A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued this direction based on a report from the Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR University of Law (NALSAR-CDS).
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Friday,(8th Nov) instructed the Union Government to address discrepancies in the existing legal framework regarding accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act and the 2017 RPWD Rules.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued this direction based on a report from the Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR University of Law (NALSAR-CDS).
The RPWD Act establishes a mechanism for mandatory compliance with accessibility rules, while the 2017 RPWD Rules only provide self-regulatory guidelines that lack mandatory force, according to the report.
The Court noted that Rule 15, which outlines guidelines, appears to be more of a recommendation than a requirement.
“Rule 15(1) is therefore ultra vires the scheme and legislative intent of the RPWD Act, which mandates compliance,” the Court stated. The Court emphasized that accessibility should not be left to the “progressive realization” of standards.
BRIEF FACTS
The case arose from a public interest litigation filed by Rajive Raturi, a human rights activist and visually challenged individual, seeking improved accessibility in public spaces, particularly for the visually impaired.
The Court referenced Section 40 of the RPWD Act, which mandates the Centre to set standards for accessibility in physical environments, transport, information, and communication technologies. While the 2017 Rules require compliance with accessibility standards, they mainly issue guidelines without mandatory enforcement.
The Court observed that many of the standards issued by various ministries were merely guidelines, some aspirational, and not mandatory as per the legislative intent of the RPWD Act. The absence of enforceable rules contradicted the RPWD Act’s aim of mandatory compliance.
The Court noted that Rule 15’s aspirational guidelines were insufficient to establish a firm baseline for accessibility.
“A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure,” it remarked.
The Court directed the Union Government to issue mandatory rules as required under Section 40 within three months. This process should involve consulting stakeholders, with NALSAR-CDS participating. The government was also instructed to ensure strict enforcement of compliance, including penalties for non-compliance, such as withholding completion certificates and imposing fines.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, with Advocate Satya Mitra, represented the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union government.
Case Title: Rajive Raturi v Union of India and Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
