1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 243 OF 2005

RAJIVE RATURI .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 228 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

The petitioner herein, who is a visually disabled person, is resident

of Gurgaon (now ‘Gurugram’) and works in Delhi with a human rights

organisation.  He has filed this petition in public interest on behalf of the

disabled persons (though better expression to describe these persons is

‘differently-abled  persons’)  for  proper  and  adequate  access  to  public

places.   In  particular,  this  petition  seeks  providing  all  accessibility

requirements to meet the needs of visually disabled persons in respect

of safe access to roads and transport facilities.  It is stated in the petition

that  there  are  sixty  to  seventy  million  disabled  persons  in  India  and

2

almost  50%  thereof  suffer  from  visual  disability.   The  fundamental

concern  of  these  visually  impaired  persons  is  safe  accessibility  to

movements on footpaths and accessibility to roads and transport.  It is

stated  in  the  petition  that  internationally  acceptable  mandatory

components of physical accessibility are the following:

a) Safety: the environment must be such where disabled people can

move around safely.

b) Independence:  the  environment  must  be  such  where  disabled

persons can use the facilities independently.

c) Affordability:  the barrier  free or  accessible environment  should

not come with a premium.

d) Logical layout:   the environment must be such where disabled

persons are able to navigate without too much physical exertion

i.e. not having to move to the length and breadth of the building to

access information or make use of the facilities1.

 2) As  per  the  petitioner,  physical  accessibility  when  translated  vis-a-vis

road  and  transportation  facilities  for  the  benefit  of  visually  disabled

persons would imply the following features:

MEASURES IN RESPECT OF ROADS:

a) Installation  of  auditory  signals  at  every  red  light  so  as  to  aid

1 Based  on  a  paper  by  Sunita  Singh  titled  ‘Accessibility  Issues’  in  book  called ‘Disability Management in India – Challenges and Commitment’, edited by C.S. Mohapatra and published by the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA).

3

visually disabled persons to cross the roads safely.  This signal

emits a series of sounds, which would indicate the opportune time

to cross the road.

b) Construct  zebra  crossings  at  a  slight  incline  so  as  to  aid  in

guidance  to  visually  disabled  persons  and  to  enable  them  to

navigate along this raised safe passage of zebra crossings.  This

slightly  raised  level  wo9uld  indicate  the  course  of  the  zebra

crossing to visually disabled persons, who would be able to sense

the slight level difference with the aid of their walking stick.

c) Insert guiding blocks in zebra crossings so as to aid in guidance to

visually disabled persons and to enable them to navigate along

with safe passage of zebra crossings.

d) Placing  warning  blocks  along  the  edges  of  the  pavement  or

footpath so as to denote a level difference between the road and

the pathway and to ensure the continuity of the pathway.  Warning

blocks  refers  to  a  standard  cement  block,  such  as  is  used  on

pavements and footpaths, consisting of a series of small blisters

on them so as to warn visually disabled persons wherever there is

a gap in the pavement, a level difference or to indicate the point

where  the  pavement  or  footpath  ends  and  a  road  or  a  zebra

crossing starts.

4

e) Providing for unobstructed footpaths with minimum hindrances in

such  manner  so  as  to  leave  obstacle-free  walking  areas  in  a

straight  line  on  the  footpath  at  either  left  or  right  edges  of  the

footpath.

f) Placing guiding blocks on pavements and footpaths so as to aid

visually disabled persons in directional guidance.  Guiding blocks

are constructed  on the  same lines  as warning blocks,  the only

difference being that while warning blocks consist of blisters made

on a block, guiding blocks comprise of lines engraved on a block.

These  engraved  lines  on  the  cement  block,  which  the  visually

disabled  persons  can  sense  with  the  aid  of  their  walking  stick,

serve  as  an  orientation  tool  to  guide  visually  disabled  persons

along a certain direction.

g) Colouring  the  nosing  of  stairs  in  subways/overhead  bridges/

escalators.  Colouring the edges of the stairs would be of immense

guidance to persons with low vision so as to enable such persons

to negotiate each step with ease and orientation.

h) Providing  for  specially  designated  parking  areas,  which  do  not

obstruct  pathways.   This  feature  would  ensure  that  visually

disabled  persons  could  negotiate  pathways  without  the

5

apprehension of colliding with parked vehicles.

i) Construction of a protective fencing around obstacles on footpaths

an pavements so as to serve as a warning of the obstacle ahead.

j) Providing for signboards/advertisement boards and hoardings to

be placed above head levels.  This feature would ensure that there

is no probability of visually disabled persons suffering head injuries

owing to collision with signboards/advertisement boards.

k) Erecting a temporary barricade around places where construction

work is in progress so as to serve as a timely warning to visually

disabled persons.

l) Constructing highlands in the middle of main roads, so as to make

crossing roads safer for the visually disabled.  A highland would

divide  the  main  road  in  to  two  separate  traffic  zones  of  traffic

moving in opposite directions, wherein a visually disabled person,

through the aid of his ears, can concentrate on the traffic sounds

coming from one particular direction whilst crossing over.

MEASURES FOR TRANSPORT FACILITIES:

m) Providing an efficient audio announcement system in all modes of

mass public transport, using Delhi Metro, which has incorporated

this feature with great success, as a model.

6

n) Providing  for  bus  stops  to  have  route  maps  and  schedules  in

Braille, which is placed at eye-level.

o) Providing  for  a  standardized  texture  of  flooring  in  front  of  bus

stops.

p) Providing for easily accessible entry and exit points at bus stops,

railway stations and airports.

q) Providing  for  an  exclusive  and  designated  ticketing  area  and

assistance/information counter for visually disabled persons at the

point  which is  nearest  possible  to  the entry point  and at  every

platform.

r) Providing for a designated place for disabled friendly coaches by

placing  guiding  blocks  for  disabled-friendly  coaches  at  railway

stations, till the time the entire transport system becomes disabled

friendly entirely.

s) Constructing warning blocks along with edges of platforms at all

railway stations.

t) Modifying the footboard of public transport vehicles so as to make

it  more  accessible  for  the  visually  disabled  with  sufficient  and

uniform width of steps and between steps.

7

3) As per the petitioner, though there are few instances where some of

these measures are being implemented, but the authorities have moved

with a slow pace and in sporadic manner.  To illustrate the same, the

petitioner  has tabulated  these measures  in  Anneuxre  P-4  to  the  writ

petition to show that in most of the cases no action is taken by various

States and Union Territories.

RIGHT  OF  VISUALLY  DISABLED  PERSONS  TO  GET  THESE FACILITIES

(i) At International Level

4) 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

8

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.2”.

5) 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  care,  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  had resulted in

marginalizing 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-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). However, Real

awareness  of  the  problems  of  disabled  and  their  human  rights

2  See Report of United Nations Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International Norms and Standards Relating to Disability 10-2-2001

9

perspective came to fore, in international thinking, in the 1970s when

United Nations took number of initiatives, which embrace the growing

international concept of the human rights of persons with disabilities and

equalization of opportunities to them.  

6) Two major declarations on the disabled were adopted by the General

Assembly in that decade. First is the declaration on the rights of mentally

retarded  persons  dated  December  20,1971  which  provided  that  the

mentally retarded person should enjoy the same rights as other human

beings, including the right to proper medical care, economic security, the

right to training and rehabilitation, and the right to live with his own family

or with foster parents. Furthermore, the Assembly declared that there

should  be  proper  legal  safeguards  to  protect  the  mentally  retarded

person against every form of abuse if  it  should become necessary to

restrict or deny his or her rights.  In 1975, the General Assembly of the

UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, which

proclaimed that “disabled persons have the same civil and political rights

as  other  human  beings.”  The  Declaration  states,  “Disabled  persons

should receive equal treatment and services, which will enable them to

develop their capabilities and skills to the maximum and will hasten the

process of their social integration or reintegration.” This Declaration is a

comprehensive instrument with a clear focus on the rights of persons

with disabilities. Thereafter, the year 1981 was observed as International

10

Year of the Disabled Persons with its central theme as “Full Participation

and Equality”.  

7) In  the  very  next  year  the  UN General  Assembly  adopted  the  World

Programme of Action which placed “Equalization of Opportunities” as a

central theme. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

under International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR)  in  1994  assumed  the  responsibility  for  disability  rights  by

issuing a General Comment No.5, in which the Committee makes an

analysis of disability as a human rights issue. Article 6 of the Covenant

emphasizes “Right to Work”; Article 7 refers to “the Right of everyone to

the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensures

adequate  remuneration”;  Article  11 recognizes  that  everyone has the

“Right  to  an  adequate  standard  of  living  for  himself  and  his  family,

including adequate food, clothing and housing”; Article 15 recognizes the

“Right of everyone to take part in cultural life”.  

8) Even  at  Asian  level,  significant  development  took  place  when  the

Government  of  Asian  and  Pacific  countries  (ESCAP Region)  in  their

meeting held in Beijing on 1st to  5th December, 1992 called “Meet  to

Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons” adopted to

the  proclamation  on  “Full  Participation  and  Equality  of  People  with

Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific regions, with this ending view, it

11

year marked 1993-2002 as the decade of disabled persons. This paved

the  way  for  enactment  of  the  "The  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, which was

enacted in the year 1996.

9) The  underlined  message  in  the  aforesaid  documents  is  the

acknowledgment that  human rights are individual and have a 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 realization 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.

(ii) Rights under the Indian Constitution

10) This  right  not  only  flows  from  various  international  covenants

referred  to  above  to  which  India  is  a  signatory,  it  is  recognised  as

Constitutional  right  as  well.   There  cannot  be any dispute  about  the

rights  of  the  differently-  abled  persons,  particularly  those  who  have

visual impairment with which category we are concerned in the present

case, to provide them adequate access to all the facilities on the road as

well  as  convenient  access  to  transport  facilities  etc.   Without  these

facilities, movement of such persons gets impaired and this can even be

12

treated as infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c)

of the Constitution, which is guaranteed to each and every citizen of this

country.   In  order  to  ensure  that  this  right  is  exercised  by  visually

disabled persons as well, it becomes the duty of the State and public

authorities to lay down proper norms in respect of the built environment

and public  facilities  i.e.  roads,  buildings,  public  places,  transport  (air,

land and water) carriages etc.  It is a well known fact that persons with

visually impaired disability, with which we are concerned, represent far

more  ‘vulnerable  section  of  society’  and  ‘at-risk  cases’  vis-a-vis  their

present surroundings which also becomes evident from the well known

fact that insurance companies charge a higher premium on insurance

policies  extended  to  the  visually  disabled  as  compared  to  the  other

persons.    

11) Article 21 of the Constitution gives right to life, mandates that every

citizen  has  right  to  live  with  dignity.   It  is  an  umbrella  right  which

subsumes several other rights that enable life to be led meaningfully.  In

Francis  Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi &

Ors.3, this Court has held that:

“The fundamental right to life which is the most precious human right and which forms the ark of all other rights must, therefore, be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of human person.”

3  (1981) 1 SCC 608

13

Right to dignity has been particularly recognized in this judgment

as one of the facets of right to life:

“every  act  which  offends  against  or  impairs  human indignity  would  constitute  deprivation  pro  tanto  of  this right to live.”

This  expansive  understanding  of  right  to  life  assumes  greater

proportions in respect of persons with visual impairments, who need a

higher number of compensative skill enhancing facilities in order to go

about their daily lives without suffering the indignity of being generally

perceived as being dependent and helpless.

12) The vitality of the issue of ‘Accessibility’ vis-a-vis visually disabled

persons’ right to life can be gauged clearly by this Court’s judgment in

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.  v.  Umed Ram Sharma & Ors.4,

where the right to life under Article 21 has been held broad enough to

incorporate  the  right  to  accessibility.   Relevant  paragraphs  of  this

judgment have been reproduced below:

“Read in the background of  Article 38(2)  every person has right under Article 19(1)(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India.  He has also the right under Article 21 to his life which embraces not only physical existence of  life  but  the  quality  of  life  and  for  residents  of  hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself.  Therefore, to the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads  for  communication  in  reasonable  conditions. Denial  of  that  right  would  be  denial  of  the  life  as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution.

4  (1986) 2 SCC 68

14

It  appears  to  us  that  in  the  facts  of  this  case,  the controversy lies within a short compass.  It is well settled that the persons who have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected by the absence of usable road because they are poor Harijan residents of the area, their access by communication, indeed to life outside is obstructed  and/or  prevented  by  the  absence  of  road. The  entire  State  of  Himachal  Pradesh  is  in  hills  and without  workable roads,  no communication is  possible. Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the  Constitution  and  in  the  facts  of  this  case  read  in conjunction with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person  has  right  under  Article  19(1)(d)  to  move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces  not  only  physical  existence  of  life  but  the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition that there should be road for communication in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and  fullness  by  the  ambit  of  the  Constitution.  To the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication.”

13) Right to dignity, which is ensured in our Constitutional set up for

every citizen applies with much more vigour in case of persons suffering

from disability  and,  therefore,  it  becomes imperative  to  provide  such

facilities so that these persons also are ensured level playing field and

not only they are able to enjoy life meaningfully, they contribute to the

progress of the nation as well.  In a recent judgment in Jeeja Ghosh &

Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.5, these aspects were highlighted by this

Court in the following form:  

5  (2016) 7 SCC 761

15

37.  The rights that are guaranteed to differently-abled persons under the 1995 Act, 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 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  fulfilment  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 Barak  [Aharon  Barak, Human  Dignity  —  The Constitutional  Value  and  the  Constitutional Right (Cambridge University Press, 2015)] (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

16

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.”

xxx xxx xxx

40.    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 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.)

xxx xxx xxx

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

17

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 give 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 perception 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 mainstream  either  even  when  people  sympathise  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 the disabled feel as their grievance is that others do not understand them.

xxx xxx xxx

46.  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 the 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.”

(iii) Rights conferred under the Statute

18

14) Right of these persons not only flows from the Constitution but are

statutorily recognised as well.  As mentioned above, pursuant to Beijing

Declaration, India enacted Disability Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as

the  ‘Act’)6.   This  Act,  in  no  uncertain  terms,  brings  out  one  of  the

important features thereof,  namely, the creation of a barrier free built

environment.  The very Preamble to the Disabilities Act discloses that

this act was enacted by the legislature to fulfill its international obligation

to enact a disability specific law nationally. The first in the statement of

objects and reasons are:

(i) To spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention

of disabilities: and (ii) To create a barrier free environment for Persons with Disabilities.

15) Under its chapter VIII,  titled “Non-Discrimination”, the Disabilities

Act,  1995  aimed  to  provide  persons  with  disabilities  with  a

non-handicapping environment to ensure them equal opportunities and

full participation in all aspects of life, including social, economic, political

and cultural, at par with other citizens.   Sections 44, 45 and 46 under

this chapter provided extremely specific and unambiguous guidelines for

making the built environment, roads and transport facilities accessible

for visually disabled persons.

Under  Section  44  establishments  in  the  transport  sector  are

required to design rail compartments, buses, etc. in such a way as to 6  This Act now stands repealed and is replaced by Act, 2016 which is enforced w.e.f. April 19, 2017.

19

promote easy access to disabled persons.

Section 45 provides for  installation of  signals at  traffic  lights on

public  roads,  kerb  cuts,  and  slopes  to  be  made  in  pavements,

engravings  on  edges  of  railways  platforms,  designing  appropriate

symbols of disability and warning signals at appropriate places.

Section  46  directs  the  appropriate  governments  and  local

authorities, within the limits of their economic capacity and development,

to provide for ramps, Braille symbols and auditory signals in elevators in

hospitals,  primary  health  centres  and  other  medical  care  and

rehabilitation institutes.

16) The  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  Act,  2016  (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Disabilities Act, 2016’) has come into force on April

19,  2017 and this Act  has repealed the earlier  Disabilities Act,  1995.

This Disabilities Act, 2016 lays down the provision relating to barrier free

environment.  Those relevant provisions, are as under:

Section 2(i) - ‘establishment includes a Government establishment and

private establishment”

Section  2(k)  -  ‘Government  establishment’  means  a  corporation

established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a

body  owned  or  controlled  or  aided  by  the  Government  or  a  local

authority  or  a  Government  company as  defined  in  section  2  of  the

20

Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) and includes a Department of the

Government.

Section  2(v)  -  “private  establishment”  means  a  company,  firm,

cooperative  or  other  society,  associations,  trust,  agency,  institution,

organisation,  union,  factory  or  such  other  establishment  as  the

appropriate  Government  may,  by  notification,  specify;  (w)  “public

building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by

the  public  at  large,  including  a  building  used  for  educational  or

vocational  purposes,  workplace,  commercial  activities,  public  utilities,

religious,  cultural,  leisure  or  recreational  activities,  medical  or  health

services,  law  enforcement  agencies,  reformatories  or  judicial  foras,

railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports

or waterways;

Section 2(w) - “public building” means a Government or private building,

used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for

educational  or  vocational  purposes,  workplace,  commercial  activities,

public  utilities,  religious,  cultural,  leisure  or  recreational  activities,

medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or

judicial  foras,  railway  stations  or  platforms,  roadways  bus  stands  or

terminus, airports or waterways;

Section  2(zd)  -  “transportation  systems”  includes  road  transport,  rail

21

transport, air transport, water transport, para transit systems for the last

mile connectivity, road and street infrastructure, etc;  

Section  2(ze)  -  “universal  design”  means  the  design  of  products,

environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to

the  greatest  extent  possible,  without  the  need  for  adaptation  or

specialised  design  and  shall  apply  to  assistive  devices  including

advanced technologies for particular group of persons with disabilities.

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

(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment wholly or

substantially  financed  by  that  Government,  or  a  Cantonment  Board

constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the Central

Government;  

(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly or

substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other

than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.

Section  16  mandates  the  appropriate  Government  and  the  local

authorities  to  endeavour  that  all  educational  institutions  funded  or

recognised  by  them provide  inclusive  education  to  the  children  with

disabilities  and  towards  that  end  shall  make  buildings,  campus  and

various facilities accessible.

22

Section  25(1)(b)  mandates  the  appropriate  Government  and  local

authority to take necessary measures for the persons with disabilities to

provide  barrier-free  access  in  all  parts  of  Government  and  private

hospitals and other health care institutions and centres.

Section  40  mandates  the  Central  Government  to  frame  Rules  and

laying  down  the  standards  of  accessibility  for  physical  environment,

transportation system, information & communication system and other

facilities & services to be provided to the public in urban and rural areas.

Rule  15  deals  with  accessibility  standards  for  public  buildings,

passenger  bus  transport  and  information  and  communication

technology.   As  regards  public  buildings,  the  accessibility  standards

prescribed under the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for

barrier-free built  environment  for  persons with disabilities and elderly

persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development have been adopted.

This implies that all the public buildings are now required to conform to

these standards.

17) It  is  pertinent  to  mention  at  this  point  that  the  Ministry  Urban

Development and Poverty Alleviation had in the year 1993, at the outset

of  the  Asia-Pacific  Disability  Decade,  received  monetary  grants  from

UN-ESCAP as part of project for ‘the Promotion of Non-Handicapping

Environments  for  Disabled  and  Elderly  Persons  in  the  Asia-Pacific

23

Region”. The project had developed a set of guidelines on the promotion

of  non-handicapping  physical  environments  for  disabled  persons  and

therefore provided funds to implement these guidelines within a period

of three years, beginning May 1995.

As  a  follow  up  action  to  the  enactment  of  the  Persons  with

Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full

Participation  Act)  1995,  the  Ministry  of  Urban  Development  in

collaboration  with  UN-ESCAP, undertook  demonstrative  exercises  in

Delhi to create a barrier-free built environment in a 2 square kilometer

area of Indraprastha Estate.

This was followed by the formulation of guidelines for creation of a

barrier-free  environment  by  the  Centre  Public  Works  Department

(CPWD) under  the Ministry of  Urban Development  and Employment,

developed  “Guidelines  on  Space  Standards  for  Barriers  Free  Built

Environment “which also included  model building bye-laws for inter alia,

road  construction,  to  facilitate   their  adoption  by  local  bodies  in  the

states. A reference was made to all state governments to make suitable

amendments in their  building bye-laws to respond to this Act.   Thus,

there is no paucity for provisions in the law to safeguard the rights of the

visually disabled  

DUTY OF THE STATE

18) Apart  from  conferring  rights  on  disabled  persons,  there  are

24

adequate provisions which cast an obligation on the State also to make

provisions  for  safeguarding  the  interest  of  the  handicapped  persons.

73rd and  74th Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  India  make  it  a

Constitutional  obligation  for  the  State  to  make  provisions  for

safeguarding the interest of the weaker section of the society, including

‘handicapped  and  mentally  retarded’.   Article  41  of  the  Constitution

which is in the nature of a Directive Principle, imposes a duty on the

State to make an effective provision, inter alia, for public assistance to

disabled persons and it is a well-established principle that the State has

an obligation to apply the Directive Principles of securing a social order

in promotion of the welfare of the people.  The importance of Article 41

in the Constitutional scheme can be measured by this Court’s judgment

in Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors.7

wherein it was held that a Court should interpret an Act so as to advance

Article  41.   Further,  the  intention  of  the  legislature  was  clear  and

unambiguous  when  it  enacted  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal

Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation  Act),  an

important  feature  of  which  was  the  creation  of  a  barrier-free  built

environment.   Chapter  8  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal

Opportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995

deals squarely with the issue of non-discrimination in transport and the

built  environment.   The  provisions  of  Disabilities  Act,  1995  and

7  (1991) 1 SCC 28

25

Disabilities  Act,  2016 have  already taken  note  of.   These  provisions

emphasize  the  importance  of  providing  non-discriminatory  access  by

removing all  physical  barriers.  More specifically, they seek to provide

access to public places in the following ways:

A) Suitably  altering  buses,  airplanes,  train  compartments  and   

vessels to make them accessible to persons with disabilities;

B) Adapting toilets in these aforementioned vehicles and waiting

rooms to make them accessible, especially for wheelchair users;

C) Installing auditory feedback in traffic signals for the benefit of

the visually impaired;

D) Making  necessary  curb  cuts  and  slopes  in  pavements  for   

wheelchair users;

E) Engraving the surface of zebra crossings for the visually impaired;

F) Engraving the edges of railway platforms for the benefit of the

visually impaired;

G) Designing appropriate symbols of disability (for identification of

reserved parking spaces, etc);

H) Providing warning signals at necessary places;

I) Building ramps in all public places;

J) Providing auditory feedback in lifts; and

K) Providing  ramps  in  all  healthcare  facilities  including,  inter   

alia, hospitals and rehabilitation centres.

26

  19) For  effective  implementation  of  these  provisions,  the  following

measures need to be undertaken by the State authorities for removing

obstacles that prevent the disabled from accessing public places:

i) Making  the  gates  to  public  places  accessible  by  incorporating

necessary accessible standards.  More specifically, they must be

made wide enough to allow wheelchairs to pass easily and must

provide  enough  space  for  the  wheelchair  to  turn  around  after

entering inside.

ii) Stair must be marked with a broad yellow line to allow the visually

impaired to understand the difference in gradient.

iii) At places like airports, railway stations, etc passengers must be

clearly informed about the details of their flight/train such as the

gate number for boarding, etc via public announcement systems

(this practice is, surprisingly, gradually declining).

iv) A minimum  of  3-5  parking  spaces  near  the  entrance  must  be

reserved  for  persons  with  disabilities.  This  must  be  clearly

indicated by showing the international symbol for disability i.e. the

wheelchair symbol.

v) All  unnecessary  obstructions  must  be  removed,  and  all  access

ways must be well lit. Moreover, clear signposts, along with their

Braille equivalents should be put up.

vi) Elevators must have clear Braille signs and auditory feedback. The

27

buttons  of  elevators  must  be  accessible  from  a  wheelchair.

Pictograms must  be  put  up  near  elevators  and  other  important

places such as toilets.

vii) Employees working at public places must be provided necessary

training to enable them to understand the unique set of challenges

that persons with disabilities face. They should be informed about

the best practices for dealing with these challenges.

viii) Wheelchairs  and mobility  scooters  should  be available  at  every

public place.

20) One  aspect  that  needs  to  be  highlighted  is  that  whereas

Disabilities Act, 1995 put a rider by mentioning that responsibility of the

State  to  provide  these  facilities  is  subject  to  adequate  economic

resources to  bear  the expenditure  involved in  making these  facilities

disabled friendly, Disabilities Act, 2016 thankfully does not mention any

such condition.  On the contrary, Section 45 of the Act provides for time

limits  for  making  existing  infrastructure  and  premises  accessible  and

action for that purpose.  Furthermore, Section 44 casts an obligation on

all  kinds  of  establishments  i.e.  Government  as  well  as  private

establishments, to mandatorily observe accessible norms while building

any structure.

THE PRESENT CASE

28

21) Having  regard  to  the  aforesaid  Constitutional  and  Statutory

Scheme, there is no denial  of  the fact  that  visually impaired persons

need to be provided proper and safe access to roads and transport as

well as to buildings, public places etc.  We may, therefore, emphasise

that  the  prayers  made  in  the  present  petition  cannot  be  viewed  as

adversarial in nature.  We find comfort in the fact that it is not regarded

so by the respondents as well, particularly the Union of India.  In fact,

the manner in which the present case has proceeded would reflect the

commitment  of  the  Central  Government  in  taking  care  about  the

aforesaid needs of the visually disabled persons.  It is for this reason the

Union of India has been filing status reports from time to time in the form

of  affidavits  by  bringing  on  record  the  various  measures  which  the

Government  has  taken  for  fulfilling  its  Constitutional  and  statutory

obligations in this behalf.  This petition was filed in the year 2005 and the

various measures taken by the Government has been monitored in the

last 12 years.  It may not be necessary to refer to various status reports

filed by the Government depicting the steps which are taken by it, as

that would unnecessarily burden the present judgment.  As was rightly

stated by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General who appeared on

behalf of Union of India, that it is a ‘work in progress’ and the Union of

India  has  been  taking  various  measures  to  make  the  lives  of  such

disabled  persons  as  comfortable  as  possible.   Thus,  instead  of

29

reproducing those steps which are taken by the Government from time

to time, we would like to confine the discussion by referring to affidavit

dated June 30, 2017 filed by the petitioner in response to the status

report filed by the Union of India on April 12, 2017.  In this affidavit, the

petitioner has tabulated his remarks and comments to the said status

report and the direction which it seeks from this Court.  Therefore, this

affidavit depicts what remains to be done at the end of the respondents.

It may be pointed out that affidavit which was filed by the Union of India

on April 12, 2017 was in response to the ten action points which were

submitted by the petitioner.  In the said affidavit, the Union of India gave

its updated status on those points in the following manner:  

Sr. No.

Targets set under AIC Petitioner’s Remarks `

Action taken

1 Making 20-50 important government buildings in 50  cities  fully accessible  by December  2017. (State Govt. Buildings)

Accessibility  audits of  only  1165 buildings  as  against 1633  buildings  on the  website  of DEPwD.   Of  1293 buildings, a proposal for only 366 buildings received.   Sanction of  Rs.1402.81  lakh has been issued only 67 buildings.

-  Access  audit  of 1653  buildings  has been  completed  and 1653  reports  are shared  with  the States. -  As  on  30.03.2017, the cost estimates for retrofitting  of  647 buildings  have  been received  under Scheme  for Implementation  PwD Act  (SIPDA). Sanction of Rs.71.60 crore  has  been issued  for  354 buildings.   

2 Making  50% of  all  the govt.  buildings  of  the national  capital  and all the  state  capitals  fully accessible  by December 2018.

Standards  and guidelines  for accessibility  need  to be drawn out prior to creating  accessibility in buildings.

-  Harmonized Guidelines  and Space Standards for the  barrier-free environment  for PwDs were issued by

30

CPWD on 23/3/2016.

-  Model  Building Bye-laws  (MBBLs) were  issued  by Ministry  of  Urban Development  on 18/3/2016 which has a  separate  chapter on  Accessibility  for PwDs.  These are to be  appointed  by  the States  and  local authorities.  So far 33 states/UTs  have adopted  the accessibility standards  envisages in the MBBLs.

-  National  Building Code 2016 has been notified  and published  on  March 15, 2017, by Bureau of  Indian  Standards. It  is  for  the  States and Urban Bodies to adopt  these standards.   Once adopted,  these standards  would become enforceable.

-  In  respect  of  this target, States have to make  their  buildings accessible from their own  budget,  as  per the  decision  of Central  Coordination committee (CCC).  In this  respect  list  of buildings identified in State  capitals  has been  received  from Meghalaya, Karnataka,  Sikkim, Uttar  Pradesh, Assam,  Tamil  Nadu and Bihar only.

3 Completing States and UTs need -  In  response  to  the

31

accessibility  audit  of 50% of  govt.  buildings and  making  them  fully accessible  in  10  most important  cities/towns of  states/UTs  not covered  in  targets  (i) and  (ii)  by  December 2019.

to  be communicated standards  and guidelines  for creating accessibility.

letters sent to States to provide a list of 10 important  cities,  lists of  cities  have  been received  from  Bihar, Meghalaya, Karnataka,  Sikkim, Uttar  Pradesh, Assam  and  Tamil Nadu only.  However, list  of  Buildings  in these cities have not been identified by the respective States.

4 Central Govt. buildings No  status  of  the report  submitted  by MoUD  is  given  on their website.

-  CPWD  informed that out of 50 cities of phase I,  11 cities do not  have  General Pool  Office Accommodation (GPOA)  Buildings under  maintenance of  CPWD.   These cities  are  Daman, Imphal,  Aizawl, Gangtok,  Agartala, Silvasa,  Gurugram, Kavaratii,  Itanagar, Kohima and Jhansi. -  For  the  remaining 39 cities, 75 buildings were  identified,  of which retrofitting in 9 buildings  in  4  cities have  been completed.   Work  is in  progress  for  43 Buildings in 25 cities. Further  work  is  also in progress in respect of  buildings  in  other cities. - Also, CPWD stated that  39  buildings  of NCR  region  have been  provided  with accessible  features like  a  ramp  with railing,  disabled friendly  toilets, Auditory  and  Visual Signage  and  Braille

32

Button in a lift in case of  multistoried buildings. -  Total  Number  of GPOA  buildings under  maintenance of  CPWD  in  Delhi NCR & State capitals is 123 - Out of 62 buildings (50%  of  123 buildings),  retrofitting work  has  been completed  in  21 buildings  in  5  cities (Delhi,  Bangalore, Hyderabad, Lucknow,  Mumbai). Retrofitting work is in progress  in  24 buildings. Retrofitting  work  of remaining  buildings will  be completed by December 2017. -  In  remaining  50% i.e.  61  buildings (123-62),  retrofitting work  will  be completed  by  July 2018.

5 Accessibility in airports. Completing accessibility audit of all the  international airports  and  making them fully accessible by December 2016.

No  information  is available  as  to whether  this  has been done.

-  Out  of  32 International Airports, 30  airports  have been  provided  with accessibility  features namely  ramps, accessible  toilets, lifts  with  Braille symbols and auditory signals.   Out  of  65 Domestic Airports,  in 58  airports accessibility  features have been provided. -  Ministry  of  Civil Aviation  has informed that most of the  airports  have been  made barrier-free for PwDs. Imphal,  Srinagar,

33

Port Blair airports are single  level  airports therefore  no  lift  is required  for passengers.   In Thiruvananthapuram, Gaya and Bagdogra, the  upgradation  of lifts is under progress and  the  works  are likely  to  be completed  by  April 30, 2017.

6 Accessibility  in Railways.   Ministry  of Railways  was  required to make all A1, A and B category  railway stations fully accessible by July 2016.  50% of all  railway  stations  to made  fully  accessible by March 2018.

No  information provided  on  their website  for  the same.

- Out of 709 A1, A, B category  railway stations,  644  have been  made accessible  with short-term  features. Short  term accessibility  features include  ramp  with railing,  parking  for disabled,  the non-slippery walkway from  parking  to Building,  Signage, suitable  drinking water  facility, Accessible  toilet  at ground  floor  and ‘May  I  Help  You’ booth. - Information has not been  received  from Railways  about  the remaining stations. -  Long  term accessibility  feature include  provision  of the  facility  for  inter platform transfer and tactile  flooring  of platform.

7 10%  of  government owned  public  transport carriers are to be made fully  accessible  by March 2018.

No  standards  and guidelines at present are  available  to make  government owned  public

-  Ministry  of  Road, Transport  & Highways has issued instructions  to  the States and Executive

34

transport  carriers accessible.

Director  of organisations  of State  Undertakings to ensure that 10% of Government  owned Public  Transport  is made fully accessible to  the  PwDs  by March 2018.  

8 Comprehensive revision  of  target deadliness  under accessibility  of knowledge  and  ICT Ecosystem.   At  least 50%  of  central  and state govt. websites are to  meet  accessibility standards  by  March 2017.  At least 50% of the  public  documents are  to  meet accessibility  standards by March 2018.

World  Accessibility Guidelines,  as prescribed  by  W3C are  not  being adhered to.   Instead govt.  has  framed their own guidelines.

- MeitY has informed that  the  Guidelines for  Indian Government Website are  compliant  to WCAG 2.0.* -  *((WCAG), developed  through the World Wide Web (W3C’s) -  MeitY  has  further informed  that  under the  Content Management Framework  (CMF), 100  govt.  websites are  mandated  to  be made accessible.  59 Ministries/Depts. have  on-boarded  to CMF.  Out  of  these, 33  websites  are made live so far.   

9 Bureau  of  Indian Standards  to  embed disability  aspect  in  all relevant  parts  of revised  National Building Code.

No information about the status is provided by  BIS  in  the absence  of  which there  are  no standards  and guidelines.

- The new version of National  Building Code of India (NBC), has  been comprehensively updated  in  the revised  NBC  and  is released  on  15 March  2017.   This would be enforceable once the urban local bodies  adopt  the same.

10 The  target  of  training additional  200  sign language  interpreters by March 2018.

No  action  to  train 2000  sign  language interpreters.

-  A  Task  Force  has been  set  up  to develop a module on Sign Language.

35

-  ISLRTC  plans  to train  about  475  sign language interpreters (about  75  trainees through  Diploma  in Indian  Sign Language Interpretation)  and 400  others  officials through  short  term training  programme. CRE  (Continuous Rehabilitation Education)  and Workshops till March, 2018.   Besides  it  is proposed to  train  25 interpreters  who  are native  speakers  of sign language SODA (Siblings  of  Deaf Adult),  CODA (Children  of  Deaf Adults).   25 educators  for  the deaf  and  25  Indian sing  language teachers  training (deaf)  till  March, 2018. -  ISLRTC  is developing  a comprehensive Indian  Sign Lanugage  (ISL) Dictionary  of  about 6000  words  from various  areas  like every  day  words, academic  words, legal,  technical  and medical words.  

22) In  its  reply  dated  June  30,  2017,  the  petitioner  has  made  his

remarks in respect of the aforesaid ten action points and also submitted

that certain directions are required from this Court in respect of six to ten

action points.  

36

Sr. No.

Targets set under AIC Action taken Petitioner’s remarks

1 Making 20-50 important government buildings in 50 cities fully accessible by  December,  2017. (State Govt. Buildings

-  Access  audit  of 1653  buildings  has been completed.

-  As  on  30.03.207, the  cost  estimates for  retrofitting  of 647 buildings in  50 cities  have  been received  under Scheme  for implementation  Pwd Act  (SIPDA). Sanction  of Rs.71.60  crore  has been issued for 354 buildings.   

-  Petitioner’s analysis of a sample of the access audits is  set  out  in  the Additional Affidavit of the  Petitioner  dated 6.1.17  from  page  3 onwards showing the pitiable  state  of access  for  disabled persons.

- The cost estimates for  retrofitting  647 buildings  has  not been disclosed, thus suppressing  the funds  required  for retrofitting these 647 buildings.   Only  the sanctioned  amount has  been  disclosed. It  has  not  been disclosed  as  to whether  this sanctioned  amount has  been  disbursed and used.

- It  does not appear as if the central and state  governments are  bothered  about the  revised deadline of  December  2017 (from July  2016)  for the retrofitting of the buildings.

-  22  years  after enactment  of  PwD Act,  1995  and  now the  RPD  Act,  2016 (Which  have  almost identical  provisions regarding access) no progress  has  been made.   Under  both Acts  all  buildings  in the states were to be

37

made accessible; not just 1653.  Out of the thousands  of government buildings in the state only a tiny fraction of 1653  buildings  have been  chosen  and these  too  have missed the deadlines for retrofitting.

-  The  Harmonized Guidelines  made  by the  Central Government  have been annexed in Vol. II  of  the UOI  Status Report  dated 28.4.16.  None of the audit  reports  make any  reference  to these Guidelines.  It appears  that  the audits  (though severely  critical  of the  access  of  the buildings) have been made  on  some  ad hoc  basis  without reference  to  the guidelines.   

Directions sought 1)  The  state governments  be directed  to  submit within  one  month from  today  the  cost estimates  for  the remaining  1006 buildings.

2) Union of India be directed  to  disburse to  the  respective states  the  entire funds  required  for the  retrofitting  of 1653 buildings within 2 months from today.

38

3)  For  an  order directing  the  state governments  to complete  the retrofitting  of  1653 buildings  in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  by December, 2017.

4)  For  an  order directing  the  state governments  to conduct  the accessibility  audit  of all the 1653 buildings after the retrofitting is completed  within  3 months  of completion  and  to upload the audits on the website.   

5)  For  an  order directing  that  the Chief  Secretary  of the  states  and  the Administratives  of the  Union  Territories will  be  held responsible  for  the implementation  of the orders passed by this Court.

2 Making  50%  of  all government buildings of the national capital and the  state  capitals  fully accessible  by December 2018.

-  Harmonized Guidelines  and Space Standards for the  barrier-free environment  foe PwDs  were  issued by  CPWD  on 23/3/2016.

-  Model  Building Bye-laws  (MBBLs) were  issued  by Ministry  of  Urban Development  on 18/3/2016 which has a  separate  chapter on  Accessibility  for

-  Same  as  above. Under  both  the statutes  all  buildings are to be retrofitted.

-  The  latest Harmonized Guidelines  filed  by the UOI in this Court in  affidavit  dated 28.4.16  read together  with  any revision  done thereafter  must  be

39

PwDs.  These are to be  adopted  by  the States  and  local authorities.  So far as 33  States/UTs  have adopted  the accessibility standards  envisages in the MBBLs.

-  National  Building Code 2016 has been notified  and published  on  March 15,  2017  by  Bureau of  Indian  Standards. It  is  for  the  States and Urban Bodies to adopte  these standards.   Once adopted,  these standards  would  be enforceable.

-  In  respect  of  this target, States have to make  their  buildings accessible from their own  budget,  as  per the  decision  of Central  Coordination Committee  (CCC). In this respect list of buildings identified in State  Capitals  has been  received  from Meghalaya, Karnataka,  Sikkimk, Uttar  Pradesh, Assam,  Tamil  Nadu and Bihar only.

used.

-  Not  a  single  state capital  has  made any attempt either to identify the buildings or  to  make  cost estimates  and  to make  financial provisions  for retrofitting  of  the buildings.   In  the meeting  of  the Central  Coordination Committee  held  on 29.11.16 as directed by  the  Supreme Court it was decided that  all  state governments  would submit the names of the  identified buildings by 28.2.17.

Directions sought

1.  For  an  order directing  all States/UTs to finalise and  submit  to  UOI the list of 50% of the government buildings  of  all  the state  capitals  that are  to  be  retrofitted within  one  month from today.

2.  For  an  order directing  all States/UTs  to  make cost  estimates, disburse  funds  and complete  the retrofitting  of  all  the identified buildings in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  read together  with  any subsequent  revision, by  December  2018,

40

in  such  a  manner that 50% of the work shall  be  completed by  December  2017 and  a  report  be made to this Court in respect thereof.

3.   For  an  order directing  that  the Chief  Secretaries  of the  States  shall  be held  responsible  for the  implementation of  the  orders  made by this Court.

4.   For  an  order directing  all  the State/UTs  to complete  an accessibility  audit  of all  the  buildings retrofitted  in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  and  to upload  these  audit reports.   

3 Completing accessibility audit  of  50%  of government  buildings and  making  them  fully accessible  in  10  most important  cities/towns of  states/UTs  not covered  in  targets  (i) and  (ii)  by  December 2019.

In  response  to  the letters sent to States to provide a list of 10 important  cities,  lists of  cities  have  been received  from  Bihar, Meghalaya, Karnataka,  Sikkim, Uttar  Pradesh, Assam  and  Tamil Nadu only.  However, list  of  Buildings  in these cities have not been identified by the respective States.

-  Under  both  the statutes  all  buildings are to be retrofitted.

- No progress made. Cities  not  identified by  many  states. Buildings  not identified  by  any state.  Estimates not made  of  funds required  by  any state.

Direction sought

1)  For  an  order directing  all States/UTs to identify 50%  of  the

41

government buildings  in  the  10 most  important cities/towns  within  1 month  from  today and  to  allocate adequate  resources and  complete  the retrofitting  of  these buildings  by December  2019  in such  a  manner  that half the work will  be completed  by December 2018 and an  interim  report submitted  to  this Court  and  a  final report  submitted thereafter.   

2.  For  an  order directing  all  the State/UTs  to complete  an accessibility  audit  of all  the  buildings retrofitted  in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  and  to upload  these  audit reports.

3.   For  an  order directing  that  the Chief  Secretaries  of the  States  shall  be held  responsible  for the  implementation of  the  orders  made by this Court.

4 Central  Government buildings

-  CPWD  informed that out of 50 cities of phase I,  11 cities do not  have  General Pool Accommodation (GPOA)  Buildings under  maintenance

-  Under  both  the statutes of 1995 and of 2016  all  buildings are to be retrofitted.

- The minutes of the Central  Coordination

42

of  CPWD.    These cities  are  Daman, Imphal,  Aizawl, Gangtok,  Agartala, Silvasa,  Gurugram, Kavaratti,  Itanagar, Kohima and Jhansi.

-  For  the  remaining 39  cities,  75 buildings  were identified,  of  which retrofitting  in  9 buildings  in  4  cities have  been completed.   Work  is in  progress  for  43 buildings in 25 cities. Further  work  is  also in  progress  in respect  of  buildings in other cities.

- Also, CPWD stated that  39  buildings  of NCR  region  have been  provided  with accessible  features like  a  ramp  with railing,  disabled friendly  toilets, Auditory  and  Visual Signage  and  Braille Button in a lift in case of  multistoried buildings.

-  Total  number  of GPOA  buildings under  maintenance of  CPWD  in  Delhi NCR  &  State Capitals is 123.

- Out of 62 buildings (50%  of  123 buildings),  retrofitting work  has  been completed  in  21

Committee  meeting held  on 29.11.16 as directed  by  the Supreme  Court reveals  that  audits and  retrofitting  is  to be  done  of  466 buildings including 90  GPOA  buildings by December, 2016  

Directions sought

1)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to complete  the retrofitting  of  the mentioned  466 buildings  in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and thereafter  to complete  the accessibility audit by July,  2018  and  to upload the audits on the websites.  

2)  For  an  order directing  that  a Secretary,  MoUD, shall  be  the  person held  responsible  for the  implementation of  the  orders  made by  the  Supreme Court.

43

buildings  in  5  cities (Delhi,  Bangalore, Hyderabad, Lucknow,  Mumbai). Retrofitting  work  of remaining  buildings will  be completed by December 2017.

In the remaining 50% i.e.  61  buildings (123-62),  retrofitting work  will  be completed  by  July 2018.

5. Accessibility  in international  and domestic airports.

Completing accessibility audit  of  all  the international  airports and  making  them  fully accessible  by December  2016  and domestic  airports  by March 2018.

-  Out  of  32 International Airports, 30  airports  have been  provided  with accessibility  features namely  ramps, accessible toilets lifts with  Braille  symbols and auditory signals. Out  of  65  Domestic Airports,  in  58 airports  accessibility features  have  been provided.

-  Ministry  of  Civil Aviation  has informed that most of the  airports  have been  made barrier-free  for PwDs.   Imphal, Srinagar,  Port  Blair airports  are  single level  airports therefore  no  lift  is required  for passengers.   In Thiruvananthapuram, Gaya and Bagdogra, the  upgradation  of lifts is under progress and  the  works  are likely  to  be

-  In  the  meeting  of the  Central Coordination Committee  held  on 29.11.16  as mentioned  above  it was pointed out that the accessibility work done  was  only ‘basic’  and  that further  provisions would be put in place ‘in  a  phased manner’.   It  is mentioned  that  a template  for accessibility  audits was  prepared  in order  to  conduct audits and retrofitting in  all  airports. However,  no  audit has been done.

-  In  the  Committee meeting  it  is  stated that  ‘airport accessibility  is  not confined  to  ramps, toilets and lifts.  The airports  have  to  be made accessible  for all  kinds  of disabilities  and  the

44

completed  by  April 30, 2017.

accessibility  should include  accessible signage,  accessible parking  places, tactile  floorings  etc. A copy of the access audit  conducted  by IIT,  Roorkie  for  the Indira  Gandhi International  Airport has  been  sent  to Ministry  of  Civil Aviation,  which  will act as a template for access audit and will facilitate  retrofitting of  the  airports  and railway stations’.

-  No  mention  is made  in  the  UOI status  report  of  the domestic airports.

-  Harmonized guidelines  and  NBC clearly  mention  use of  non slippery matt finish  tiles  which have not been used. People  using crutches  and callipers  find  it difficult  to  navigate open  spaces  in airports  as  tiles  are very  slippery. Carpets  prevent wheelchair  users from navigating their wheelchairs  in carpeted  walkways and  people  using crutches  and callipers  who  have restricted  leg movements  find  it difficult  to  drag their feet on carpets.  No

45

uniform  standards are  used  in  making accessible  toilets. For  instance,  in Mumbai,  Delhi  and other  airports  no latches are provided from inside.

-  In  the   Central Committee  meeting it  was stated by the representative of the National Trust ‘that a template  of  access audit  had  been provided  to  the Ministry  of  Railways and  Ministry  of  Civil Aviation  for conducting  access audit  and  retrofitting of  railway  stations and  airports.   He pointed  out  that these  Ministries should  follow  the prescribed template  and  not pick out only some elements therefrom.   The representative of the two  Ministries submitted  that retrofitting  would  be carried  out  as  per the  template,  but had  been  phased out  in  view  of  the availability  of resources.’

Directions sought

1)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to complete  the retrofitting  of  all  the

46

international  and domestic  airports  by December  2017 (extending the earlier deadline  of  April 2017) in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee  access audit  template abovementioned.

2)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to thereafter  conduct the  accessibility audit  and  upload these  audits  on  the website  by  March 2018.   

3)   For  an  order directing  UOI  to produce in this Court the  accessibility audit done of IGIA by IIT Roorkee.

6. Accessibility  in Railways.   Ministry  of Railways  was  required to  make  all  A1,  A,  B category  railway stations fully accessible by July 2016.   50% of all  railway  stations  to made  fully  accessible by March 2018.

- Out of 709 A1, A, B category  railway stations,  644  have been  made accessible  with short-term  features, short-term accessibility  features include  ramp  with railing,  parking  for disabled,  the  non slippery  walkway from  parking  to Building,  Signage, suitable  drinking water  facility, Accessible  toilet  at ground  floor  and ‘May  I  Help  You’ booth.

- Information has not been  received  from Railways  about  the

-  The  statute requires  full accessibility  of  all railway  stations  not just 50%.

-  In  the  Central Committee  meeting it  was stated by the representative of the National Trust ‘that a template  of  access audit  had  been provided  to  the Ministry  of  Railways and  Ministry  of  Civil Aviation  for conducting  access audit  and  retrofitting of  railway  stations and  airports.   He pointed  out  that these  Ministries should  follow  the

47

remaining stations.

-  Long  term accessibility  feature include  provision  of the  facility  for  inter platform transfer and tactile  flooring  of platform.   

prescriobed template  and  not pick out only some elements therefrom.  The representative of the two  Ministries submitted  that retrofitting  would  be carried  out  as  per the  template,  but had  been  phased out  in  view  of  the availability  of resources.”

-  Mere  symbolic efforts  made  to provide  accessibility in  railway  stations. For instance:

-  To provide  access to  drinking  water sources,  instead  of lowering the drinking water source ad hoc platforms have been made with ramps for access.   These  are dangerous  for  users of  crutches  and callipers  as  the ramps  are  mostly wet and slippery.

- Low ticket counters are provided in some reservation  counters but  no  low  ticket windows  are provided  for  buying general tickets which are  mostly  used  by disabled.

-  Some  railway stations  have  lifts and escalators (Delhi has  escalators  and lifts  at  entrances from both sides) but

48

escalators cannot be used by most people with  orthopaedic disabilities.   Also no such  facilities provided for reaching other platforms.

-  In  the  last  railway budget  it  as announced  that  the Central  Government would  be  providing for  lifts  in  600 stations  for inter-platform accessibility.

- Physically disabled have to be carried up and down to reach in between  platforms which is undignified.

-  Battery  operated cars  used  for transporting  persons with  disabilities  in Delhi  railway  station have  been withdrawn  by  the railways  as  the company  providing this  facility  through CSR  has  withdrawn the facility.

-  Compartments  for persons  with disabilities  are inaccessible  and generally  used  by RPF  and  railway staff.

-  Toilets  at  railway stations  have  been converted into toilets for disabled persons by  making  cosmetic adjustments  in  the existing  toilets

49

without  any  real attempt  being  made to  comply  with  the guidelines.

-  In  the  UOI  status report  no  reference is  made  to  the compartments  and reference  is  made only  to  the  railway stations even though clause  11.7.2.2 provides  detailed guidelines  on accessible  railway compartments including  entrances, wheel  chair  spaces, seats,  aisles  and information  signs and announcements.

Directions Sought

1)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to produce in this Court the  accessibility audit  done  by  IIT Roorkee for the New Delhi  Railway Station.

2)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to complete  the retrofitting  of  all  the 709  A1,  A  &  B category  railway stations  by December 2017 and to  conduct  the accessibility audits of these  railway stations  by  March 2018  in  accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee  access audit  template,  and

50

to  upload  the  audit reports  on  the website.

3)  For  an  order directing  the  UOI  to complete  the retrofitting of 50% of the  remaining railway  stations  in the  country  by December 2019 and the  remaining railway  stations  by December  2020  in accordance  with  the Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee accessibility template  and thereafter  complete the  accessibility audits  by  December 2020 and upload the audits  on  the website.

4)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to immediately  restart the facility of battery operated  cars  at New  Delhi  Railway Station  and introduce this  facility at all other A1, A & B category  railway station by December, 2018.

5)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to install  in  all  railway stations  in  the country  ramps  and lifts  in  600  stations for  inter  platform accessibility  by

51

December 2017 and lifts in the remaining stations  by December 2018.

6)  Introduce  strict monitoring of and the introduction of penal provisions,  for  non disabled  persons using  compartments for disabled;

7)  For  an  order directing  the  UOI  to immediately  arrange for  hydraulic  lifts  or collapsible  ramps  to board  compartments reserved for disabled persons.

8)  For  an  order directing  the  UOI  to immediately  ensure that  all compartments  of  all trains  be  retrofitted with  one  toilet  in each  compartment which  is  accessible in  accordance  with the  Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee accessibility template  by December 2017.

9)   For  an  order directing  UOI  to conduct  a comprehensive retrofitting  of  all  the toilets  for  disabled persons  at  all  the railway  stations  to ensure  that  they comply  with  the

52

Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee accessibility audit  by  December 2017.

10)  For  an  order directing  the  UOI  to replace  all  disability compartments  with compartments  that are  constructed  in accordance  with clause  11.7.2.2  of the  Harmonized Guidelines  by December 2018.

11)  For  an  order directing  that  the Chairman,  Railway Board,  shall  be responsible  for  the implementation  of the  orders  of  this Court.

12)  For  an  order directing  UOI  to  act in  accordance  with the  audits  filed  by the  petitioner  in respect  of  the Mumbai  Railway Stations  and  to forthwith  retrofit  all the  Mumbai  railway stations  in accordance  with  the said  audits,  the Harmonized Guidelines  as revised  and  the  IIT Roorkee accessibility template  by December 2018.

7 10%  of  government owned  public  transport

Ministry  of  Road Transport  &

-The  statutes  cover all  public

53

carriers are to be made fully  accessible  by March 2018.

Highways has issued instructions  to  the State  and  Executive Director  of organisations  of State  Undertakings to  ensure  10%  of Government  owned public  transport  is made fully accessible to  the  PwDs  by March 2018.  

transportation  as well  as  all  bus depots  and  bus stands.   The  AIC therefore  deals  with only a small  fraction of  the  work  to  be done.

-  The  UOI  status report  covers  only buses  and  not  bus depots  and  bus stands (clause 10.3)

-  The  Harmonized Guidelines  clause 11.7.1  onwards extensively  deals with public transport.

-  Delhi  Government informs  that  there are  6350 government  buses and  not  4352  as stated  in  the  status report.   Only  3775 are  said  to  be disabled friendly.

-  The  law  requires that  all  public transportation  be made  disabled friendly  and  not  just government  buses. The guidelines cover tramps,  taxis,  mini buses  and  three wheelers  as  well  as taxi  and  auto rickshaws  stands and car parking.  No mention  is  made  of this  in  the  status report.

- Efforts are minimal.

54

All  bus  stations remain  inaccessible and  are  nightmares for  disabled.   No accessible  toilets provided.   No provisions  for passengers  using wheel  chairs  and crutches  and callipers  to  board buses.  No provision of  tactile  footpaths, kerbside  cuts  for wheel chair users to enter  footpaths,  no auditory  signals  at red  light  crossings, no  engraved  zebra crossings  and  no islands  between roads.   Pedestrian infrastructure  not included  as  targets in  AI  campaign. These are covered in the  Harmonized Guidelines  Section 11 on Transport and Road Planning which covers  sidewalks and  footpaths,  kerb ramps  at  walkways and  pedestrian crossings,  road intersections, median refuge/islands, traffic signals,  subways and  foot  over bridges.  There is no reference to these in the status report.

Directions sought

1)  For  an  order directing UOI, States and UTs to:

55

a)  Ensure  that  all government  buses are  disabled friendly in  accordance  with clause  11.7.1.2  of the  Harmonized Guidelines  by December  2017  by induction  of  new buses  and  the phasing out of buses that are not disabled friendly. b) To ensure that all private  buses operating  are disabled friendly and that  all  other  buss are  not  permitted  to operate  after  the deadline  of December 2017. c)  To retrofit  all  bus stations  and  bus stands  compliant with  section  10.3  of the  Harmonized Guidelines, inter alia, in  respect  of accessible  boarding points,  directional signs,  toilets,  seats, shelter  and  ramps etc.   d) To ensure that all public  transportation operating  from December  2018  is compliant  with  the Harmonized Guidelines.

8. Comprehensive revision  of  target deadlines  under accessibility  of knowledge  and  ICT Ecosystem.   At  least 50%  of  central  and state  government

- MeitY has informed that  the  Guidelines for  the  Indian Government Website (GIGW)  are compliant  to  WCAG 2.0.* -  *((WCAG),

-  The  2016  statute requires all  websites to  meet  accessibility standards  not  just 50%.  Instead of  all the  websites  of government  running into  thousands,  the

56

websites  are  to  meet accessibility  standards by  March  2017.   At least 50% of the public documents are to meet accessibility  standards by March 2018.

developed  through the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C’s) MeitY  has  further informed  that  under the  Content Management Framework  (CMF), 100  Govt.  websites are  mandated  to  be made accessible.  59 Ministries/Depts. Have  on-boarded  to CMF.  Out  of  these, 33  websites  are made live so far.

status  report  only covers  the  central government websites  and  even there  are  total number  of  central and  state governments websites  are  not disclosed.   The Central  Coordination Committee  meeting gives  a  figure  of 2,000  central government websites  that  are  to be  made  accessible under  the AIC (50% of the total).  Out of the  blue  a  magical figure of 100 central government websites  are  taken as an arbitrary target and  it  is  stated  that 33  are  operational. This  will  not  even amount to 1% of all state  and  central government websites  in  the country.

-  Similarly,  though the AIC requires only 50%  of  public documents  to  meet the  accessibility standards  by  March 2018  there  is  no reference  in  the status  report  to  this compliance. Moreover, the statute requires  all  public documents  to  meet the  accessibility standards.

-  Although  the Harmonized Guidelines  do  not

57

refer  to  accessibility of  documents  there is  no  controversy that documents have to  be  made accessible in Braille, electronic,  audio formats  etc.  No documents  have been  made accessible in India.

-  The  status  report also  does not  touch on  public  television programmes  (target 7.2  AIC),  telephone and  mobile  based services  such  as PCR  100  number, ambulance  and  fire services  etc.   TV programmes  for example require sign language interpreters,  close captioning,  audio descriptions  etc. Moreover,  the  AIC only  covers government programmes,  which is  wrong  because the  2002  statute covers  public information  services provided  by  private parties.

Directions sought

For  an  order directing UOI and all the states/UTs to: 1)  Made  all  the websites  accessible in  accordance  with W3C  web  content Accessibility Guidelines  (WCAG) by  March  2018  and accessibility  audits

58

completed  by  June 2018  and  uploaded on the website.

2)  To make  50%  of all  public documents issued by the central government  and  the state  governments accessible  including all  publications  such as laws, regulations, reports,  forms  and informational brochures  (taken verbatim  from  the AIC) by March 2018 in  accordance  with the  Organisation  for Standardization criteria  that  are found  in  ISO/IEC 40500:2012.

3)  To  make  the remainder  of  all public  documents accessible  by December 2018.

4)  To make  25%  of all  government programmes  on  TV accessible by March 2018 as stated in the AIC.

4)  To  make  all government  and private  TV programmes accessible  in  terms of  “daily  captioning and  sign  language interpretation” as set out in Objective 7 of the  AIC  by  March 2018.   

5)  To  make telephone  and mobile  based

59

services  such  as PCR  100, Ambulance, Fire and other  emergency services according to internationally accepted TTY facility by December 2017.

9. Bureau  of  Indian Standards  to  embed disability  aspect  in  all relevant parts of revised National Building Code.

The  new  version  of National  Building Code of India (NBC), has  been comprehensively updated  in  the revised  NBC  and  is released  on  15 March  2017.   This would be enforceable once the local bodies adopt the same.

- The standard to be used ought to be the Harmonized Guidelines  read together  with  the revised NBC.

10. The  target  of  training additional  200  sign language  interpreters by March 2018.

-  A  task  force  has been  set  up  to develop a module on sign language.

-  ISLRTC  plans  to train  about  475  sign language interpreters (about  75  trainers through  Diploma  in Indian  Sing Language Interpretation)  and 400  others  officials through  short  term training  programme. CRE  (Continuous Rehabilitation Education)  and Workshops  till March,  2018. Besides  it  is proposed to train  25 interpreters  who  are native  speakers  of sign language SODA (Siblings  of  Deaf Adult),  CODA (Children  of  Deaf Adults).   25 educators  for  deaf and  25  Indian  sign

-  The  figure  of  200 sign  language interpreters  is farcical.   Sign language interpreters  are required  at  least  at all  major  places where communication  and dealing  with  the public  both  in  the public  and  private sector  take  place. This  will  cover railway  stations, major  bus  depots, hospitals,  airports, major  government offices,  large private sector  offices, shopping  malls, large  educational institutions  and  the like.   If  a  realistic assessment is made of New Delhi itself it is quite possible that the  number  of  sign language interpreters  required for  the  capital  city

60

language  teachers training  (deaf)  till March, 2018.   

-  ISLRTC  is developing  a comprehensive Indian  Sign Language  (ISL) Dictionary  of  about 6000  words  from various  areas  like every  day  words, academic  words, legal,  technical  and medical words.

alone  would  be  in excess  of  200. Moreover, section 17 which  deals  with inclusive  education requires  the  training and  recruitment  of teachers  who  are qualified  in  sign language.   Section 42 deals with access to  information  and communication services require sign language interpreters for all TV programmes.   Thus the  requirement  for sign  language interpreters  must  be assessed realistically by  an  expert  group and  would  probably run  into  tens  of thousands  for  the entire  country.   It must  be remembered  that deaf  persons constitutes  30%  to 40% of  the disabled population  and  the actual  figure  is stimated  at  a minimum  of  13 million  persons.   In the  absence of  sign language interpreters  in  the educational institutions and in the country  they  remain at  the  lowest  rungs of  the  disability sector  and  suffer almost  complete exclusion.   Their performance  in education  and

61

employment  show this  extreme discrimination. Hence  the  sign language interpreters  issue  is one  of  the  most important  human rights  remaining  to be  implemented  in India.

-  The  status  report refers  to  ad  hoc training of personnel. This  is  most unsatisfactory and is completely  distinct from  the  generation of  qualified interpreters.   Thus even  the  target  of 200  has  not  been met.   The  status report shows that not even one interpreter has qualified.

Directions sought

1)  For  an  order directing  the Rehabilitation Council  of  India (RCI),  the  National Association  of  the Deaf to submit to this Court  a  reasonable estimate  of  the number  of  sign language  interpreter required in India.

2)  For  an  order directing UOI and all states  and  UTs  to jointly  establish  an emergency arrangement

62

nationwide  where 475  sign  language interpreters  qualify by  March  2018  as stated  in  the  status report  and  500  sign language interpreters  qualify every year thereafter until the target of the estimated  sign language interpreters  required in the country is met.

3)  For  an  order directing UOI and all states/UTs to  create a  special  cadre  of sign  language interpreters  in  the Union  and  state cadres  for  the immediate employment  of  the sign  language interpreters  who qualify.   

General  directions sought

1)  For  an  order directing  all  states and UTs to constitute the  Central  and State  Advisory Boards  required  to be  set  up  under Sections  60  and  66 of the 2016 Act.

23) Vide order dated August 9, 2017, this Court sought the response of

the  respondents  in  respect  of  directions  which  are  sought  by  the

petitioner and listed above.  In compliance therewith, the Union of India

has filed affidavit on August 23, 2017.  In this affidavit, the Union of India

63

has  itself  accepted  the  position  under  the  Disabilities  Act,  2016  by

mentioning relevant provisions of the Act in detail, which have already

been taken note of.

24) The Government has also pointed out that the Bus Body Coat as

notified  by  Ministry  of  Road  Transport  and  Highways  vide  GSR No.

895(E)  dated September 20,  2016 has been adopted,  in  the form of

Central  Motor  Vehicles  (12th Amendment)  Rules,  2016.   It  is  also

mentioned that in case of Information & Communication Technology, the

guidelines for Indian Government websites as adopted by Department of

Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances are to be complied with

by all the websites of establishments.  The Ministry is working with other

line  Ministries/Departments  to  finalise  accessible  standards  for  other

facilities and services.  Insofar as directions sought by the petitioner in

his affidavit dated June 30, 2017 are concerned, the Union of India has

given its response thereto in the following manner:  

“(a)  With  respect  to  the  directions  sought  under  Serial Number  1,  it  is  stated  that  the  State  Governments  are being regularly reminded up to submit cost estimates for retrofitting for the release of grant in aid.  822 proposals have  been  received  so  far,  however,  funds  amounting Rs.84.32 crore for 385 buildings has been released.  For remaining, 437 buildings funds could not be released due to  technical  errors  in  the  proposals,  pending  Utilization certificates etc.  Cost estimates of 780 buildings are yet to be received.  Directing the States to submit the proposal within a period of one month may not be practical since the States  are  required  to  get  their  cost  estimates  done through  their  Executive  Engineers  of  Public  Works Department.  Further, the direction sought by the petitioner

64

to disburse the entire fund to the States within a period of two  months  is  also  not  feasible.   During  the  current financial  year,  an  amount  of  Rs.207  crore  is  available under Central  Government’s scheme called ‘Scheme for Implementation of Persons with Disabilities Act (SIPDA)’. Thus, release of funds depends on the amount available with the Government at that point of time.  Therefore,  it would  be appropriate  to  direct  the  States  to  submit  the proposal  within  a  period  of  six  months  and  the  Central Government  would  release  the  fund,  if  the  proposal  is complete in accordance with the scheme within a period of two months from the receipt of the proposal, subject to the availability of the funds.

It  is  further  submitted  that  it  may  also  not  be practically  feasible  possible  to  direct  the  State Governments to complete retrofitting by December, 2017. It may be noted that after sanctioning of the proposal, the State Governments are required to float tender and assign the work to the agency which may take time.  Further, the completion of work will take time.  It may not be feasible in all the cases to complete the work within a period of six months.   The  States  may  be  directed  to  complete  the process of initiation of retrofitting work by December, 2017.

It is submitted that the State Governments may be directed to conduct accessible audit  after retrofitment so as to see whether all the findings of the access audit report have been adequately addressed or not.

(b)  With  respect  to  the  directions  sought  under  Serial Number 2, it is stated that it may be appropriate to give three months time for the States to submit the list of 50% of the Government buildings in all  State Capitals as per target 2 of AIC.  It may perhaps be appropriate to advise the States/UTs to devise work plan to ensure retrofitment in  these  buildings  by  December,  2018  and  conduct accessibility audit as soon as the retrofitment work is over.

(c) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 3, it is submitted that it may be appropriate to give three  months  time  for  the  States  to  submit  the  list  of buildings in 10 most important cities as per target 3 of AIC.

(d) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number  4,  it  is  submitted  that  CPWD/Ministry  of  Urban Development is the nodal Department for maintenance of General  Pool  Office  Accommodation  (GPOA)  buildings.

65

CPWD has intimated that out of 50 cities of phase I, 11 cities do not have GPOA buildings under maintenance of CPWD.  For  the  remaining 39  cities,  75 buildings  were identified, of which retrofitting in 49 buildings in 27 cities have  been  completed  and  work  is  in  progress  for  9 buildings in 8 cities.  Retrofitting of all  the 466 buildings within  a  period  of  one  year  may  not  be  feasible  as  it involves allocation of funds.

(e) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 5, it is submitted that Ministry of Civil Aviation has been  requested  to  carry  out  retrofitting  activities  as  per extant guidelines/instructions.  The access audit report of IIT  Roorkee  with  respect  to  Indira  Gandhi  International Airport has been placed on the website of the Department.

(f) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 6, it is submitted that the access audit report of IIT Roorkee with respect  to New Delhi  Railway Station has been placed on the website of the Department.

(g) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 7, it is submitted that Ministry of Road Transport & Highways being the concerned Ministry to take a view on the possibility of phasing out.  However, as per Section 46 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, the service providers whether Government  or  private  shall  provide  services  in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Government under Section 40 within period of 2 years from the date of notification of such rules.  Mostly the passenger bus transportation is in the domain of State Governments.   It  is  for  the  States  to  take  a  call  in  the matter.  It may be appropriate to direct them to comply with the provisions of Section 46 of the Disabilities Act, 2016.

(h) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 8, it is submitted that with a view to help the State Government  to  make  their  website  accessible  as  per GIGW and W3C compliance, DEPwD has issued a work order to ERNET India for 917 State Government websites to  be  made  accessible  as  per  GIGW  and  W3C compliance.   Now the  accessibility  standards  has  been prescribed for websites and the document to upload on it under  Rule  15(1)(c)  of  the  2017  Rules.   All  the establishments  are  required  to  comply  with  these standards.

(i) With respect to the directions sought under Serial

66

Number 9 no specific directions has been sought.  It may be  noted  that  Harmonised  Guidelines  and  Space Standards  for  barrier-free  built  environment  for  persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development  has  been adopted as  reference for accessibility norms and therefore only these guidelines are to be mandatorily followed.

(j) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 10, it  is submitted that Rehabilitation Council  of India (RCI) has done this exercise earlier with reference to order of High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6250 of 2010 – The National Association of Deaf v.  Union of India & Ors.  Accordingly, the Department has started training of its officials to develop a pool of sign language interpreters in the public offices.  So far six batches of sign language training  have  been  completed  and  about  100  sign language  interpreters  have  been  trained.  Status  reports are bring filed in the High Court from time to time.”

25) It is, thus, stated that though the respondent has taken appropriate

steps in respect of ten action points spelled out by the petitioner and is

attempting to fulfil  the needs of  such visually impaired persons in all

possible manners.

26) This affidavit also refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of

Justice  Sunanda Bhandare  Foundation  v.  Union  of  India  & Anr.8

wherein certain directions were given by this Court.  It is mentioned that

while  dealing  with  the  compliance  of  the  directions  contained  in  the

aforesaid judgment, this Court has passed order dated April  25, 2017

(reported  as  Justice  Sunanda  Bhandare  Foundation  v.  Union  of

India & Anr.9), as per which following directions are given:  

8  (2014) 14 SCC 383 9  2017 (5) SCALE 288

67

“25.   We  have  referred  to  certain  provisions  only  to highlight that the 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient features. As we find, more rights have been conferred on the disabled persons and more categories have  been  added.  That  apart,  access  to  justice,  free education, role of local authorities, National fund and the State  fund  for  persons  with  disabilities  have  been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with disabilities and the role of the States, local  authorities,  educational  institutions  and  the companies.  The statute  operates  in  a  broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect  the rights and provide punishment for their violation.

26.  Regard being had to the change in core aspects, we think it  apposite to direct  all  the States and the Union Territories to file compliance report keeping in view the provisions of  the 2016 Act within twelve weeks hence. The States and the Union Territories  must  realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have grown and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, for there is an accent on many a sphere with regard to the rights of the disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled persons and makes provision, it  is the obligation of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude. The steps taken in this regard  shall  be  concretely  stated  in  the  compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing the  States,  a  duty  is  cast  also  on  the  States  and  its authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined  and  applicable  to  the  cooperative  societies, companies,  firms,  associations  and  establishments, institutions,  are  scrupulously  followed.  The  State Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report  so  that  this  Court  can  appreciate  the  progress made.

27.  The compliance report to be filed by the States shall be  supplied  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor so that they can assist the Court.

28.  The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories.”

68

27) In respect of the action taken by the respondents as mentioned in

its  affidavit  dated  August  23,  2017,  the  petitioner  has  furnished  the

following comments:  

Sr.  No.

Petitioner’s Comments to the UOI response dated 23rd   August, 2017

1 1) the petitioner reiterates the time limits in the directions sought (in Col. 2) for the following response:

• The original  deadline of July 2016 under this target has been extended by the Central   Coordination Committee (CCC) in its meeting on 29.11.2016 to December   2017. (Annexure  R-2 of the Action Taken Report of UOI dated 14.12.2016)

• The  2016  Act  vide  Section  46  requires  that  all  service providers, both Government and private, make their facili- ties, including buildings, accessible within a period of two years from the date of notification of the Accessibility Rules (notified in June 2016). Therefore all government buildings providing any services to the public are to be made fully accessible by June 2019.

• Whereas  Section  46  of  the  2016  Act  contemplates  all buildings and facilities throughout the country to made ac- cessible by June 2019, the AIC targets very limited number in Phase I,  i.e. 1653 buildings. Therefore, the December 2017, set by the CCC ought to be adhered to and the time- frames in the direction sought by the Petitioner have been made with regard to the revised CCC deadline.

2)  The Submission by UOI that funds disbursal under SIPDA will be subject to availability is not tenable. The 2016 Act nowhere contemplates  the  implementation  of  accessibility  in  public buildings and services to be contingent on availability of fund in  SIPDA.    It  is  therefore  respectfully  submitted  that  the accessibility  provisions  of  the  2016  Act  being  mandatory, funds  as  the  required  must  be  allocated  by  the  Central Government from the Consolidated Funds of India.

3)  It  is  further  reiterated  that  after  retrofitting  the  State  Govt, buildings,  they  should  be  audited  according  to  the Harmonised  Guidelines  keeping  in  view  that  the  audits commissioned by UOI prior to retrofitting were not according to the Harmonised Guidelines.  

2. In respect of the timeframe for the State governments to

69

identify the buildings under this target it may be noted that the CCC in its meeting dated 29.11.2016  had extended the deadline for the same to 28.02.2017 6 months have already passed since then and according to the 08.08.2017 Status Report (Annexure R-4) herein) only o7 states have identified buildings.  Therefore, the Petitioner reiterates that the remaining States be directed to indentify the buildings under this target within 1 month.  In so far as the deadline for retrofitting, for the reasons stated under Target 1 above,  Petitioner  reiterates  that  50% of  the work  under  this Target should be completed by December 2017 and the rest by December 2018.

3 It is to be noted that as per the UOI Status Report dated 08.08.2017, only 7 States have submitted their lists of 10 most important  cities/towns  and  not  a  single  building  has  been identified  so  far.  Therefore  the  reason  stated  under  Target  1 above, Petitioner reiterates that the States be directed to identify the 10 most important cities/towns and 50% of the Govt, buildings in these cities/towns within 1 month from today and the retrofitting of these be completed by December 2019 which is the revised extended deadline set down by the CCC.

4 With  regard  to  this  target,  the  CCC  in  its  meeting  on 29.11.2016 has extended the deadline for retrofitting 466 Central Govt.  buildings  to  December  2016.  8  months  have  already passed since then and only 49 building have been retrofitted. The submission of the UOI that all 466 buildings cannot be retrofitted within 1 year because of limitations in funds allocated cannot be accepted. As noted above the 2016 Act Vide Section 46 requires all  Govt.  service providers to make their  facilities including the buildings  accessible  by  June  2019,  which  requirement  is  not subject to allocation of funds. Admittedly 466 buildings under this target would constitute only a small fraction of the total number of Central  Govt.  buildings to be made accessible under the 2016 Act.   Therefore,  the  Petitioner  reiterates  the timeframe of  July 2018 for completing this target.

5 The Petitioner has brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court  by  its  Affidavit  dated  30.06.2017  of  several  features  in which the airports in the country are not accessible.  It may be noted that in its meeting on 29.11.2016, the CCC had noted that the accessibility  work done on airports was only basic and that the Civil Aviation  Ministry should follow the prescribed template, i.e. IIT Roorkee template on the Govt, website would not serve its purpose reiterates the directions sought with regard to this Target.

6 The Petitioner has brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court  by  its  Affidavit  dated  30.06.2017  of  several  features  in which the railways in the country are not accessible. In particular the  Petitioner  conducted  a  survey  of  the  New  Delhi  Railway Station which has been claimed to have been accessible by UOI. The  Petitioner  annexed  a  number  of  photographs  showing several critical features lacking in accessibility. It may be noted that in its meeting on 29.11.2016, the CCC had noted that the accessibility work done on railways was only basic and that the

70

Railway Ministry should follow the prescribed template,  i.e.  IIT Roorkee template for New Delhi Railway Station and not pick out any elements therefrom. It is submitted that merely placing the IIT Roorkee  template  on  the  Govt,  website  would  not  serve  its purpose  and  therefore  the  Petitioner  reiterates  the  directions sought with regard to this target.

7 It may be noted that Section 41 of the 2016 Act provides for  comprehensive  accessibility  in  all   modes  of  transport including but not limited to bus transport. Read with Section 46 and Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules, the UOI and the States are to ensure  that  all  Public  transport  systems  including  transport carriers and roads are made fully accessible  by June 2019 in accordance  with  the  Harmonised  Guidelines.  Therefore,  the Petitioner reiterates t he directions sought for with regard to this target.

8 It may be noted that Section 42 of the 2016 Act provides for comprehensive accessibility in information and communication services including audios, print and electronic media. Section 46 read with Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules mandates that the same be completed  by  June  2019  throughout  the  country  i8t  is  in  this context that the Petitioner has sought directions to have 50% of the Govt, websites, 5% of the public documents and 25% of all TV programmes to be made accessible by mid-2018. The UOI response only indicates that work orders have been issued for 917 State Govt,  websites but no timeframe for completion has been  mentioned.  The  earlier  status  report  filed  by  the  Govt, indicated that only 100 of a total of 4000 Central Govt. websites were being made accessible. It is therefore, clear that only a very small percentage of Central and State Govt, websites are being made accessible and then too no timeframes have been given. With regard to the public documents and TV programmes, mere advisories  have  been  issued  to  the  private  and  public broadcasters  and  to  the  Govt,  departments  for  making  their programmes and their  documents accessible but no timeframe have been mandated for the same. More significantly, there is no plan for either the Central or State Govts, to audit the accessibility features of websites. Documents and TV programmes after the accessibility work had been completed. It is in this contest that the Petitioner reiterates the directions sought under this target.

9 The Harmonised Guidelines being the repository for all the accessibility  guidelines  in  the  built  environment,  transportation and  information  and  communication,  the  same  should  be regularly updated keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act and technological advancements, vis-a-vis the needs of persons with disabilities and further any work on accessibility should be done and fully audited with respect to the updated Harmonised Guidelines.

10 As per the information available with the Petitioner, in the NADVs.  UOI  matter,  the  estimation  made  by  the  RCI  of  the number of sign language interpreters required was only for Delhi but  did  not  cover  the  rest  of  India.  It  is  reiterated  that  Sign Language  Interpreters  (SL’s)  are  required  at  all  major  places

71

where  communication  and  dealing  with  the  public  in  both  the public  and  private  sector  take  place.  This  will  cover  railway stations, major bus depots, hospitals, airports, major govt, offices banks,  large  private  sector  offices,  shopping  malls,  large education institutions and the like.  Compliance with the mandate of Section 40, 41, 42 and 46 of the 2016 Act read with Section2 (f),  i.e.  definition  of  “Communication”  to  include sign  language would require a large number of SLI’s to be trained and available across  the  country  by June  2019 and the  figure  of  100 SLI’s quoted  by  the  UOI  would  be  highly  inadequate  to  meet  this requirement.  Therefore,  the  Petitioner  reiterates  the  directions sought that RCI be directed to make reasonable estimation of the number of SLI’s required in India and thereafter for the UOI and all States and UT’s to make adequate arrangements to train and make  available  500  SLI’s  every  year  until  the  target  of  the estimated SLI’s in the country is met.

28) From the foregoing discussion, following pertinent aspects can be

discerned:

(a) Ten  action  points  which  are  enumerated  by  the  petitioner,  for

providing proper access to public facilities to the persons suffering

from  visually  disability,  are  now  statutorily  recognised  under  the

Disabilities Act, 2016.  To put it straight, the Legislature has cast a

duty on the executive wing for making provisions in this behalf.  This

legal position is accepted by the Union of India in its affidavit dated

August  23,  2017.   In  this  affidavit,  the  respondent  had  itself

mentioned various provisions under the Disabilities Act, 2016 which

mandate the respondents to make provisions for these facilities.  Not

only  this,  such  provisions  even  specified  the  deadlines  for

undertaking these measures.  Thus, it becomes a statutory obligation

on  the  part  of  the  Central  Government  as  well  as  the  State

72

Governments to do the needful by the target dates.

(b) Though, Central Government has taken various measures, many

State Governments have not responded at all.   

(c) In  Justice  Sunanda  Bhandare  Foundation  case  as  well,  this

Court  has given various directions from time to time.   In its  order

dated  April  25,  2017,  the  States  as  well  as  Union  Territories  are

directed to comply with the provisions of Disabilities Act, 2016 and to

report to the Court about the progress made by them in this behalf.

The Court is, thus, monitoring the progress in this behalf in the said

writ petition.

Having regard to the aforesaid position emerging on record,

we dispose of these petitions with the following directions:

(i) Making  20-50  important  government  buildings  in  50 cities  fully  accessible  December  2017   (State  Govt. Buildings)

Since, this deadline is set by the AIC itself, this should be

met.  In any case, as per the provisions of Section 46 of the

Disabilities Act, 2016, all Government buildings providing any

services to  the public  are  to  be made fully  accessible  by

June, 2019 which has to be adhere to.

(ii) Making  50% of  all  the  govt.  buildings  of  the  national capital  and  all  the  state  capitals  fully  accessible  by

73

December 2018.

Though the deadline for identifying the buildings was fixed as

February 28, 2017, according to status report dated August

8,  2017,  only  seven  States  have  identified  the  buildings.

Remaining States are  directed to identify the buildings by

February 28, 2018 and it is made clear that no further time in

this  behalf  shall  be  granted.   Insofar  as  deadline  for

retrofitting is concerned, the work should be completed by

December, 2018.

(iii) Completing accessibility audit of 50% of govt. buildings and making them fully accessible in 10 most important cities/towns of states/UTs not covered in targets (i) and (ii) by December 2019.

Position regarding this action point is the same as noted in

respect of  action point  2,  namely, only seven States have

submitted their list of 10 most important cities/towns and not

a single building has been identified so far.  The States are,

therefore, directed to identify 10 most important cities/towns

and  complete  accessibility  audit  of  50%  of  Government

buildings  in  these  cities/towns  by  February  28,  2018.

Likewise,  retrofitting  of  these  be  completed  by December

2019 as per the revised deadline set out by CCC.

(iv) Central Govt. buildings.

74

Having regard to the comments given by the petitioner in its

affidavit dated August 23, 2017 on this aspect, time frame of

August, 2018 is given for completing this target.

(v) Accessibility in airports.  Completing accessibility audit of  all  the international  airports and making them fully accessible by December 2016.

The  demand  of  the  petitioner  that  Civil  Aviation  Ministry

should  follow  the  prescribed  template  i.e.  IIT  Roorkee

template on the Government website appears to be justified

which should be implemented as expeditiously as possible.

The Union of India should thereafter conduct the accessibility

and  audit  and  upload  the  same on  the  website  by June,

2018.

(vi) Accessibility  in  Railways.   Ministry  of  Railways  was required  to  make  all  A1,  A  and  B  category  railway stations fully accessible by July 2016.  50% of all railway stations to made fully accessible by March 2018.

As is clear from the affidavit dated June 30, 2017 filed by the

petitioner, as many as 12 directions are sought under this

action point.  Insofar as providing of various facilities in the

railway  stations  are  concerned,  which  are  listed  by  the

petitioner,  there  cannot  be  any  dispute  that  the  Indian

railways  is  statutorily  obligated  to  make  those  provisions.

The petitioner has, however, sought time bound directions

75

for providing such facilities.  Wherever the provisions of the

Disabilities  Act,  2016  prescribe  the  deadlines,  the

respondent  is  to  provide  those  facilities  within  those  time

framework.   Insofar  as  other  facilities  are  concerned,  in

respect  of  which  the  petitioner  wants  those  facilities  by

specified period, we are not fixing such a period.  Instead,

we  direct  that  the  appropriate/competent  authority  in  the

railways shall make an assessment in this behalf so as to

ascertain  as  to  by  what  date(s)  these  facilities  will  be

provided.  Such a study can be undertaken and exercise be

completed within a period of three months and report in that

behalf shall be filed in the Court, chalking out the progressive

plan.

(vii) 10% of government owned public transport carriers are to be made fully accessible by March 2018.

Here again, Section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 provides

for  comprehensive  accessibility  in  all  modes  of  transport

including but not remitted to the bus transport.  Therefore, it

becomes  the  duty  of  the  Union,  States  as  well  as  Union

Territories to ensure that all Government buses are disabled

friendly  in  accordance  with  the  Harmonized  Guidelines.

Likewise, the respondents are duty bound to see that private

76

buses also become disabled friendly.  Thus,  we direct the

Government to lay down the plan giving the dates by which

the aforesaid task shall be undertaken, keeping in view the

directions which are sought by the petitioner in this behalf

and the same shall be filed within three months.   

(viii) Comprehensive  revision  of  target  deadliness  under accessibility of knowledge and ICT Ecosystem.  At least 50%  of  central  and  state  govt.  websites  are  to  meet accessibility standards by March 2017.  At least 50% of the  public  documents  are  to  meet  accessibility standards by March 2018.

On this action point, the petitioner has sought five directions.

Again,  there  cannot  be  any  dispute  that  such  provisions

have to be made as Disabilities Act,  2016 itself  mandates

that.   The only question is  about  the time schedule.   On

certain aspects, AIC had itself mentioned the target date.  In

any case, let there be a study undertaken in this behalf as

well  by the Union of India and report be filed within three

months stating as to by what  date(s)  compliance shall  be

made.

(ix) Bureau of Indian Standards to embed disability aspect in all relevant parts of revised National Building Code.

It  is expected that the respondents would regularly update

the Harmonized Guidelines keeping in view the provisions of

77

Disabilities  Act,  2016  and  technological  advancement

vis-à-vis the needs of persons with disabilities.

(x) The  target  of  training  additional  200  sign  language interpreters by March 2018.

Needful be done in this behalf as well within reasonable time

and  the  Government  is  directed  to  file  an  affidavit  within

three months stating the time period within which the same

can be accomplished.

(xi) As  per  the  provisions  of  Sections  60  and  66  of  the

Disabilities  Act,  2016,  all  States  and  Union  Territories  are

required to constitute the Central and State Advisory Boards.

In order to effectively implement the provisions of the said

Act, it becomes the duty of the States and Union Territories

to  constitute  such  Advisory  Boards.   Therefore,  we  direct

these Advisory Boards to be constituted by all  States and

Union Territories within a period of three months from today.

29) Matter  be  listed  for  directions  after  three  months  on  receiving

reports in terms of the aforesaid order.  In the reports to be filed, the

respondents  shall  also  state  the  follow-up  action  taken  during  the

intervening period in the meantime.

78

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

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2017

79

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.6               SECTION PIL-W (FOR JUDGMENT)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil)  No(s).  243/2005 RAJIVE RATURI                                      Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Respondent(s) ([HEARD BY : HON. A.K. SIKRI AND HON. ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.])

WITH W.P.(C) No. 228/2006 (PIL-W) Date : 15-12-2017 These petitions were called on for pronouncement  of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv.  

Ms. Sweta, Adv.  Ms. Romila, Adv.  Mr. V.N. Ragupati, Adv.  

                   Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, Adv.General

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Chirag Jain, Adv.  Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.  Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, AAG Mr. K. E.Sema, Adv.  Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.  Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv.  

                   Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR                     Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR                     Mr. M. Yogesh , AOR                     Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR

Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.  Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.  Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.

80

Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.  Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.  Ms. Simran Jeet, Adv.  

                   M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR                     Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR                     Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR                     Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR                     Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR

Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv.  Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv.  

                   Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR                     Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR                     Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR                     Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR                     Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR                     Mr. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR                     Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR                     Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR                     Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR

Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv.  Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.  Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.  

                   Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.  

                   Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.  Mr. T.V. Talwar, Adv.  Ms. Narmada, Adv.  

                   Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR                     Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR

Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR

81

Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.  Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.  Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.  Mr. Pranab Prakash, Adv.  Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.  Mr. Aditya Raina, Adv.  Mr. Shreyas Jain, Adv.  Mr. Kumar Milind, Adv.  Ms. Ambika Gautam, Adv.  Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.  Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.  Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.  Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.  Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR

                   Mr. M. T. George, AOR                     Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR                     Mr. V. K. Verma, AOR                     Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR                     M/S.  Corporate Law Group, AOR                     Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR                     Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR                     Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR

Mr. Anil Grover, Adv.  Mr. Piyush Hans, Adv.  Mr. Satish Kapoor, Adv.  Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR

                   Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR                     Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR                     Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR                     Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR                     Ms. Susmita Lal, AOR                     Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR                     Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR

82

                   Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR                     Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR                     Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR                               

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Ashok Bhushan.  

The  writ  petitions  are  disposed  of  with  the  following directions:

(i) Making 20-50 important government buildings in 50 cities fully accessible December 2017  (State Govt. Buildings)

Since, this deadline is set by the AIC itself, this should be met.  In any case, as per the provisions of Section 46 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, all Government buildings providing any services to the public are to be made fully accessible by June, 2019 which has to be adhere to.

(ii) Making 50% of all the govt. buildings of the national capital and all the state capitals fully accessible by December 2018.

Though the deadline for identifying the buildings was fixed as February 28, 2017, according to status report dated August 8, 2017, only seven States have identified  the  buildings.   Remaining  States  are directed to identify the buildings by February 28, 2018 and it is made clear that no further time in

83

this behalf shall be granted.  Insofar as deadline for retrofitting is concerned, the work should be completed by December, 2018.

(iii) Completing accessibility audit of 50% of govt. buildings and making them fully accessible in 10 most important cities/towns of states/UTs not covered in targets (i) and (ii) by December 2019.

Position regarding this action point is the same as noted in respect of action point 2, namely, only seven States have submitted their list of 10 most important cities/towns and not a single building has been identified so far.  The States are, therefore, directed to identify 10 most important cities/towns and  complete  accessibility  audit  of  50%  of Government  buildings  in  these  cities/towns  by February 28, 2018.  Likewise, retrofitting of these be completed by December 2019 as per the revised deadline set out by CCC.

(iv)  Central Govt. buildings. Having  regard  to  the  comments  given  by  the petitioner in its affidavit dated August 23, 2017 on this aspect, time frame of August, 2018 is given for completing this target.

(v)  Accessibility in airports.  Completing accessibility audit of all the international airports and making them fully accessible by December 2016.

The  demand  of  the  petitioner  that  Civil  Aviation Ministry should follow the prescribed template i.e.

84

IIT  Roorkee  template  on  the  Government  website appears to be justified which should be implemented as expeditiously as possible.  The Union of India should  thereafter  conduct  the  accessibility  and audit and upload the same on the website by June, 2018.

(vi) Accessibility  in  Railways.   Ministry  of  Railways  was required to make all A1, A and B category railway stations fully accessible by July 2016.  50% of all railway stations to made fully accessible by March 2018.

As is clear from the affidavit dated June 30, 2017 filed by the petitioner, as many as 12 directions are  sought  under  this  action  point.   Insofar  as providing  of  various  facilities  in  the  railway stations  are  concerned,  which  are  listed  by  the petitioner,  there  cannot  be  any  dispute  that  the Indian  railways  is  statutorily  obligated  to  make those  provisions.   The  petitioner  has,  however, sought  time  bound  directions  for  providing  such facilities.   Wherever  the  provisions  of  the Disabilities Act, 2016 prescribe the deadlines, the respondent  is  to  provide  those  facilities  within those time framework.  Insofar as other facilities are concerned, in respect of which the petitioner wants those facilities by specified period, we are not fixing such a period.  Instead, we direct that the appropriate/competent authority in the railways shall make an assessment in this behalf so as to

85

ascertain  as  to  by  what  date(s)  these  facilities will be provided.  Such a study can be undertaken and exercise be completed within a period of three months and report in that behalf shall be filed in the Court, chalking out the progressive plan.

(vii) 10% of government owned public transport carriers are to be made fully accessible by March 2018.

Here again, Section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 provides  for  comprehensive  accessibility  in  all modes of transport including but not remitted to the bus transport.  Therefore, it becomes the duty of the Union, States as well as Union Territories to ensure  that  all  Government  buses  are  disabled friendly  in  accordance  with  the  Harmonized Guidelines.   Likewise,  the  respondents  are  duty bound to see that private buses also become disabled friendly.  Thus, we direct the Government to lay down  the  plan  giving  the  dates  by  which  the aforesaid task shall be undertaken, keeping in view the directions which are sought by the petitioner in this behalf and the same shall be filed within three months.   

(viii) Comprehensive  revision  of  target  deadliness  under accessibility of knowledge and ICT Ecosystem.  At least 50% of central  and  state  govt.  websites  are  to  meet  accessibility standards by March 2017.  At least 50% of the public documents are to meet accessibility standards by March 2018.

On this action point, the petitioner has sought five

86

directions.  Again, there cannot be any dispute that such provisions have to be made as Disabilities Act, 2016 itself mandates that.  The only question is about the time schedule.  On certain aspects, AIC had itself mentioned the target date.  In any case, let there be a study undertaken in this behalf as well  by  the  Union  of  India  and  report  be  filed within three months stating as to by what date(s) compliance shall be made.

(ix) Bureau of Indian Standards to embed disability aspect in all relevant parts of revised National Building Code.

It is expected that the respondents would regularly update the Harmonized Guidelines keeping in view the provisions  of  Disabilities  Act,  2016  and technological  advancement  vis-à-vis  the  needs  of persons with disabilities.

(x) The  target  of  training  additional  200  sign  language interpreters by March 2018.

Needful  be  done  in  this  behalf  as  well  within reasonable time and the Government is directed to file an affidavit within three months stating the time  period  within  which  the  same  can  be accomplished.

(xi) As  per  the  provisions  of  Sections  60  and  66  of  the Disabilities  Act,  2016,  all  States  and  Union  Territories  are required to constitute the Central and State Advisory Boards.  In

87

order to effectively implement the provisions of the said Act, it becomes  the  duty  of  the  States  and  Union  Territories  to constitute  such  Advisory  Boards.   Therefore,  we  direct  these Advisory  Boards  to  be  constituted  by  all  States  and  Union Territories within a period of three months from today.

29. Matter  be  listed  for  directions  after  three  months  on receiving reports in terms of the aforesaid order.  In the reports  to  be  filed,  the  respondents  shall  also  state  the follow-up action taken during the intervening period in the meantime. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  stands  disposed  of

accordingly.

(Ashwani Thakur)    (Mala Kumari Sharma)   COURT MASTER        COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)