15

June 2017.

58

At the heart of the issue before this Court lies Chapter VI of the

58

Notification No. G.S.R. 591 (E).

PART E

Page 37 of 51

RPWD Rules, which is titled “Accessibility”. Rule 15, in its original form, read as

follows:

“15. Rules for Accessibility. - (1) Every

establishment shall comply with the following

standards relating to physical environment,

transport and information and communication

technology, namely:-

(a) standard for public buildings as specified in the

Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for

Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With

Disabilities and Elderly Persons as issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Urban

Development in March, 2016;

(b) standard for Bus Body Code for transportation

system as specified in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways, vide number G.S.R.

895(E), dated the 20th September, 2016;

(c) Information and Communication Technology-

(i) website standard as specified in the guidelines for

Indian Government websites, as adopted by

Department of Administrative Reforms and Public

Grievances, Government of India;

(ii) documents to be placed on websites shall be in

Electronic Publication (ePUB) or Optical Character

Reader (OCR) based pdf format:

Provided that the standard of accessibility in respect

of other services and facilities shall be specified by

the Central Government within a period of six

months from the date of notification of these rules.

(2) The respective Ministries and Departments shall

ensure compliance of the standards of accessibility

specified under this rule through the concerned

domain regulators or otherwise.”

61. Rule 15(1) provides that every establishment shall comply with the standards

relating to the physical environment, transport and information and

communication technology, prescribed in the subsequent clauses of the

PART E

Page 38 of 51

provision. Barring the requirement in Rule 15(1)(c)(ii) which requires that the

documents on websites be in ePUB or OCR-based pdf format, all the other

clauses in Rule 15(1) refer to documents/guidelines issued by various Ministries

of the Union Government. Originally, these prescribed ‘standards’ were:

a. For public buildings – Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for

Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly

Persons issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development

in March 2016; [Original Clause (a) of Rule 15(1)]

b. For transportation – standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system

as specified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Road Transport and Highways dated 20 September 2016; [Item (i) of

Clause (b) of Rule 15(1)]

c. For Information and Communications Technology

59

– website standard

as specified in the guidelines for Indian Government websites adopted by

the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances,

Government of India. [Clause (c) of Rule 15(1)]

62. The proviso to Rule 15(1) provides that the standard of accessibility with respect

to other services and facilities shall be specified by the Central Government

within a period of six months from the date of notification of the RPWD rules.

Rule 15(2) stipulates that the concerned Ministries and departments shall

ensure compliance with the standards of accessibility specified in the rule

through the concerned domain regulators or otherwise.

59

“ICT”

PART E

Page 39 of 51

63. As required by the proviso to Rule 15(1), subsequent to the notification of the

RPWD Rules, additional standards have been specified by various ministries of

the Central Government. Amendments have been made to Rule 15(1) and

these standards have been included as clauses to Rule 15(1). The standards

that have been incorporated by the amendments are as follows:

a. Standard for public buildings as specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and

Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021, issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs dated 27

December 2021

60

[amended clause (a) of Rule 15(1)]

b. For ICT products and services – compliance with Indian standards IS

17802 (Part 1), 2021 and IS 17802 (Part 2), 2022, published by the Bureau

of Indian Standards. [item (iii) in clause (c) of Rule 15(1)]

61

c. Culture sector-specific harmonised accessibility standards/guidelines,

notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Culture dated 18

January 2023. [clause (d) of Rule 15(1)]

62

d. Guidelines on accessible sports complex and residential facilities for sports

persons with disabilities, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry

of Youth Affairs and Sports (Department of Sports) dated 13 October 2022

[clause (e) of Rule 15(1)]

63

60

“HG 2021”

61

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 10.05.2023

62

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 13.07.2023

63

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 17.07.2023

PART E

Page 40 of 51

e. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022, notified by

the Government of India in the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 9 January

2023. [clause (f) of Rule 15(1)]

64

f. Accessibility Standards for Healthcare, notified by the Government of India

in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 4 May 2023

[clause (g)

of Rule 15(1)]

65

g. Rural sector-specific harmonized accessibility standards/guidelines, as

specified in the notification of the Ministry of Rural Development,

Government of India dated 26 June 2023 [clause (h) of Rule 15(1)]

66

h. Guidelines on accessible and inclusive piped water supply for persons with

disabilities and for other population groups with access challenges, as

specified in the notification of the Department of Drinking Water and

Sanitation, Government of India, dated 2 August 2023. [clause (i) of Rule

15(1)]

67

i. Accessibility standards for community toilets in Rural areas, as specified in

the notification of the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation,

Government of India dated 4 August 2023 [clause (j) of Rule 15(1)]

68

j. Guidelines for Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector, as specified in the

notification of the Ministry of Port Shipping and Waterways, Government of

India dated 8 November 2023 [clause (k) of Rule 15(1)]

69

64

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 21.07.2023.

65

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 09.08.2023.

66

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023, notified on 16.11.2023.

67

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023, notified on 02.04.2024.

68

Ibid.

69

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on 15.02.2024.

PART E

Page 41 of 51

k. Guidelines on the accessibility of Indian Railway stations and facilities at

stations for differently-abled persons (Divyangjan) and passengers with

reduced mobility as specified, in the notification of the Ministry of Railways,

Government of India dated 13 November 2023 [clause (l) of Rule 15(1)]

70

l. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for MHA Specific Built

Infrastructures & Associated Services for Police Stations, Prisons &

Disaster Mitigation Centres, as specified in the notification of the Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India dated 2 January 2024 [clause (m) of

Rule 15(1)]

71

m. Accessibility Code for Educational Institutions as specified, in the

notification of the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of

Education, Government of India dated 10 January 2024. [clause (n) of

Rule 15(1)]

72

n. Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions

and Universities as specified, in the notification of the Department of Higher

Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India dated 19 January

2024. [clause (o) of Rule 15(1)]

73

o. Accessibility standards and Guidelines for the Banking Sector specified in

the notification in the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,

Government of India dated 2 February 2024 [clause (p) of Rule 15(1)]

74

70

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on 08.03.2024.

71

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 22.03.2024.

72

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 20.06.2024.

73

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 25.06.2024.

74

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 02.07.2024.

PART E

Page 42 of 51

64. Therefore, at present there is a list of seventeen documents prescribed in

clauses (a) to (p) of Rule 15(1), which comprise the “accessibility rules” that

shall be complied with in accordance with the RPWD Act. Further, the

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities states on its website

that more standards of accessibility are in the pipeline, and are to be included

in Rule 15 after necessary steps are taken by the concerned ministries. These

include (i) Accessibility Guidelines for Bus Terminals and Bus Stops from the

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; (ii) Accessible Tourism Guidelines for

India from the Ministry of Tourism; (iii) Accessibility Standards for TV

programmes for hearing and visually impaired from the Ministry of Information

and Broadcasting; and (iv) Accessibility guidelines for pension, other financial

institutions and insurance sector from the Department of Financial Service.

65. Rule 16 mandates a review of accessibility standards, and states that the

Central Government shall review from time to time the accessibility standards

based on the “latest scientific knowledge and technology”.

ii. Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD Act

66. The RPWD Act creates a mandatory compliance mechanism with regard to

accessibility rules. Section 40 states that the Central Government “shall” frame

rules which lay down the standards of accessibility . Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89

indicate that these rules are mandatory, provide timelines for compliance, and

prescribe consequences for non- compliance. Section 44 stipulates mandatory

compliance of the accessibility rules by new establishments and provides

PART E

Page 43 of 51

significant consequences for non- compliance with the rules. At the stage prior

to construction, it is stipulated that no establishment will be granted permission

to build the structure if the building plan does not adhere to the accessibility

rules. At the stage after construction, it is stipulated that no establishment shall

be issued a certificate of completion or take occupation of a building if it fails to

comply with the accessibility rules. Therefore, Section 44 deals with the second

prong of the right to accessibility identified above – planning for the future and

ensuring that new infrastructure is accessible from its inception. Sections 45

and 46 deal with the first prong, i.e. to retrofit existing inaccessible infrastructure

to ensure accessibility. They provide a timeline for compliance with the

accessibility rules. Section 45 lays down a timeline of five years from the date

of the notification of the RPWD Rules for making existing public buildings

accessible in accordance with the accessibility rules. Similarly, Section 46

provides a timeline of two years for service providers to comply with the

accessibility rules. As noted above, the RPWD rules came into force on 15 June

2017 and thus, the timelines in these provisions have long passed.

67. The marginal note to Rule 15(1) states that it contains “Rules for

Accessibility”. Further, Rule 15(1) uses “shall” in its chapeau indicating that

the standards that follow in clauses (a) to (p) are mandatory. Till this

understanding of the framework, the counsel for the petitioner, the Union of

India and the NALSAR-CDS are all in agreement. The next step, therefore, is

to look at the content of the various standards prescribed in Rule 15(1).

68. A perusal of the “standards” for accessibility laid down in clauses (a) to (p) of

Rule 15(1) , in the form of the guidelines issued by the concerned ministries,

PART E

Page 44 of 51

indicates that most of these documents do not contain mandatory or non-

negotiable prescriptions. The use of the term ‘guidelines’ rather than ‘rules’ in

most of these documents is not a mere difference in nomenclature, but is

evident in the content of these documents as well.

75

To better appreciate this,

we may refer to one of these standards, namely, HG 2021 which is prescribed

under Rule 15(1)(a). The stated objectives of this document are as follows:

“1.2 Objectives

[…] following are the key objectives of these

guidelines:

1. Sensitize diverse stakeholders regarding the

various accessibility needs and provisions for

diverse population groups in the built environment.

2. Introduce and orient universal design

perspectives to all stakeholders for creating

inclusive built environments for all.

3. Recommend specific built environment elements

along with their accessibility attributes and

specifications.

4. Develop a holistic approach to accessibility

through integration of appropriate technologies.

5. Guide accessibility assessment and

implementation in built environments.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

69. The objectives extracted above indicate that the idea of the document is not to

lay down rules, which are non- negotiable and have tangible consequences in

case of non- compliance, but rather to merely “sensitize”, “recommend” and

“guide”. Over 400 pages long, the HG 2021 contains guidelines which are

couched in the language of a policy document. It uses discretionary terms, such

as “recommend”, “may”, “it is desirable for…” and so on while laying down the

75

Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673 [15- 16].

PART E

Page 45 of 51

standards of accessibility. It is impractical, as to how guidelines framed in such

terms, can be understood as “non- negotiable”, failing which certain

consequences follow under the RPWD Act, including no permission to build ,

holding back of completion certificates or penal fines.

70. Similar objectives are found in the guidelines prescribed in other clauses of

Rule 15 as well. Illustratively, at random, we may refer to the (i) Guidelines for

Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector issued by the Ministry of Port

Shipping and Waterways; and (ii) Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for

Civil Aviation 2022. The stated objectives of these documents are as follows:

“Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector

“The guidelines provided here are illustrative in

nature and not exhaustive. They intend to meet the

immediate requirements of Accessibility to ensure

that the facilities are made usable by the persons

with disability and reduced mobility. Besides these

guidelines, the sector specific detailed guidelines

made by Experts such as the guidelines on

Accessibility Standards prepared by Tourism and

Travel Department, Transport Department, Hotel

Industry, Commercial and Industrial Department

may also be, to the extent relevant, relied upon and

used at different places in the Port, Harbours and

Piers. To this extent, these guidelines are not

conclusive; but are open to continual improvement.”

These guidelines can be used as broad guiding

principles for planning of Accessibility Standards at

the time of construction of Cruise and Passenger

Terminals, Transport Hubs in the Ports and

harbours as also in retrofitting the existing

structures. To ensure that these guidelines remain

practical for implementation, salient features of the guidelines have been discussed with the Nodal

Officer for Cruise Tourism and the other

Stakeholders.”

PART E

Page 46 of 51

Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil

Aviation

This document is a foundation stone in achieving

accessible airports. It’s true success shall be seen

in the implementation at various airports resulting in

more safe, inclusive and convenient customer

experience and we believe that it will happen over

time.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

71. The above extracts indicate that these two documents also do not envisage

mandatory rules and instead appear to be recommendatory guidelines. The

Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector are conceived as “illustrative”, and

“non-conclusive” and only as “broad guidelines” for both new construction and

retrofitting. It is difficult to fathom how a document which is only illustrative and

contains broad guidelines, can be mandatorily enforced, with consequences

such as fines and withholding of completion certificates. Similarly, the

Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation also indicate that they

seek to be achieved “over time”. As noted above, Section 44, which deals with

new buildings, requires immediate compliance and Sections 45 and 46, which

deal with existing infrastructure prescribe fixed timelines. Guidelines which are

aspirational and require compliance “over time” run contrary to this legislative

intent. Some other guidelines and documents prescribed in Rule 15(1), do state

that they are “mandatory codes”, however, this segregation between mandatory

and discretionary guidelines has not been carried out.

72. Further, not only do several of these documents themselves state that they are

guidelines or aspirational principles, but the NALSAR-CDS report indicates that

even if this nomenclature is ignored, they cannot be practically enforced as

PART E

Page 47 of 51

mandatory rules. This is because inter alia several of these guidelines contain

different standards for the same or similar accessibility requirements and

allegedly contain technical errors. For instance, with regard to “accessible

toilets”, almost all the guidelines contain different requirements – both in terms

of requirements and measurements. For instance, there is a difference in the

requirements stipulated in HG 2021 and Accessibility Standards and Guidelines

for Civil Aviation with regard to accessible toilets.

76

It is difficult to fathom,

therefore, which of the two requirements is “mandatory” to follow.

73. It is trite law that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions

to the delegated authority. The legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary

legislation to the delegate. However, before such delegation, the legislature

should enunciate the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegated

authority. As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule- making

functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be

consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits

of policy and standards laid down in the law.

77

74. 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

76

See Table 4.1, HG 2021.

77

Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 558 [27- 29].

PART F

Page 48 of 51

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.

F. Conclusion

75. In view of the above, we hold that several of the guidelines prescribed in Rule

15, appear to be recommendatory guidelines, under the garb of mandatory

rules. Rule 15(1) is thus ultra vires the scheme and legislative intent of the

RPWD Act which creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance. Creating a

minimum floor of accessibility cannot be left to the altar of “progressive

realization”.

76. The Union Government is, accordingly, directed to delineate mandatory rules,

as required by Section 40, within a period of three months from the date of this

Judgment. 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 th at progressive

compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress

PART F

Page 49 of 51

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.

77. Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States and

Union Territories are 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.

78. 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

PART F

Page 50 of 51

d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should involve

continuous consultation with persons with disabilities and advocacy

organizations to incorporate lived experiences and practical insights.

79. The Petitioner and NALSAR CDS have proposed a series of recommendations

with regard to the existing legal framework. The Union Government is directed

to meaningfully consider these recommendations while reworking the content

of Rule 15.

80. NALSAR-CDS states that the report has been prepared using their own

resources, and no financial claims have been made to the Ministry of Social

Justice and Empowerment. Annexure II of the NALSAR-CDS Report indicates

that it has been prepared over a period of six months, after consulting fifty-two

experts, receiving reports from fourteen states and three Union Territories, and

with over hundred reports from organizations and individual testimonies. As the

report states, it is “a present-day example of creating a knowledge commons.”

This Court records its appreciation for and is cognizant of the labour of time,

effort, and resources expended by the NALSAR-CDS in preparing this report.

Accordingly, the Union of India in the Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment is directed to pay NALSAR-CDS an amount of INR 50,00,000

as compensation for the work, which was carried out in a timely and

comprehensive manner. The amount shall be disbursed to NALSAR-CDS no

later than 15 December 2024.

PART F

Page 51 of 51

81. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are adjourned to 7 March 2025 on

which date, the Union Government must report compliance to this Court.

…….……………………………………CJI

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

….….………………………………………J

[J. B. Pardiwala]

….….………………………………………J

[Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

November 08, 2024