Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 98 OF 2012

JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

In  the  book  on  the  rights  of  differently  abled  persons  

authored by Joseph P. Shapiro, which is titled “NO PITY”1, the first  

chapter,  'Introduction'  has  the  sub-title  'You  Just  Don't  

Understand'  and  the  very  first  sentence  of  the  said  book  is  :  

'Nondisabled Americans do not understand disabled ones'.

2) The present PIL, spearheaded by Jeeja Ghosh, who is herself a  

disabled  person,  with  the  support  of  the  NGO  ADAPT  (Able  

Disable All People Together), bears testimony to the statement of  

1 `NO PITY':  People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil  Rights Movement'  [Indian reprint by  Universal Book Traders]

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 1 of 54

Page 2

Shapiro.  Irony is that though the aforesaid remarks were made  

by Shapiro way back in the year 1993 and notwithstanding the  

fact that there have been significant movements in recognising  

the rights of differently abled persons, much is yet to be achieved.  

India also has come out with various legislations and schemes for  

the upliftment of such differently abled persons, but gap between  

the  laws  and  reality  still  remains.   Even  though  human rights  

activists have made their  best  efforts to create awareness that  

people with disabilities have also right to enjoy their life and spend  

the same not only with the sense of fulfilment but also to make  

them contribute in the growth of the society, yet mindset of large  

section of the people who claim themselves to be 'able' persons  

still needs to be changed towards differently abled persons.  It is  

this mindset of the other class which is still preventing, in a great  

measure,  differently  abled  persons  from  enjoying  their  human  

rights which are otherwise recognised in  their  favour.   Present  

case,  though a PIL,  got  triggered by an incident  which proves  

aforesaid introductory statement made by us.   

3) Petitioner  no.  1,  Ms.  Jeeja  Ghosh  is  an  Indian  citizen  with  

cerebral palsy.  She is an eminent activist  involved in disability  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 2 of 54

Page 3

rights.   She is, inter alia, a Board member of the National Trust,  

an  organization  of  the  Government  of  India,  set  up  under  the  

“National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral  

Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities” Act (Act 4 of  

1999).   Ms.  Ghosh  has  been  felicitated  by  the  West  Bengal  

Commission for Women on the occasion of International Women's  

Day in the year 2004, and is the recipient of the Shri N.D. Diwan  

Memorial  Award  for  Outstanding  Professional  Services  in  

Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities by the National Society  

for  Equal  Opportunities  of  the  Handicapped  (NASEOH)  in  the  

year 2007.  Ms. Jeeja Ghosh is also the recipient of the 'Role  

Model  Award'  from  the  Office  of  the  Disability  Commissioner,  

Government of West Bengal, for the year 2009, and was also an  

elected  Board  Member  of  the  National  Trust  for  Persons  with  

Autism,  Cerebral  Palsy,  Multiple  Disabilities  and  Mental  

Retardation  from  14th August,  2008  to  19th July,  2011.   This  

Curriculum Vitae of petitioner no. 1 amply demonstrates how a  

person suffering from cerebral palsy, can overcome the disability  

and achieve such distinctions in her life, notwithstanding various  

kinds  of  retardation  and  the  negative  attitudes  which  such  

persons has to face from the society.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 3 of 54

Page 4

4) It  so happened that  Ms. Ghosh was invited to an International  

Conference, North South Dialogue IV, in Goa, from the 19 th to the  

23rd of February, 2012, hosted by ADAPT (Petitioner no. 2). The  

conference was intended to put a special focus on people with  

disabilities and their families, countries in the global South facing  

huge systemic and institutional barriers, and the tools for change  

that  would  make a  difference  in  their  lives  in  these  countries.  

Additionally,  Ms.  Jeeja  Ghosh  was  invited  as  one  of  15  

international individuals to review an Indo-German project which  

was  being  show-cased  at  the  conference.   ADAPT purchased  

return plane tickets for Ms. Jeeja Ghosh, including a seat on flight  

SG 803, operated by SpiceJet Ltd. (Respondent no. 3) scheduled  

to fly from Kolkata to Goa on the morning of 19th February, 2012.  

The conference was to begin in the afternoon of the 19 th February,  

2012.

5) After  being  seated  on  the  flight,  Ms.  Jeeja  Ghosh  was  

approached by members of the flight crew who requested to see  

her boarding pass, which she gave them.  Then they proceeded  

to order her off the plane.  Despite her tearful protestations and  

informing them that she needed to reach Goa for the conference,  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 4 of 54

Page 5

they insisted that she de-board.  After returning to the airport and  

arguing  with  airlines  officials,  she  later  discovered  that  the  

Captain had insisted that she be removed due to her disability.

6) It  is  averred  in  the  petition  that  as  a  result  of  the  shock  and  

trauma of this even,t she had trouble sleeping and eating, so she  

was taken to a doctor the following day where she was prescribed  

medication.  Because of this, she was unable to fly to Goa on 20 th  

February,  2012,  and,  thus,  missed the conference all  together.  

Not only did this humiliate and traumatize her, but it also deprived  

the conference organizer, ADAPT (petitioner no. 2) and all of the  

attendees  of  the  opportunity  to  hear  her  thoughts  and  

experiences, and prevented her from providing her analysis of the  

Indo-German project under review.

7) Petitioner no.  1 grudges that  even after  four years of  the said  

incident whenever she has a flashback, she feels haunted with  

that scene when she was pulled out of the plane, like a criminal.  

She  continues  to  have  nightmares.   The  petitioners,  in  these  

circumstances, have preferred the instant petition under Article 32  

of the Constitution of India for putting the system in place so that  

other  such  differently  abled  persons  do  not  suffer  this  kind  of  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 5 of 54

Page 6

agony, humiliation and emotional trauma which amount to doing  

violence  to  their  human  dignity  and  infringes,  to  the  hilt,  their  

fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

8) We may mention, at this stage, that SpiceJet  had sent a letter to  

petitioner no. 1 apologizing for the incident.  However, according  

to the petitioners, the SpiceJet tried to trivialize the incident by just  

mentioning that  'inconvenience caused'  was 'inadvertent'.   It  is  

also mentioned in the petition that before approaching this Court  

she had submitted a compliant to the Ministry of Social Justice  

and  Empowerment  about  the  incident  as  well  as  to  the  

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, West Bengal and the  

Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of  

India.   Both  had  issued  show  cause  notices  to  SpiceJet  in  

response to which petitioner no. 2 was informed that a refund for  

flight,  less  1,500/-  as  a  cancellation  fee  from the  airlines  on₹   

which the return luggage had been booked through Jet Konnect,  

will be made.  The petitioners perceive it as sprinkling salt on their  

wounds.

9) It  is  claimed  that  such  behaviour  by  airlines  Crew  is  as  

outrageous as it is illegal.  SpiceJet's staff clearly violated 'Civil  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 6 of 54

Page 7

Aviation  Requirements'  dated  1st May,  2008  (for  short,  'CAR,  

2008')with regard to 'Carriage by Air  of  Persons with Disability  

and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility' issued by the respondent  

No.2 – Directorate General of Civil Aviation (for short, 'DGCA') as  

authorized by Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which states:

“4.1 No airline shall refuse to carry persons with  disability or persons with reduced mobility and their  assistive  aids/devices,  escorts  and  guide  dogs  including their presence in the cabin, provided such  persons  or  their  representatives,  at  the  time  of  booking  and/or  check-in  for  travel,  inform  the  airlines  or  their  requirement.   The  airlines  shall  incorporate  appropriate  provisions  in  the  online  form  for  booking  tickets  so  that  all  the  required  facilities are made available to the passengers with  disabilities at the time of check-in.

[…]

4.4. All  airlines  and  airport  management  shall  run program for their  staff  engaged in passenger  handling e.g. cabin crew/commercial staff including  floor walkers and counter staff etc. for sensitization  and  developing  awareness  for  assisting  passengers with disabilities.  The training program  shall be conducted at the time of initial  training and  a refresher shall  be conducted every three years  on  the  subject.   Only  such  persons  who  have  current  course  shall  be  assigned  to  handling  disabled  persons.   The  training  program should,  inter  alia,  include  assisting  disabled  persons  in  filing up travel documents as may be required while  providing assistance in flight.

[…]

4.6. Many  persons  with  disabilities  do  not  require  constant  assistance  for  their  activities.  Therefore, if the passenger declares independence  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 7 of 54

Page 8

in  feeding,  communication  with  reasonable  accommodation, toileting and personal needs, the  airlines  shall  not  insist  for  the  presence  of  an  escort.

[…]

4.8. All  airlines  shall  provide  necessary  assistance to  persons  with  disabilities/impairment  who wish to travel alone without an escort.

[…]

4.10(b) Once a passenger has bought a ticket for  travel, it is obligatory on part of the airline that he  reaches the aircraft from the departure lounge, and  at  the end of  the journey from the aircraft  to the  arrival  lounge  exit,  without  incurring  any  further  expenditure.

[…]

4.13 Airlines shall provide assistance to meet the  particular needs of the persons with disabilities and  persons with reduced mobility, from the departing  airport terminal to the destination airport terminal.

[…]

4.14 Persons with  disabilities  and persons  with  reduced  mobility  have  equal  choice  of  seat  allocation as others, subject to safety requirements  and physical limitations of the aircraft – like seats  near the emergency exits and seats with more leg- room.

[…]

5.1 No Medical clearance or special forms shall  be  insisted  from  persons  with  disabilities  or  persons  with  reduced  mobility  who  only  require  special  assistance at  the airport for assistance in  embarking/disembarking  and  a  reasonable  accommodation  in  flight,  who  otherwise  do  not  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 8 of 54

Page 9

require additional assistance.

[…]

10.1 A disabled person or  person with reduced  mobility  who  considers  that  this  regulation  has  been infringed may bring the matter to the attention  of  the managing body of airlines, airport  or other  concerned authorities, as the case may be.

10.2 The managing body of the airlines and the  airport shall ensure speedy and proper redressal of  these complaints.”

10) It  is  submitted  by  the  petitioner  that  the  Union  of  India  

(respondent No.1) has an obligation to ensure that its citizens are  

not subject to such arbitrary and humiliating discrimination.  It is a  

violation of their fundamental rights, including the right to life, right  

to equality, right to move freely throughout the territory of India,  

and right to practice their profession.  The State has an obligation  

to ensure these rights are protected – particularly for those who  

are  disabled.   More  specifically,  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)  

Act, 1995 (for short, 'Act, 1995') encapsulates the Government's  

obligations to ensure that those with disabilities can achieve their  

full potential free from such discrimination and harassment.  The  

Act  specifically  deals  with  transportation  systems,  including  

airports and aircrafts.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 9 of 54

Page 10

11) Further,  various  international  legal  instruments  also  guarantee  

these  rights  for  the  disabled,  including  the  United  Nations  

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD),  

which India ratified in 2007.  Specifically, the UNCRPD requires in  

Article 5:

“2.  State Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on  the  basis  of  disability  and  guarantee  to  persons  with disabilities equal and effective legal protection  against discrimination on all grounds.

3.   In  order  to  promote  equality  and  eliminate  discrimination,  State  Parties  shall  take  all  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  reasonable  accommodation is provided.”

 12) The UNCRPD specifically targets transportation systems such as  

airlines when it states in Article 9:

“1.   To  enable  persons  with  disabilities  to  live  independently and participate fully in all aspects of  life, State Parties shall take appropriate measures  to ensure 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 system, and to  other facilities and services open or provided to the  public.”

 And the UNCRPD makes clear that private carriers are covered as well  

in Article 9(2):

“2.   State  Parties  shall  also  take  appropriate  measures:

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 10 of 54

Page 11

[…]

(b)   To  ensure  that  private  entities  that  offer  facilities  and  services  which  are  open  to  or  provided to the public take into account all aspects  of accessibility of persons with disabilities;”

 13) The Vienna Convention on the Law of  Treaties,  1963 requires  

India's  internal  legislation  to  comply  with  international  

commitments.   Article  27  states  that  a  “State  party...  may  not  

invoke  the  provisions  of  its  internal  law  as  justification  for  its  

failure to perform a treaty.”

14) Further, the Biwako Millenium Framework for Action Towards an  

Inclusive,  Barrier-Free  and  Rights-Based  Society  for  Persons  

With Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific,  published in 2002 and  

signed by India as well, states that “existing land, water and air  

public transport systems (vehicles, stops and terminals) should be  

made accessible and usable as soon as practicable.”

15) According to the petitioners, filing of this petition was necessitated  

because of the reason that petitioner no. 1 is not the only disabled  

passenger to suffer such discrimination and humiliation.  There  

have  been  many  others  who  have  undergone  same  kind  of  

maltreatment and trauma while undertaking such air flights.  In the  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 11 of 54

Page 12

petition some such instances are narrated.  It is pointed out that  

one, Mr. Tony Kurian was repeatedly denied the right to purchase  

tickets on an Indigo flight because he is visually impaired.  Ms.  

Anilee Agarwal  was recently  forced to  sing an indemnity  bond  

before  she  could  fly  from  Delhi  to  Raipur  on  Jet  Connect,  

threatened  with  being  “body-lifted”  by  four  male  flight  crew  

members, and finally “thrown down the steps” in an aisle chair  

when she refused to be carried by hand.  Mr. Nilesh Singit was  

told by a SpiceJet captain that he was not allowed to fly with his  

crutches,  and  has  been  asked  to  sign  indemnity  bonds  on  

numerous occasions.  Ms. Shivani Gupta recently reported that  

she has also been asked to sign indemnity bonds on numerous  

occasions.   Thus,  according  to  the  petitioners,  such  problems  

exist  across airlines and across the country and requires clear  

national  direction.  It  is  further  alleged that  despite  the existing  

constitutional,  statutory  and  international  law  on  the  issue,  

situations  continue  where  these  differently  abled  persons  face  

discrimination and harassment while traveling.   

16) In this backdrop, the petitioners seek the following relief:  

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or  any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the  respondents directing them to follow 'Civil Aviation  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 12 of 54

Page 13

Requirements' dated 1st May, 2008 with regard to  'Carriage by Air  of  Persons with  Disability  and/or  Persons with Reduced Mobility'  as issued by the  office of the Director General of Civil Aviation.

(b) Issue an order directing respondent nos. 1  and  2  to  monitor  the  compliance  of  all  Indian  airlines with respect to 'Civil Aviation Requirements'  dated 1st May, 2008 with regards to 'Carriage by Air  of  Persons  with  Disability  and/or  Persons  with  Reduced Mobility', and to investigate any apparent  violations and provide penalties to airlines that fail  to implement these requirements, updating the Civil  Aviation Requirements to include these penalties if  appropriate.

(c) Issue an order directing respondent nos. 1  and 2 to investigate the written complaint dated 21st  February, 2012 by petitioner no. 1 and forwarded  by  the  Indian  Institute  of  Cerebral  Palsy,  and  to  take  action  in  accordance  with  law  against  SpiceJet  (respondent  no.  3)  and  any  and  all  officials responsible for the above stated violations.

(d) Issue  an  order  directing  SpiceJet  (respondent  no.  3)  authorities,  their  men,  agents  and persons acting on their  behalf  to adequately  compensate  the  petitions  for  lost  money,  wasted  time,  and  the  humiliation  and  trauma  suffered  during the above-mentioned incident;

(e) Issue a writ, order or direction or pass any  other or  further  order  or  orders in the interest  of  justice,  as  it  may  deem  fit,  in  the  facts  and  circumstances of the present case.”

17) Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents,  who are  

Union of India (respondent no. 1), DGCA (respondent no. 2) and  

SpiceJet Ltd. (respondent no. 3). They filed their responses to the  

petition.  Insofar as respondent no.  3 – SpiceJet Ltd.  airline is  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 13 of 54

Page 14

concerned, it has given its own version to the episode occurred  

on  19th February,  2012  and  has  denied  any  maltreatment  to  

petitioner no. 1, giving their own version of the entire incident and  

justifying the action they had taken,  in  the process.   We shall  

advert to that aspect in detail later while considering prayer (d) of  

this petition.   

18) We  have  already  taken  note  of  some  of  the  international  

covenants and instruments guaranteeing rights to persons with  

disabilities.  Insofar  as  obligation  to  fulfill  these  rights  are  

concerned,  the  same  is  not  limited  to  the  Government  or  

government agencies/State but  even the private entities (which  

shall include private carriers as well) are fastened with such an  

obligation which they are supposed to carry out. We have also  

mentioned that in the year 2000, respondent no. 2, i.e. DGCA had  

issued CAR with regard to 'carriage' by persons with disabilities  

and/or persons with reduced mobility.

19) The  very  fact  that  such  requirements  were  issued  by  the  

Directorate General of Civil  Aviation reflects that the authorities  

are  not  oblivious of  the problems that  persons with  disabilities  

suffer while undertaking air travel.  At the same time, it was found  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 14 of 54

Page 15

that  these  instructions  did  not  adequately  take  care  of  all  the  

hassles  which  such  people  have  to  undergo.   Thankfully,  the  

Government  realised  the  shortcomings  in  the  CAR,  2008  and  

agreed to revise the same, which shows positive stance of the  

Government and also reflects that the authorities did not treat the  

present  petition  as adversarial  and accepted that  such causes  

require  'social  context  adjudication'  approach.   To  this  end  in  

mind, the Ministry of Civil Aviation appointed an expert committee  

known as 'Ashok Kumar Committee'  (hereinafter  referred to as  

the 'Committee') under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. Ashok Kumar,  

Joint Secretary.  The said Committee consisted of as many as 21  

members,  including  members  from  the  cross-section,  i.e.  the  

Ministry, Airport Authority of India, DGCA, different NGOs working  

for the benefit of persons with disabilities, representative of airline,  

etc.  This Committee did stupendous task by taking care of all the  

nuances of the issue involved and submitted its fabulous report,  

after reviewing the existing CAR for persons with disabilities.   

20) A perusal of CAR, 2014 discloses the tremendous efforts made  

by the Committee taking care of most of the problems which such  

people face.  As the Executive Summary of the said report shows,  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 15 of 54

Page 16

the  Committee  recommended  that  allocation  of  responsibility  

between airports and airlines should be clearly defined to avoid  

delays and inconveniences/hardships to Persons with Reduced  

Mobility (for short, 'PRM') arising due to lack of communication  

between service providers.  It has also been suggested that the  

equipment  and  other  facilities  should  be  standardised  in  

consultation with Department of Disabilities Affairs.  Internal audits  

should  be  introduced  to  ensure  that  assistive  devices  are  

available  in  good condition  and  handling  persons  are  properly  

trained  in  their  use.   This  aspect  should  also be overseen by  

DGCA.  Responsibilities also need to be clearly defined for each  

stakeholder, namely, responsibility of the airlines, their agents and  

ticketing  website  for  ticketing,  airport  operator  for  providing  a  

helpdesk and assisting the passenger  on arrival  at  the airport,  

responsibility  of  airline  for  check-in,  responsibility  of  CISF  for  

security check etc.

21) The  report  highlights  some  important  areas  which  were  not  

covered in the CAR, 2008.  These include accessibility of ticketing  

system and complaints and redress mechanism.  A 'Complaints  

Resolution Officer' to deal with issues relating to PRMs has been  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 16 of 54

Page 17

recommended for each airport.  It has also been suggested that  

Ombudsman be appointed for settlement of complaints between  

complainant and airport/airline through conciliation and mediation.  

The report covers the airport facilities and equipment required in  

an  exhaustive  manner.   It  covers  accessible  routes  and  

passageways, wayfinding, signage, automated kiosks, accesible  

telecommunication  systems/announcements,  arrival/departure  

monitors, seating areas and guidance for service animals.

22) The  Committee  reviewed  the  CAR,  2008  and  made  several  

recommendations for amendment in the said CAR. It suggested  

that the definition of persons with reduced mobility should include  

such persons who require assistance in air travel, for example,  

persons with hearing and vision impairment, persons with autism  

etc., who have no visible impairment but still require facilitation at  

the airport  and in the aircraft.   The Committee also suggested  

standardisation of training, standard operating procedures, need  

for  sufficient  oversight  by  authorities,  need  for  clarity  on  

requirement of medical clearance by passengers, standardisation  

of equipment at airports and on aircraft, proper training of security  

checking  personnel  and  need  for  more  clarity  on  seating  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 17 of 54

Page 18

arrangement  to  PRMs.   It  was  also  suggested  that  curbside  

assistance kiosks should be mandated and guidelines should be  

issued on provision of priority tags for passengers on wheelchairs.  

Recommendation  was  made  mandating  location  of  dedicated  

parking  space  at  airports  and  for  the  accessibility  of  in-flight  

entertainment system.  Safety briefings in aircraft should also be  

made in sign language for persons who are hard of hearing/deaf.  

It should also cover emergency evacuation of blind passengers.

23) The report  highlights  international  best  practices on interaction  

with persons with disabilities, covering separately the interaction  

with the blind, the deaf and persons with mobility disability etc.  It  

also covers in detail the training procedure, including initial and  

recurrent  training.   Significant  recommendations  include  the  

following:

• Revision  of  CAR on  Carriage  by  Air  of  Persons  with  Disabilities in a time bound manner.

• Ensure compliance of recommendations within 3 years  at major airports and then at other airports in a phased  manner.

• Address  a  suggested  funding  mechanism for  meeting  cost of implementation.

• Define allocation of responsibilities for airlines, airports  and others for their respective roles in providing facilities  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 18 of 54

Page 19

to persons with disabilities.

• Standardisation  of  equipment  like  wheelchairs  and  facilities designed for PRMs.

• Establishment of Standard Operating Procedures for all  service providers and adequate training of their staff.

• Web enabled booking, in-flight briefing and evacuation of  such persons.

• Implement a mechanism for grievance redressal.

• Airlines  and  airports  declare  their  policy  on  facilities  provided  to  PRMs  by  publishing  on  their  respective  websites.

24) On the filing  of  the aforesaid  report  in  this  Court,  the learned  

Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of  

India was asked about the action which the Government intended  

to  take  on  those  recommendations.   Taking  this  report  as  the  

basis the Ministry has issued amended CAR dated 28 th February  

2014 (hereinafter referred to as CAR, 2014).  Though most of the  

recommendations are accepted, there is some tweeking done by  

the Government and some of the suggestions of the Committee  

are not incorporated in the revised CAR, 2014.  This prompted the  

petitioners to give their comments pointing out that some of the  

suggestions  given  by  the  Committee  are  not  incorporated  and  

therefore CAR, 2014 needed further modification and fine-tuning.  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 19 of 54

Page 20

The Government had taken time to respond to the same.

25) Mr.  Rohit  Thakur,  who  is  working  as  Assistant  Director  in  the  

Office of DGCA, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Union of  

India stating that the Government has no objection in the Court  

going into the necessity of implementation of specific terms of the  

recommendations  of  the  said  Committee  without  any  formal  

amendment.   The  response  to  the  suggestions  is  given  in  a  

tabulated form and it is necessary to reproduce the same in its  

entirety:

S.No. Suggestion Reply 1. Definition/Scope of the CAR

While  the  Ashok  Kumar  Committee  Report's  proposed  definition  was  accepted,  the  draft  CAR  also  incorporates  the  category  of  “incapacitated persons” which should be  removed  and  substituted  with  “persons  with  additional/specific  Support  requirements”.

The term physical or mental impairment  is defined to include “such diseases and  conditions as orthopaedic, visual, speech  and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy,  epilepsy,  muscular  dystrophy,  multiple  sclerosis,  cancer,  heart  disease,  diabetes,  mental  retardation,  emotional  illness, drug addiction and alcoholism” -  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  autism  has  been excluded from this.  This must be  rectified  to  include  autism,  and  in  the  alternative,  the  definition  proposed  by  the Committee must  be accepted in its  entirety.

The  term  'Person  with  Disability'  has  been retained in the CAR to keep the  terminology in line with ICAO Annex 9  and Circular  274 on and Persons with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995  published  in  Part  II,  Section  1  of  the  Extraordinary  Gazette of India, Ministry of Law, Justice  And Company Affairs.

However, every effort has been made to  include all concerned terminology within  the ambit  of  the definition to  cater  the  needs  of  affected  persons.   The  term  “incapacitated”  has been adopted from  14 CFR Pt 382 with addition of definition  on  “physical  or  mental  impairment”  for  added clarification.

The term “autism” has been included in  CAR as per the recommendation.

2. Procurement  of  standardised  assistive  devices The  Committee  recommended  that  all  

With regard to airport infrastructure and  facilitation  for  person  with  disabilities,  Chapter  9.11  of  ICAO document  9184  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 20 of 54

Page 21

airports  should  procure  all  assistive  equipment  based  on  a  schedule  of  standardised  equipments.   The  Committee  recommended  that  the  standardisation  should  be  done  in  consultation  with  the  Department  of  Disability Affairs in a suitable time frame.  This  is  not  reflected  in  the  draft  CAR,  which  poses  a  problem  because  then  there will be no obligation to standardise  assistive devices and ensure a minimum  quality  for  the  same.   Therefore,  the  Committee  recommendations  with  regard  to  procurement  of  standardised  assistive devices must be accepted.

Airport  Planning  Manual  and  Annex  9  provides  the  standards  which  are  guidelines for ICAO Contracting States.  The  standardisation  processes  are  normally  better  achieved  through  deliberations with stakeholders ensuring  economic  viability  and  their  implementation  in  a  feasible  manner.  Department  of  Disability  Affairs  is  a  separate  Authority  under  Ministry  of  Social Justice and Empowerment, which  is  not  under  this  office  purview.  Organisations  performing  functions  under  the  provisions  of  Aircraft  Rules,  1937  can  only  be  brought  under  the  ambit of CAR issued by this office.

In view of the above, matter cannot be  resolved  by  issuance  of  direction  for  standardisation  within  stipulated  time  frame  to  the  Department  of  Disability  Affairs.   However,  concern  has  been  addressed in the CAR through training  requirement of personnel in consultation  with the department.

3. Internal Audit Systems The  Committee  recommended  that  Airlines and airport operators must have  an  internal  audit  system  in  place  to  ensure  that  assistive  devices  are  available and are in good condition and  assistance and training are provided in  adequate  and  proper  manner.   The  Committee recommended that the DGCA  would  oversee  as  the  regulator.   The  draft CAR mandates surveillance of the  operators by the DGCA as part of Annual  Surveillance  Programme.   The  audit  system must be an internal one, on the  lines  of  the  Ashok  Kumar  Committee  recommendations,  which  can  be  more  frequent and detailed.

Para  4.3.1  to  4.3.7  of  the  CAR deals  with  the  training  of  personnel  for  staff  engaged  in  passenger  handling  for  sensitisation and developing awareness  for  assisting  persons  with  disability  or  reduced mobility.

Para  4.4.2  of  the  CAR  mentions  that  stakeholders  develop  an  in-house  document  on  handling  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility  and  the  proof  of  its  compliance shall  be  made  available  to  DGCA  and  other  enforcement  agencies.   In  place  of  internal  audit  on  regular  interval,  the  assistive  devices  require  maintenance  as per OEM instruction and checks by  operators.   The  effectiveness  of  their  maintenance  can  be  ensured  through  annual surveillance stated at 4.4.9 of the  CAR.

4. Help Desk The  Committee  recommended  a  telephonic  help  desk,  which  would  be  fully accessible, to be set up to receive  assistance  requests  in  advance  from  passengers with disabilities.  Any request  for  on  board  assistance  would  be  communicated to the airline.   This  is  a  

Concern regarding help desk would be  addressed through compliance of CAR  Para  4.1,  Para  4.2  and 4.4  and more  specifically through 4.1.1, 4.1.7, 4.1.17,  4.1.23, 4.2.10, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 21 of 54

Page 22

necessity as this would ensure a failsafe  fully accessible means of communication  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  also  communicate  specific  needs  to  airlines  which  may  be  unstated  at  the  time  of  booking.   The  draft  CAR removes  this  requirement  completely  and  the  same  must be incorporated in  the final  CAR.  The  proviso  to  4.1.1  seems  to  keep  some leave so that  in  a event  a travel  agent or a representative or on account  of any communication failure, the airline  does  not  have  a  record  of  such  a  request,  the  person  with  disability  may  be  denied  permission  to  board  the  aircraft.  This cannot be the case. 4.1.5  applies  only  to  the  “emergency  travel”.  Airlines must be always prepared to take  a person with disability on board and so  the  48  hours  of  requirement  seems  to  indicate that airlines will not be prepared  otherwise – if there is a time limit at all, it  needs to be reduced.

5. Curbside Assistance Kiosks The Committee mandates that curbside  assistance kiosks at the airport are to be  set up by the airport authority, providing  live  assistance  and  intermediaries,  including  guiders,  readers  and  professional  sign  language  interpreters  must be made the the curbside kiosks.  These kiosks should be at the first point  of  contact  of  the  passenger  and  the  airport  premises.   This  may  be  at  parking,  in case the passenger has his  own transport, or at the drop-off points at  the airport in case of hired transportation.  The airport  must facilitate movement of  persons  with  disabilities  from  these  areas to check-in counters by providing  qualified/properly  trained personnel  and  necessary assistive aids/equipment.  For  this  purpose  the  passenger  will  be  required  to  call  the  assistance kiosk  in  advance.  This also provides for special  provisions  for  entering  airports,  for  example, allowing auto rickshaws inside  the  airport  where  barred,  if  plying  a  person  with  a  disability.   Similarly,  for  persons  who  are  blind/are  visually  impaired, getting from the drop-off point  to  the  entry  to  the  departure  gate  is  extremely  difficult.   The  draft  CAR  eliminates  the  curbside  kiosk  facility.  

The  suggestion  made  is  addressed  under  Paras  4.2.9  and  4.2.10  of  the  CAR which states that  airport  operator  shall ensure that persons with disability  or  reduced  mobility  are  transported  within the airport in the same condition,  comfort and safety as those available for  other passengers and that the facilities  at the airport are accessible to persons  with disability or reduced mobility during  their transit through the airport.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 22 of 54

Page 23

The draft CAR states that “Once persons  with disability or reduced mobility report  at  the  airport  with  valid  booking  and  intention  to  travel,  the  airline  shall  provide  assistance  to  meet  their  particular  needs  and  ensure  their  seamless  travel  from  the  departure  terminal of the departing airport upto the  aircraft  and  at  the  end  of  the  journey  from the  aircraft  to  the  arrival  terminal  exit,  without  any  additional  expenses”.  This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  CAR  does not cover entry into and exit from  the  larger  airport  premises,  which  is  severely  problematic  and  must  be  amended to  reflect  the  intention  of  the  Committee.

6. Wheelchair usage While the Committee Report retains the  right  of  passengers  with  disabilities  to  use their mode of assistance throughout  their  journey,  the  CAR  places  several  restrictions  on  the  same.   Passengers  who  intend  to  check-in  with  their  own  wheelchair are to be given an option of  using a station/airport wheelchair.  If the  passenger  prefers  to  use  their  own  wheelchair  ,  they  shall  be  permitted  to  use  it  provided  the  wheelchair  to  specifications  as  laid  down  by  Disable  Person  Transport  Advisory  Committee  (DPTAC), UK.  The CAR also says that  the  acceptance  of  automated  wheelchair/assistive  devices  using  batteries  shall  be  subject  to  the  application  of  relevant  regulations  concerning dangerous goods, which will  inconvenience passengers.  Instead, the  CAR  must  lay  down  the  protocol  for  travelling  with  wheelchairs  and  storage  of  the  same,  with  batteries  being  removed/kept  safely  depending  upon  whether  they  are  dry  or  wet  cell  batteries.   The  BCAS  website  must  include the rules concerning carrying of  battery-operated  personal  wheel-chairs  or  other  assistive devices/aids  to  avoid  ambiguity  in  any  event.   If  passengers  are made/opt to use the airport provided  wheelchair,  they  should  be  allowed  to  keep  wheelchairs  till  the  point  of  boarding the aircraft and not be forced to  shift between the wheelchair and chairs  to accommodate other passengers.  To  

The  Aircraft  (Carriage  of  Dangerous  Goods) Rules, 2003 have been framed  to give effect to the provisions of Annex  18 to the Chicago Convention and the  Technical  Instructions  for  the  Safe  Transport  of  Dangerous  Goods  by  Air  issued by ICAO.  Since the carriage of  dangerous  goods  by  air  has  a  direct  bearing  on  the  safety  of  aircraft  operations, strict compliance with these  provisions is of paramount importance.  The carriage of  dangerous goods is  a  highly skilled job, which requires proper  packing,  labelling  and  handling  etc.  during various stages such as storage,  loading,  unloading  and  transportation.  Hence the CAR says that acceptance of  automated wheelchair/assistive devices  using  batteries  shall  be  subject  to  the  application  of  relevant  regulations  concerning dangerous goods.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 23 of 54

Page 24

that  end,  an  adequate  number  of  wheelchairs must  be produced.  Also it  should not be the case that the person  who  is  using  a  wheelchair,  who  is  accompanied by  an escort,  cannot  use  airport  assistance  to  push  his  or  her  wheelchair.   It  should not  be obligatory  on the part of the escort to take over the  responsibility  of  the  airport  assistance  staff.

7. Checking in assistive aids While  airlines  should  never  insist  on  assistive  aids  and  devices  being  checked  in,  in  the  event  that  assistive  aids are to be checked in, the Committee  recommended that certain safeguards be  in  place  e.g.  the  use  of  Priority  tags,  barring  the  transport  of  assistive  aids/equipment  by  conveyor  belt,  prioritizing the loading and unloading of  assistive  aids/equipment.   These  guidelines  are  completely  missing  from  the draft CAR.

Security check is under the purview of  BCAS and not under the airline purview.

Para  4.1.23  states  that  airlines  shall  make  suitable  arrangements  for  assisting  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility  for  their  quick  clearance and baggage deliver and that  their  checked-in  baggage  should  be  given “Assistive Device” tags to ensure  early identification and assistance by the  airline ground staff.

8. Security Check – Responsibility of CISF The Committee  Report,  in  Annexure  4,  details  the  manner  in  which  security  checks should be handled by the CISF,  from  the  training  of  screeners  to  the  protocols  they  should  employ.   The  manner  in  which  passengers  on  wheelchairs,  passengers  who  are  blind/have  low  vision,  passengers  with  hearing  impairments  and  those  with  hidden disabilities are to be managed is  detained.   This  detail  is  lacking  in  the  draft  CAR,  and  it  is  quite  surprising  because  it  is  at  the  stage  of  security  checks  that  most  trouble  is  caused  to  persons  with  disabilities  and  there  are  violations of their dignity.

Manner  of  security  check  and  their  training is under the purview of BCAS.

However, issue has been addressed in  respect  of  airline  and  airport  staff  at  Para 4.3.1,  4.3.2 and 4.3.6 of CAR all  airlines  and  airport  operators  shall  conduct  training program for  their  staff  engaged  in  passenger  handling  for  sensitization and developing awareness  for  assisting  persons  with  disability  or  reduced mobility and to ensure that the  staff  is  well  briefed  on  their  legal  responsibilities.   The  contents  and  duration of the training program shall be  in accordance with the guidelines issued  by the Department of  Disability Affairs,  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  &  Empowerment.

It  shall  be  the  responsibility  of  airport  operator  to  ensure  that  security  staff  positioned  at  airport  undergoes  disability-related training.

9. Transfer to aircraft The  Committee  clearly  demarcates  the  separation  of  responsibilities  between  the Airport and the Airlines, and that the  Airport  is  responsible  for  placing  the  passenger  in  the  aircraft  and  

The  term “subject  to  limitations  of  the  aircraft”  was  included  in  the  CAR  as  some  small  sector  flights  use  smaller  aircrafts,  whose  aisle  width  may  not  allow movement of aisle wheelchair.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 24 of 54

Page 25

disembarking the passenger as well.  On  board, the responsibility is solely with the  airline.   With  regard  to  boarding  and  disembarking,  the  Committee  Report  mandates that airports have appropriate  boarding  ramps,  ambulifts,  aerobridge,  boarding-aisle chair, wheelchairs or other  assistance needed, as appropriate.  The  Committee  Report  stresses  that  no  passenger  shall  be  manually  lifted.   In  the draft CAR, the onus is on airlines and  they are only required to have provision  of onboard aisle wheelchairs for persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility  not  carried on stretchers, “wherever possible  subject  to  limitations  of  aircraft”.   This  leaves  scope  for  passengers  with  disabilities being treated in a manner that  is against their dignity and self respect.  This must be removed.  Airports must be  responsible  for  procuring  assistive  aids  and  devices  to  ensure  hassle  free  boarding  and  disembarking  from  the  aircraft.

However,  issue  has  been  addressed  through  Para  4.1.34  which  stated  that  airlines shall ensure that aircraft coming  newly  into  service  or  after  major  refurbishment shall be fitted with special  equipment  to  cater  for  the  needs  of  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility commensurate with the size of  aircraft.

Para  4.1.9  For  embarkation/  disembarkation and in-flight use, airlines  shall  have  provision  of  onboard  aisle  wheelchairs for persons with disability or  reduced  mobility  not  carried  on  stretchers, wherever possible subject to  limitations of aircraft.  The onboard aisle  wheelchair  shall  conform  to  specifications as laid down by Disabled  Persons Transport  Advisory Committee  (DPTAC), UK.

10. Ambulift:  Presently,  ambulifts  are  procured  by  airports  and  airlines  are  asked to pay ambulift charges every time  they  use it,  and so it  is  advisable  that  they  be  charged  a  sum  amount  for  a  month whether they use it or not.  By this  every  airline  will  be  made  to  use  the  service for its disabled passengers rather  than not use it for want of extra payment  for each use.  Also the ambulift and other  equipment  shall  be maintained in  good  condition with periodic monitoring and it  should  be  registered  in  record  about  maintenance  details,  repair  details,  duration  under  maintenance/repair,  dates, duration and number of times for  which  service  was  unavailable  to  passenger.   The Complaints Resolution  Officer should also monitor the register.

The  suggestion  is  with  regard  to  commercial  arrangement  between  airline and airport.  DGCA would take up  the matter for resolution with airline and  airport  as and when difficulty reported.  However,  the  provision  of  ambulift  is  covered under  point  No.  4.2.12  of  the  CAR.

11. On Board the Aircraft The Committee Report mandates that for  the  benefit  of  passengers  with  disabilities.  Communication of essential  information concerning a flight should be  in  accessible  formats.   Safety  videos  should be available in sign language and  with  subtitles.   In  flight  entertainment  must be in accessible formats, and cabin  crew should assist passenger to access  toilet  if  requested  using  onboard  aisle  

The  concern  is  covered  under  Para  4.1.5 of the CAR.

The  concern  has  been  addressed  by  Para  4.1.20  which  states  “Airlines  should  provide  safety  briefing  and  procedure for emergency evacuation in  respect  of  person  with  disability  or  reduced mobility  in  any  of  the form of  passenger  briefing  card,  individualized  verbal briefing, video display (in aircraft  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 25 of 54

Page 26

chair.   Further,  Aisle  chairs  should  be  mandated  to  be  carried  on  board  for  flights  longer  than  3  hours.   These  provisions  do  not  find  mention  in  the  CAR,  and  they  are  most  essential  to  ensure  the  safety  and  comfort  of  passengers with disabilities. On board airlines which serve meals, or  where paid meals have been requested  for  in  advance  by  a  passenger  with  a  disability,  the  same will  be  served with  cutlery which is universally designed so  as  to  allow  for  the  passenger  to  eat  unassisted as far as possible.  In cases  where the passenger is unable to eat on  his own, the crew will  assist  in feeding  the passenger in a manner which does  not impinge upon his dignity.;

with In-flight Entertainment System), etc.

12. Ticketing System and Website The  draft  CAR  does  not,  unlike  the  Committee Report, mandate that airline,  airport  and  ticketing  websites  have  to  adhere  specifically  to  W3C  web  accessibility  standards  (available  at  http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php).  The same must be mandated as it is the  global standard in accessibility.

The  W3C  web  accessibility  standards  are  not  recognised  by  Indian  Govt.  However,  procedures  similar  to  the  mentioned standards are incorporated in  the CAR at point nos. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3  and 4.4.1.

13. Complaint Mechanism In case of deficiency of service relating  to  persons  with  disabilities,  the  Committee  Report  details  a  procedure  which  begins  from  the  Complaints  Resolution Officer (CRO), who is placed  at  the  Airport  itself,  who  will  make  attempts to resolve the grievance, and if  the same fails, he is mandated to assist  the passenger in making a complaint to  the  Ombudsman  appointed  under  the  DGCA.  In the draft CAR, the complaint  mechanism places  the  sole  burden  on  the  passenger  to  file  the  Complaint  before the Nodal Officer, and there is no  accessible  means  of  complaint  mechanism  and  neither  is  there  any  obligation  on  any  authority  to  try  and  resolve the matter at the first stage.  The  draft  CAR  must  incorporate  the  Complaint  redressal  mechanism  as  suggested under the Committee Report.

The  concern  regarding  appointment  of  ombudsman under DGCA at more than  70 airports with a staff strength of nearly  400  is  not  aviable  solution.   The  Grievance  Redressal  Mechanism  is  covered under point 4.5 of the CAR.

DGCA has issued Air Transport Circular  01 of 2014 which addresses the issue.  The effectiveness of grievance redressal  mechanised  would  be  monitored  through surveillance. In  addition  to  basic  training,  operators  are required to provide specific training  for  personnel  who may be required  to  provide  direct  assistance  to  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility.

14. Accessibility, way finding and signage The Committee Report has detailed the  manner  and  extent  to  which  Universal  Design must  be adopted by Airports  in  

Concern  on  accessibility,  way  finding  and  signage,  seating  area,  accessible  airport  infrastructure  has  been  addressed  in  para  4.2.1,  4.2.2,  4.2.3,  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 26 of 54

Page 27

their  infrastructure.   It  is  important  that  the  same  be  designed  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  Universal  Design  which have been detailed in Annexure 3  of  the  Committee  Report.   While  the  same has  been mentioned in  the  draft  CAR,  the  provisions  are  not  as  comprehensive as that of the Committee  Report.  The draft CAR must expand the  same.

4.2.5  and 4.2.6  which  are  in  line  with  ICAO documents.  The inclusion of the  same in detail would be repetition.

15. Seating Areas The  Committee  deals  with  the  importance of designated seating areas  and their positioning and signage for the  benefit  of  passengers  with  disabilities.  Aircraft  and airport staff  should be able  to  identify  these  areas  and  provide  regular  updates  to  persons  with  disabilities seated in these areas on the  status of their  flights and enquire about  their  needs.   Further,  seating  areas  should allow for resting accommodation,  where  persons  with  severe  dysfunction/disabling  medical  conditions  could lie down and rest/stretch/straighten  themselves.  There is no such emphasis  in the Draft CAR, which is silent on the  specific issue of seating.

Para 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the CAR is with  regard  to  special  reservations  in  the  terminal  building  and  parking  of  the  airport  for  persons  with  disability  or  reduced mobility.

16. Service Animals While  the  general  concerns  relating  to  service animals and their ability to travel  with the person they are assisting have  been  addressed  in  the  document,  the  question  of  relieving  areas  for  the  Service  Animals,  which  has  been  detailed  in  the  Committee  Report,  has  not been dealt with in the Draft CAR.

The carriage of animals guide dogs for  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility is as mentioned in Para 4.1.16  of the CAR.  Further, carriage of animals  by  air  is  governed  by  Aeronautical  Information  Circular  (AIC)  9  of  1985,  wherein the concerns mentioned in the  suggestion are addressed.

17. Training and Sensitization Annexure 2 of the Committee Report has  detailed  provisions  relating  to  training  and sensitization of all personnel working  dealing  with  the  travelling  public  at  various levels in the airports and airlines.  The  disability  sensitivity  extended  to  needs  of  all  types  of  disabilities,  especially  those  which  are  not  given  much importance in the mainstream, like  psychosocial  disabilities  and  autism.  However,  the  Draft  CAR  restricts  this  extensive training programme to staff of  Airlines and airport Operating staff only,  and not to Governmental Agencies who  come into  contracts  with  passengers  –  

Para 4.3.1 to 4.3.7 of the CAR is with  regard  to  trainings  that  needs  to  be  provided to staff and security personnel  dealing  with  persons  with  disability  or  reduced mobility.

Para 4.3.6: It shall be the responsibility  of  airport  operator  to  ensure  that  security  staff  positioned  at  airport  undergoes disability-related training.

However, Immigration and Security are  under  different  public  authorities.   The  issue  is  required  to  be  addressed  by  themselves separately.   

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 27 of 54

Page 28

like  Security  personnel,  Immigration  Officers, and Customs Officers, to name  a few.  Best practices shall also include  training  of  all  officials  at  airport  and  airlines  functioning  within  the  airport  to  undergo  periodical  orientation  on  perspective  to  disability  rights  and  dignified ways of handling persons with  disabilities  and  not  just  the  security  personnel alone.  The orientation can be  part  of  their  periodic  internal  review  meetings.

18. Accessible Airport Infrastructure It  is  essential  that  the  needs  for  accessible  and  universally  designed  Airport  Infrastructure are met by Airport  Operators.  To this end, the Committee  Report  detailed  an  extensive  Annexure  viz.  Annexure  3  with  each  and  every  requirement.   Not  only  is  this  not  reflected  in  the  Draft  CAR,  but  no  standards  of  any  sort  are  mentioned.  Nor  is  there  any  requirement  specified  that persons with disabilities or universal  design experts would be consulted in the  design  aspects  of  Airports.   This  is  a  major shortcoming of the Draft CAR.

With  regard  to  construction  and  other  design  related  queries  relating  to  the  airport,  issue  is  addressed  through  ICAO  Annex  9  and  ICAO  Airport  Manual.  Airport operators are required  to demonstrate compliance to to those  guidelines.  The international standards  are  being  complied  by  the  Airport  Operators.   In  view  of  the  above,  redundancy  in  the  regulation  is  not  desirable.

19. Offloading of Passengers While the Draft CAR seems to be clear  on the question of  medical  papers,  the  exact  grounds  on  which  medical  clearance is required by passengers and  the  medical  grounds  on  which  a  passenger  can  be  refused  travel  or  offloaded  is  not  clarified.   Under  no  circumstances  can  persons  with  disabilities be asked to provide medical  clearance papers if  they have no other  ailment or medical condition which would  hinder  their  ability  to  fly.   The  Government  Issued  Disability  Card  is  sufficient documentation for all purposes.  There is some ambiguity with regard to  pilot's discretion in offloading passengers  which requires to be clarified as well and  this discretion cannot extend to evicting  persons with disabilities off a flight.

In  order  to  discourage  airlines  form  offloading  passengers  on  basis  of  disability,  airlines  have  been  asked  to  specify  in  writing  the  basis  of  such  refusal  indicating  its  opinion  that  transportation of such persons would or  might be inimical to the safety of flight.  The same has been mentioned in Para  4.1.35 of the CAR.

Passengers having any of the conditions  mentioned in Para 4.1.26 (a) through (f)  are  required  to  produce  medical  certificate.   Other  cases,  it  does  not  require  such  certificate.   The  concern  has  been  addressed  through  para  4.1.15  which  stated  “if  passengers  for  any  reason  have  to  be  offloaded,  highest  possible  priority  for  transportation shall be given to persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility,  including their escorts, if any.

20. Seating versus Safety The  Committee  Report  has  dealt  with  this  issue  in  detail,  and  laid  down  the  important  guidelines  in  seating  of  

Concern was accepted.

The  CAR  has  specifically  made  provision for  passengers  with  disability  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 28 of 54

Page 29

persons  with  disabilities  to  ensure  the  greatest  emphasis  on  safety  of  the  person  with  disabilities  to  ensure  the  greatest  emphasis  on  safety  of  the  person with disability as also the fellow  passengers.   The  Draft  CAR does  not  reflect the importance of this issue.  The  placing  of  the  escort/companion  of  the  person with disability and the person with  disability  should  be  mandated  and  not  give  the  loophole  of  “all  reasonable  efforts”.    There  should  also  be  a  mandate  of  reserving  front  seats  for  persons with disabilities.  The additional  priority to not discomforting persons with  disability  or  reduced  mobility  while  considering  decisions  relating  to  offloading passengers is appreciated.

or  reduced  mobility  to  be  given  preferential seating for better evacuation  procedures,  in  case  of  an  emergency.  Para 4.1.13 of the CAR deals with the  reservation  of  seats  for  such  passengers.

21. Temporary  replace  of  damaged  wheelchairs While  the  Committee  Report  categorically  states  that  temporary  replacement  wheelchairs  must  be  provided to passengers on a like-for-like  basis as far as possible, free of cost, in  the Draft CAR the provision is modified  to state that in the event a passenger's  wheelchair  is  damaged,  temporary  substitute be provided on request.  The  term 'on request' needs to be removed.  Also, the mandate for this replacement to  be 'free of cost' is missing.

Concern was accepted.

Para  4.4.8  of  the  CAR  states  that  a  passenger  shall  be  compensated  in  case  wheelchair  or  other  assistive  device is damaged during travel by air.

22. Guidelines  relating  to  the  maximum  permissible  weight  and  dimensions  of  assistive aids/equipment to carried The Committee Report specifically deals  with  this  issue  and  prescribes  that  irrespective  of  the  weight  and  dimensions  of  assistive  aids/equipment  they should be allowed to be checked in  free  of  cost.   It  is  important  that  the  permissible weight is high enough such  that motorized wheel chairs and mobility  scooters can be checked-in free of cost.  All assistive aids/equipment that can fit in  the  internal  storage  space  shall  be  allowed  to  be  taken  on  board.   Other  than for takeoff and landing, the assistive  aids  shall  be  made  available  for  the  passenger on request.   The Draft  CAR  does not deal with this issue at all.

Para  4.1.8  of  the  CAR lays  down the  condition for usage of own wheel chair  till embarkation. Assistive devices weighing up to 15 Kg  free  of  charge  as  additional  baggage  have  been  allowed  subject  to  the  limitation of  the aircraft.   The same is  addressed in Para 4.1.24 of the CAR.

23. Priority in using toilet facilities in aircraft The  Committee  Report  specifies  that  

The term “Priority to access toilets of the  aircrafts”  is  discriminatory  as  for  as  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 29 of 54

Page 30

persons  with  disabilities  must  be  given  priority  to access toilets on the aircraft.  The Draft CAR is silent on this.

equal opportunity, protection or rights of  citizen  is  concerned.   However,  new  aircrafts  are  mandated  with  separate  toilet for person with disability.

24. Priority check-in counters The  Committee  Report  specifies  that  airlines  shall  operate  priority  check-in  counters  for  those  persons  with  disabilities  who  require  quick  check-in.  The Draft CAR is silent on this.

Para  4.1.22  and 4.1.23  addresses  the  concern.

26) The reply/comments which is given by the official respondents to  

the suggestions given by the petitioners, and as encapsulated in  

the  tabulated  form  above,  takes  care  of  many  of  the  

apprehensions  expressed  by  the  petitioners.   However,  

notwithstanding the same, in certain respects the guidelines can  

be further fine-tuned by the official respondents, keeping in view  

the  recommendations  of  the  Committee,  where  they  have  not  

been fully implemented.  We, therefore, are of the opinion that the  

following aspects may be reconsidered by the DGCA/Government  

to see whether they can be incorporated in CAR 2014 by proper  

amendments:

(1) In spite of procurement of standardised assistive devices,  

which is  mentioned at  S.No.  2 above,  it  is  pointed out  by  the  

learned counsel for the petitioners that all airports should procure  

all assistive equipments based on the schedule of standardised  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 30 of 54

Page 31

equipments  and  this  standardisation  should  be  done  in  

consultation with the Department of Disability Affairs in a suitable  

time frame.  It is pointed out that the same is not reflected in the  

CAR, 2014.   The explanation given by the respondents is that the  

standardised  processes  are  normally  better  achieved  through  

deliberation  with  stakeholders  ensuring  economic  viability  and  

Department of Disability Affairs is a separate authority which is  

not under the purview of DGCA.  However, that could not be the  

reason for not making a joint effort or involving the Department of  

Disability Affairs.  We, therefore, direct that the concerned officers  

of the DGCA as well as officers from the Department of Disability  

Affairs,  which  is  under  the  Ministry  of  Social  Justice  and  

Empowerment,  shall  have  a  joint  discussion  on  this  aspect  to  

consider the recommendation given by the Committee.

(2) On 'Help Desk' (mentioned at S.No.4), the Committee had  

recommended  a  telephonic  help  desk  which  would  be  fully  

accessible,  to  be  set  up  to  receive  assistance  requests  in  

advance from passengers with disability.  In response, it is stated  

by the respondents that concern regarding help desk would be  

addressed through compliance of various sub-paras of para 4 of  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 31 of 54

Page 32

draft CAR.  In spite of complying the same in an indirect manner  

through the said provisions, it may be considered to specifically  

provide for a separate help desk to take care of the complaints,  

queries etc. of all passengers with disability.

(3) Regarding  wheelchair  usage  (S.No.6),  though  the  

Committee  had  recommended  that  the  passengers  with  

disabilities should be allowed to retain the use of their wheelchair,  

this has not been accepted keeping in view the safety of aircraft  

operations.  The concern of the respondents may be justified to  

some extent, but we still feel that this aspect be reconsidered, viz.  

whether it would be feasible to allow such passengers to use their  

wheelchairs,  at  the  same time imposing  conditions  which  may  

take care of safety.  We say so because of the reason that in the  

Committee there were representatives from security agencies as  

well and still such a recommendation is made which implies that  

the members of the Committee would have kept in view the safety  

norms and yet made this recommendation as it appeared to be  

feasible to them.

(4) In spite of security check of such disabled passengers, the  

Committee has suggested, in Annexure 4, in detail the manner in  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 32 of 54

Page 33

which security check should be handled by the Central Industrial  

Security Force (CISF).  Admittedly, in the CAR this has not been  

incorporated.  The issue is skirted by merely stating that security  

check and their training is under the purview of Bureau of Civil  

Aviation  Security  (BCAS).   BCAS  can  be  involved  and  in  

consultation  with  the  officers  of  BCAS  this  aspect  can  be  

reconsidered.

(5) Insofar  as facilities to passengers with disability  while  on  

board the aircraft is concerned (S.No.11), the suggestion of the  

Committee was that the communication of essential information  

concerning a flight  should be in  accessible formats.   Likewise,  

flight entertainment should also be in accessible formats and the  

cabin  crew  should  assist  the  passenger to  access  toilet  if  

requested using on-board aisle chair.  We find that para 4.1.5 of  

the CAR does not cover all the aspects of the recommendations  

given  by  the  Committee.   It  would  be  more  appropriate  to  

incorporate the same in the CAR so that it becomes a bounden  

duty of the airlines to ensure that passengers with disability are  

taken care of more appropriately while they are on-board.

(6) Insofar as complaint mechanism is concerned (S.No. 13),  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 33 of 54

Page 34

the  Committee  has  given  detailed  procedure  to  address  such  

complaints, which begins from the Complaints Resolution Officer  

(CRO) who is placed at the airport itself.   The response of the  

official respondents is that it may not be feasible in small airports.  

Even  if  that  be  so,  to  begin  with,  such  a  mechanism can  be  

introduced at big/major airports.  This aspect, therefore, needs to  

be reconsidered.

(7) At S.No. 17, the aspect of training and sensitisation is dealt  

with.   This  is  one  aspect  which  needs  serious  attention.   No  

doubt, some provisions are made in CAR, 2014 with regard to  

training that is to be provided to the staff and security personnel  

dealing  with  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  mobility.   We  

impress upon the official respondents to draft a suitable module  

for  such  training  which  ensures  that  the  staff  and  security  

personnel, who are trained in this behalf, are suitably sensitised.  

It  hardly  needs  to  be  emphasised  that  unless  such  staff  is  

sensitive  to  the  needs  of  persons  with  disability  or  reduced  

mobility and is properly equipped to take care of such passengers  

with the empathy that is required, whatever mechanism is put in  

place is not going to be successful.  Therefore, we urge upon the  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 34 of 54

Page 35

respondents  to  prepare  such  training  modules,  the  manner  in  

which training is to be provided and ensure that the airlines as  

well  as  airports  conduct  such  training  programmes,  at  regular  

intervals,  for  the concerned officials who are supposed to deal  

with these passengers.

(8) Equally important is the issue of offloading of passengers  

(S.No.19) which needs to be taken care of with all seriousness it  

deserves.   We  are  of  the  view  that  suitable  provision  in  the  

training module itself be provided in this behalf as well.

We direct that the official respondents, in consultation with other  

departments  as mentioned above,  shall  consider  the aforesaid  

aspects, and even other aspects which deserve such attention but  

may  not  have  been  specified  by  us,  within  a  period  of  three  

months and on that basis whatever further provisions are to be  

incorporated should be inserted.

27) With this,  we address ourselves to the relief  claimed by Jeeja  

Ghosh against respondent No.3 – SpiceJet Ltd., i.e. prayer (d) of  

the writ petition.

28) The  petitioners  have  stated  in  detail  the  treatment  which  was  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 35 of 54

Page 36

meted out to Jeeja Ghosh on February 19, 2012 when she was  

forcibly de-boarded by the flight crew due to the insistence of the  

Captain of the aircraft, because of her disability.  It is stated that  

she was going from Kolkata to Goa to attend a conference which  

was organised by petitioner No.2, which she had to miss.  She  

has also narrated the trauma, shock and mental pain which she  

has suffered as a result of this event.

29) We have already mentioned the gist of the event as narrated by  

the petitioners.  We may mention at this stage that Jeeja Ghosh  

has  also  filed  a  claim  before  the  State  Consumer  Dispute  

Redressal  Commission,  Kolkata,  which is pending adjudication.  

We  were  informed  that  the  State  Commission  has  been  

adjourning the matter from time to time because of the pendency  

of the instant writ petition.  Both the sides agreed that the claim of  

Jeeja Ghosh be decided by this Court in the present writ petition  

itself.  For this reason, we had heard the petitioners as well as  

learned counsel for respondent No.3, on this issue.   

30) Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit stating its own version in  

respect of the incident.  The allegation of respondent No.3 is that  

it is Jeeja Ghosh who failed to follow the procedure laid down in  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 36 of 54

Page 37

Article 4.1 of CAR, 2008 by not informing respondent No.3, at the  

time of booking of tickets as well as at the time of check-in, about  

her disability.   It  is  the say of respondent No.3 that this led to  

confusion  and  subsequent  de-boarding  of  Jeeja  Ghosh  

occasioned by the lack of knowledge of her condition among the  

crew members present there and her visible disability and poor  

health condition, as according to the respondents her condition  

had taken a turn for the worse as soon as she boarded the aircraft  

and it was not possible to take risk by allowing her to take five  

hour long flight journey without being escorted by any person who  

could have taken care of her.  It is stated that had she informed  

about her sickness, the airlines would have made proper escort  

arrangements.   It  is  further  stated  that  by  not  disclosing  her  

disability, it is Jeeja Ghosh who was jeopardising her own safety  

and the safety of other persons on board the aircraft.  It was also  

argued that  the crew of  respondent  No.3 in fact  complied with  

Rules 22 and 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (for short, 'Rules,  

1937') by de-boarding Jeeja Ghosh and that in the circumstances  

that existed, it was a  bona fide act on the part of the officials of  

respondent No.3.  According to them, the action was in the larger  

interest of other persons in the aircraft as their safety was also  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 37 of 54

Page 38

paramount and had to be taken care of.

31) Referring to Article 5.2 of CAR, 2008 it is argued that a medical  

clearance may be required by the airlines when the airline,  inter  

alia, receives information that there exists a possibility of medical  

condition getting aggravated during or because of the flight, of a  

passenger.   Refuting  the  claim  of  the  petitioners  that  medical  

condition of Jeeja Ghosh was not a disability  stricto sensu, it is  

the  say  of  respondent  No.3  that  as  per  the  medical  literacy,  

cerebral  palsy  affects  body  movement,  muscle  control,  muscle  

coordination,  muscle tone,  reflex,  posture and balance.   It  can  

also impact fine motor skills,  gross motor skills  and oral  motor  

functioning.   Therefore,  Jeeja Ghosh could have faced serious  

consequences during the long air journey which would have been  

much serious.

32) Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, refuted the  

aforesaid contentions of the counsel for respondent No.3.  It was  

vehemently  denied  that  Jeeja  Ghosh  had  failed  to  follow  the  

procedure laid down in Article 4.1 of CAR, 2008.  Article 4.1 reads  

as follows:

“No  airline  shall  refuse  to  carry  persons  with  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 38 of 54

Page 39

disability or persons with reduced mobility and their  assistive  aids/devices,  escorts  and  guide  dogs  including their presence in the cabin, provided such  persons  or  their  representatives,  at  the  time  of  booking  and/or  check-in  for  travel,  inform  the  airlines  of  their  requirement.   The  airlines  shall  incorporate  appropriate  provisions  in  the  online  form  of  booking  tickets  so  that  all  the  required  facilities are made available to the passengers with  disabilities at the time of check-in.”

33) Learned counsel  argued that  the  aforesaid  provision  is  in  two  

parts: one applies to persons with disability and the second party  

applies to persons with disability who require assistant devices or  

aids.  It was argued that the proviso applies to the latter category  

only whereas Jeeja Ghosh is merely a person with cerebral palsy  

and  did  not  require  any  assistant  device  or  aid.   The  only  

assistance she required was regarding her baggage which she  

asked for at the time of security check-in.  Thus, there was no  

reason as to why she was asked to de-board the aircraft when  

there was no assistant device or aids about which she ought to  

have informed the airlines.  It is claimed that so far as requirement  

of  assistance  regarding  baggage  is  concerned,  she  had  duly  

informed the officials of  the airlines.   Refuting the argument of  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  respondent  No.3  predicated  on  

Rules 22 and 141 of the Rules, 1937, it was submitted that the  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 39 of 54

Page 40

Operations Manual of the airline places an obligation on the Pilot  

in-charge not to commence the flight until he/she is sure of the  

safety of all the passengers.  In the present case, there was no  

evidence to prove that Jeeja Ghosh had posed any hazard to the  

safety of the Pilot in-charge or other passengers.  Moreover, the  

decision to de-board her was taken without even interacting with  

her.   The  claim  of  respondent  No.3  that  blood  and  froth  was  

oozing out of the sides of her mouth is denied with the submission  

that there is no evidence to prove the same.  On the contrary, it is  

claimed, she was completely fine and it was only the conduct of  

the respondent airline which became a cause of her subsequent  

sickness.  Referring to the offer given by the airline to fly Jeeja  

Ghosh on the very next day, it is submitted that this act on the  

part of the airlines itself shows that Jeeja Ghosh was alright and  

there was no medical condition which would have been prevented  

her from flying.  Mocking the stand of the airline that the person  

having cerebral palsy would, in emergency situation, not be able  

to respond to the safety instructions and she is a risk to herself  

and  potential  danger  to  the  lives  of  co-passengers  also,  the  

submission of the petitioners is that it is in complete contravention  

of CAR, 2008 which prohibits the airlines from refusing to carry a  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 40 of 54

Page 41

person  with  disability  or  person  with  reduced  mobility.   The  

relevant  provisions  in  this  regard  have  already  been extracted  

above.

34) After considering the respective arguments of the counsel for the  

parties and going through the relevant provisions of Rules and  

CAR,  2008  brought  to  our  notice,  we  arrive  at  the  irresistible  

conclusion that Jeeja Ghosh was not given appropriate, fair and  

caring treatment which she required with due sensitivity, and the  

decision  to  de-board  her,  in  the  given  circumstances,  was  

uncalled for.  More than that, the manner in which she was treated  

while de-boarding from the aircraft, depicts total lack of sensitivity  

on the part of the officials of the airlines.  The manner in which  

she was dealt with proves the assertion of Shapiro as correct and  

justified that 'non-disabled do not understand disabled ones'.

35) It is not in dispute that the Pilot as well as the Crew members of  

the  airlines  are  supposed  to  ensure  the  safety  of  all  the  

passengers and a decision can be taken to de-board a particular  

passenger  in  the  larger  interest  and  safety  of  other  co-

passengers.  The question is,  whether such a situation existed  

when Jeeja Ghosh was de-boarded?  Whether this decision was  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 41 of 54

Page 42

taken  by  the  airlines  after  taking  due  deliberations  and  with  

medical advise?  Unfortunately, the answer is a big  'NO'.  Jeeja  

Ghosh is a disabled person who suffers from cerebral palsy.  But  

her condition was not such which required any assistive devices  

or aids.  She had demanded assistance regarding her baggage at  

the  time  of  security  check-in,  from  the  check-in  counter.   For  

boarding of the aircraft, she came of her own.  This was noticed  

not  only  by  the  persons  at  the  check-in  counter  but  also  by  

security  personnel  who  frisked  her  and  the  attendant  who  

assisted her in carrying her baggage up to the aircraft.  Even if we  

assume that there was some blood or froth that was noticed to be  

oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she was seated in  

the  aircraft  (though  vehemently  denied  by  her),  nobody  even  

cared to interact with her and asked her the reason for the same.  

No doctor was summoned to examine her condition.  Abruptly and  

without  any  justification,  decision  was  taken  to  de-board  her  

without ascertaining as to whether her condition was such which  

prevented her from flying.   This clearly amounts to violation of  

Rule 133-A of Rules, 1937 and the CAR, 2008 guidelines.

36) The rights that are guaranteed to differently abled persons under  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 42 of 54

Page 43

the Act, 1995 are founded on the sound principle of human dignity  

which  is  the  core  value  of  human  right  and  is  treated  as  a  

significant  facet  of  right  to  life  and  liberty.   Such  a  right,  now  

treated as human right of the persons who are disabled, has it  

roots  in  Article  21  of  the  Constitution.   Jurisprudentially,  three  

types of models for determining the content of the constitutional  

value of human dignity are recognised.  These are: (i) Theological  

Models, (ii)  Philosophical Models, and (iii) Constitutional Models.  

Legal  scholars  were  called  upon  to  determine  the  theological  

basis  of  human  dignity  as  a  constitutional  value  and  as  a  

constitutional right.  Philosophers also came out with their views  

justifying  human  dignity  as  core  human  value.  Legal  

understanding  is  influenced  by  theological  and  philosophical  

views,  though these  two are  not  identical.   Aquinas  and  Kant  

discussed the jurisprudential aspects of human dignity based on  

the aforesaid philosophies.  Over a period of time, human dignity  

has found its  way through constitutionalism, whether written or  

unwritten.  Even right to equality is interpreted based on the value  

of human dignity.  Insofar as India is concerned, we are not even  

required  to  take  shelter  under  theological  or  philosophical  

theories.   We  have  a  written  Constitution  which  guarantees  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 43 of 54

Page 44

human  rights  that  are  contained  in  Part  III  with  the  caption  

“Fundamental Rights”.  One such right enshrined in Article 21 is  

right to life and liberty. Right to life is given a purposeful meaning  

by this Court to include right to live with dignity. It is the purposive  

interpretation which has been adopted by this  Court  to  give a  

content  of  the  right  to  human  dignity  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  

constitutional value enshrined in Article 21.  Thus, human dignity  

is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal.  What are the  

dimensions  of  constitutional  value  of  human  dignity?  It  is  

beautifully illustrated by Aharon Barak2 (former Chief Justice of  

the Supreme Court of Israel) in the following manner:

“The constitutional  value of  human dignity  has a  central  normative  role.   Human  dignity  as  a  constitutional  value  is  the  factor  that  unites  the  human  rights  into  one  whole.   It  ensures  the  normative unity  of  human rights.   This  normative  unity is expressed in the three ways: first, the value  of human dignity serves as a normative basis for  constitutional  rights  set  out  in  the  constitution;  second, it serves as an interpretative principle for  determining  the  scope  of  constitutional  rights,  including the right to human dignity; third, the value  of  human  dignity  has  an  important  role  in  determining the proportionality of a statute limiting  a constitutional right.”

 37) All the three goals of human dignity as a constitutional value are  

expanded  by  the  author  in  a  scholarly  manner.   Some of  the  

2 Aharon  Barak  “Human  Dignity  –  The  Constitutional  Value  and  the  Constitutional  Right”  Cambridge University Press (2015)

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 44 of 54

Page 45

excerpts thereof, are reproduced below which give a glimpse of  

these goals:

“The first role of human dignity as a constitutional  value  is  expressed  in  the  approach  that  it  comprises the foundation for all of the constitutional  rights.  Human dignity is the central argument for  the existence of human rights.  It is the rationale for  them all.  It is the justification for the existence of  rights.   According  to  Christoph  Enders,  it  is  the  constitutional  value  that  determines  that  every  person has the right to have rights...

The  second  role  of  human  dignity  as  a  constitutional  value  is  to  provide  meaning  to  the  norms of the legal system.  According to purposive  interpretation,  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  constitution, and particularly all of the rights in the  constitutional bill of rights, are interpreted in light of  human dignity...

Lastly,  human  dignity  as  a  constitutional  value  influences  the  development  of  the  common  law.  Indeed, where common law is recognized, judges  have the duty to develop it, and if necessary modify  it,  so  that  it  expresses  constitutional  values,  including the constitutional value of human dignity.  To the extent that common law determines rights  and duties  between individuals,  it  might  limit  the  human  dignity  of  one  individual  and  protect  the  human dignity of the other.”

38) We should, therefore, keep in mind that  CAR instructions have  

also  been  issued  keeping  in  view  the  spirit  of  human  dignity  

enshrined in Article 21 and the right that are to be ensured to such  

persons.  The underlying message in all these provisions is the  

acknowledgment  that  human  rights  are  individual  and  have  a  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 45 of 54

Page 46

definite  linkage  to  human  development,  both  sharing  common  

vision and with a common purpose.  Respect for human rights is  

the root for human development and realisation of full potential of  

each individual, which in turn leads to the augmentation of human  

resources  with  progress  of  the  nation.   Empowerment  of  the  

people through human development is the aim of human rights.

39) In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two  

complementary  principles:  non-discrimination  and  reasonable  

differentiation.   The  principle  of  non-discrimination  seeks  to  

ensure that all persons can  equally enjoy and exercise all their  

rights and freedoms.  Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial  

of opportunities for equal participation.  For example, when public  

facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of  

persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of rights.  

Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the  

protection  of  individuals  against  unfavourable  treatment   by  

introducing  anti-discrimination  laws),  but  goes  beyond  in  

remedying  discrimination  against  groups  suffering  systematic  

discrimination in society.  In concrete terms, it means embracing  

the  notion  of  positive  rights,  affirmative  action  and  reasonable  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 46 of 54

Page 47

accommodation. The move from the patronising and paternalistic  

approach to persons with disabilities represented by the medical  

model to viewing them as members of the community with equal  

rights  has  also  been  reflected  in  the  evolution  of  international  

standards relating specifically to disabilities, as well as in moves  

to place the rights of persons with disabilities within the category  

of  universal  human  rights.   {See  –  Report  of  United  Nations   

Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International Norms and   

Standards Relating to Disability 10-2-2001}.

40) Earlier the traditional approaches to disability have depicted it as  

health and welfare issue, to be addressed through care provided  

to persons with disabilities, from a charitable point of view.  The  

disabled persons are viewed as abnormal, deserving of pity and  

are,  and not as individuals who are entitled to enjoy the same  

opportunities to live a full and satisfying life as other members of  

society.  This resulted in marginalising the disabled persons and  

their  exclusion  both  from  the  mainstream  of  the  society  and  

enjoyment of  their  fundamental rights and freedoms.  Disability  

tends  to  be  couched within  a  medical  and  welfare  framework,  

identifying people with disabilities as ill, different from their non-

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 47 of 54

Page 48

disabled peers, and in need of care.  Because the emphasis is on  

the  medical  needs  of  people  with  disabilities,  there  is  a  

corresponding  neglect  of  their  wider  social  needs,  which  has  

resulted in severe isolation for people with disabilities and their  

families.

41) However, the nations have come a long way from that stage. Real  

awareness has dawned on the society at large that the problems  

of  differently  abled  are  to  be  viewed  from  human  rights  

perspective.  This thinking is reflected in two major declarations  

on the disability adopted by the General Assembly of the United  

Nations on December 20, 1971 and thereafter in the year 1975.  

The  position  was  reiterated  in  the  Beijing  Conclave  by  the  

Government of  Asian and Pacific Countries that  was held from  

December 01-05,  1992 and in  order  to  convert  the resolutions  

adopted therein into reality, the Indian Parliament also passed the  

enactment, i.e. Act, 1995.

42) All these rights conferred upon such persons send an eloquent  

message  that  there  is  no  question  of  sympathising  with  such  

persons and extending them medical or other help.  What is to be  

borne in mind is that they are also human beings and they have to  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 48 of 54

Page 49

grow as normal persons and are to be extended all facilities in this  

behalf.   The  subject  of  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities  

should  be  approached  from  human  rights  perspective,  which  

recognised that persons with disabilities were entitled to enjoy the  

full  range  of  internationally  guaranteed  rights  and  freedoms  

without discrimination on the ground of disability.  This creates an  

obligation on the part of the State to take positive measures to  

ensure  that  in  reality  persons  with  disabilities  get  enabled  to  

exercise  those  rights.   There  should  be  insistence  on  the  full  

measure  of  general  human  rights  guarantees  in  the  case  of  

persons  with  disabilities,  as  well  as  developing  specific  

instruments that refine and given detailed contextual content of  

those general guarantees.  There should be a full recognition of  

the  fact  that  persons  with  disability  were  integral  part  of  the  

community, equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human  

rights and freedoms as others. It is a sad commentary that this  

perceptions has not sunk in the mind and souls of those who are  

not concerned with the enforcement of these rights.  The persons  

suffering  from  mental  or  physical  disability  experience  and  

encounter  nonpareil  form of  discrimination.They are not  looked  

down by people.  However, they are not accepted in the main  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 49 of 54

Page 50

stream either  even  when people  sympathies with  them.   Most  

common,  their  lives  are  handicapped  by  social,  cultural  and  

attitudinal  barriers  which  hamper  their  full  participation  and  

enjoyment  of  equal  rights and opportunities.   This is the worst  

form of  discrimination which disabled feel  as their  grievance is  

that others do not understand them.

43) As pointed out  in  the beginning,  the very first  sentence of  the  

book “NO PITY” authored  by Joseph P.Shapiro reads:

“Non disabled Americans do not understand disabled ones.”

The  only  error  in  the  aforesaid  sentence  is  that  it  is  

attributed to Americans only whereas the harsh reality is that this  

statement has universal application.  The sentence should have  

read:

“Non disabled people do not understand disabled ones.”

For, non-disabled people generally look upon disabled ones with  

pity.   The  general  feeling  is  that  these  `invalid  people'  are  

incapable  of  doing  anything  in  life.   They  are  burden  on  the  

society which the society bear.   Of course, they sympathize with  

disabled  persons.   They  may  even  want  to  willingly  bear  the  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 50 of 54

Page 51

burden.  They may help them financially or otherwise.  However,  

what  they  do  not  understand is  the  feeling of  the people  with  

disabilities.   Disabled  people  no  longer  see  their  physical  or  

mental  limitations  as  a  source  of  shame  or  as  something  to  

overcome in order to inspire others.  What non-disabled people  

do not understand is that people with disabilities also have some  

rights, hopes and aspirations as everyone else.  They do not want  

to depend on others.  They want to brave their disabilities.  They  

want  to  prove  to  the  world  at  large  that  notwithstanding  their  

disabilities they can be the master of their own lives.  They can be  

independent.   They  can  be  self-reliant.   They  do  not  want  

sympathies of non-disabled.  They want to be trusted.  They want  

to be treated  as valued member of the society who can contribute  

to the development and progress of  the society.   For this they  

want the proper environment to grow.  Our society automatically  

under-estimates  the  capabilities  of  people  with  disabilities.  

People with disabilities want this change in the thinking of non-

disabled.  It is the thinking of Disability  Rights Movement, USA  

that  it  is  not  so  much  the  disabled  individual  who  needs  to  

change,  but  the  society.   Says  disability  rights  activist  Judy  

Heumann:

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 51 of 54

Page 52

“disability  only  becomes  a  tragedy  for  me  when  society fails to provide the things we need to lead  our lives-job opportunities, or barrier-free buildings,  for example.  It  is not a tragedy to me that I  am  living in a wheel chair.”

44) Helen Keller represents the mind of such disabled persons when  

she says “I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything,   

but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do something I can   

do”.

45) It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities  

that they are unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and  

discrimination  faced  by  them in  employment,  access  to  public  

spaces,  transportation  etc.   Persons  with  disability  are  most  

neglected lot not only in the society but also in the family.  More  

often they are an object of pity.  There are hardly any meaningful  

attempts to assimilate them in the mainstream of the nation's life.  

The apathy towards their problems is so pervasive that even the  

number  of  disabled persons existing in  the country  is  not  well  

documented.

46) Jeeja Ghosh herself is a living example who has, notwithstanding  

her disability, achieved so much in life by her sheer determination  

to  overcome  her  disability  and  become  a  responsible  and  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 52 of 54

Page 53

valuable citizen of this country.  A little care, a little sensitivity and  

a little positive attitude on the part of the officials of the airlines  

would not  have resulted in  the trauma, pain and suffering that  

Jeeja Ghosh had to undergo.  This has resulted in violation of her  

human  dignity  and,  thus,  her  fundamental  right,  though  by  a  

private enterprise (respondent No.3).

47) On our finding that respondent No.3 acted in a callous manner,  

and  in  the  process  violated  Rules,  1937  and  CAR,  2008  

guidelines resulting in mental and physical suffering experienced  

by Jeeja Ghosh and also unreasonable discrimination against her,  

we award a sum of 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to her₹   

by respondent No.3 within a period of two months from today.

This  petition  stands  allowed  and  disposed  of  in  the  

aforesaid terms.

48) We would  like  to  conclude  this  judgment  by  observing  that  to  

most disabled persons, the society they live in is a closed door  

which has been locked and the key to which has been thrown  

away by the others.  Helen Keller has described this phenomena  

in the following words:

“Some people see a closed door and turn away.  

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 53 of 54

Page 54

Others  see a  closed door,  try  the  knob and if  it  doesn't  open,  they turn away.   Still  others see a  closed door, try the knob and if it doesn't work, they  find a key and if the key doesn't fit, they turn way.  A rare few see a closed door,  try  the knob,  if  it  doesn't open and they find a key and if it doesn't fit,  they make one!”

These rare persons we have to find out.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (R.K. AGRAWAL)

NEW DELHI; MAY 12, 2016.

Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012 Page 54 of 54