Explained: Supreme Court’s order on mandatory accessibility standards, why it matters
A bench of the Supreme Court last week ordered the Union government to frame mandatory rules for ensuring the accessibility of public places and services to persons with disabilities. Outgoing Chief Justice of India Justice DY Chandrachud headed the bench.
The apex court held that the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and the rules notified under it were not being treated as mandatory. Thus, the judgment reaffirmed accessibility as a fundamental right. Here is what to know.
As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), India is obligated to promote accessibility as an essential right. According to Article 9, “to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications… and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas”.
Enacted in 2016, the RPwD Act draws on the CRPD and aims “to ensure that all persons with disabilities can lead their lives with dignity, without discrimination and with equal opportunities.” The RPwD Rules of 2017, framed under the Act, were to lay down specific accessibility standards.
The SC noted that while the RPwD Act created a mechanism for mandatory compliance, the 2017 rules created a mechanism which only prescribed self-regulatory guidelines. It referred to a report prepared by the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)’s Centre for Disability Studies.
So far, 17 standards and guidelines have been notified across government ministries and departments. These include accessibility guidelines issued by Indian Railways for providing facilities at railway stations, as well as by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways. The guidelines issued for the port sector state that they are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive, the SC pointed out.
The lack of uniformity across the different guidelines would create issues in enforcement, the SC noted. This, it said, is because they contain different standards for the same accessibility requirements.
The judgement was passed over a writ petition filed in 2005 by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person, who sought directions on ensuring safety and accessibility in public spaces.
The SC held that in its current form, the RPwD rules do not provide for “non-negotiable” compulsory standards but only persuasive guidelines. It said that Rule 15 (1) contravened the provisions and legislative intent of the RPwD Act and is thus ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the Act.
It said the guidelines prescribed under the rule were recommendatory and directed the Union government to frame mandatory rules, as required under the RPwD Act, within three months from the date of this judgment. The Union government was also directed to consult stakeholders and NALSAR’s Centre for Disability Studies in the process.
It added that once the mandatory rules are prescribed, the Centre, state governments and union territories would have to ensure that non-compliance with the accessibility standards is penalised. This can be done by withholding completion certificates and imposing fines.
The SC directed NALSAR-CDS in November 2023 to assess the ground situation vis-a-vis accessibility, after appraising the lack of progress by the Centre and the states. It considered views of the Centre, state governments, union territories, courts and prisons to collate details on accessibility initiatives. Only 14 states and three UTs responded. It also gathered views from persons with disabilities and focussed on the lived experiences of people.
On access to transport systems, the report noted that it was key for access to education, employment and healthcare. It noted that in Delhi, 3,775 low-floor CNG buses were available for accessible travel whereas in Tamil Nadu, only 1,917 buses out of 21,669 were accessible.
The report emphasised that the right to accessibility has to be viewed through other disadvantages such as caste, sex, religion and region and the intersection of disability with these factors. The report also listed some specific disadvantages, such as inaccessible job portals for visually impaired persons and lack of sign language recognition for those with hearing and speech impairments.
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-courts-accessibility-standards-disabilities-9669816/