New Delhi: Nearly a decade after the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 came into force, accessibility to basic necessities of everyday life continues to remain a challenge for people with disabilities .
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued notices in a related matter alleging that persons with disabilities continue to face systemic discrimination across India’s civil aviation sector despite an existing accessibility framework. In another proceeding, the Delhi High Court Thursday issued notices on a plea seeking the issuance of guidelines to ensure that books and reading material are available in accessible formats to persons with disabilities in a time-bound manner.
The settings could hardly be more different. One concerns moving through ease and the other concerns access to books, education and information. Yet both proceedings expose the same faultvline in India’s disability-rights framework: A service may technically be available to everyone and still discriminate if persons with disabilities cannot use it independently and with the same ease as everyone else.
The concern engages the Constitution’s guarantees of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21, alongside freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) in the aviation context and under Article 19(1)(a) in relation to freedom to access to information. These guarantees are reinforced by the RPwD Act, which prohibits discrimination and imposes specific obligations concerning accessibility, transportation, reasonable accommodation and access to information. The deeper problem raised by the two proceedings is the distance between these statutory guarantees and their implementation.
Different systems, same gap
The petition related to civil aviation filed by advocate Turab Chimthanawala, who is visually disabled and is committed to disability rights and accessibility in India, illustrates that divide across the passenger journey. With firsthand experience of accessibility barriers within the aviation ecosystem, Chimthanawala’s case is not that there are no rules governing accessible air travel, but that existing standards have allegedly not been adequately implemented, monitored or enforced.
The petition speaks of requirements governing movement of persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility under the regulatory framework under the RPwD Act. The petition also places the civil aviation standards, Digi Yatra guidelines and security-screening procedures within its challenge to the existing implementation framework.
The petition points to barriers involving airport infrastructure and navigation, booking and check-in, digital and biometric services, mobility aids, assistance practices, training, security screening and immigration procedures.
The plea is consequently about enforcement and accountability. It contends that issuing accessibility standards is not enough if there is no effective mechanism ensuring their consistent observance.
The other petition, filed by Avichal Bhatnagar, a 100 per cent visually impaired professor and doctoral student, exposes a parallel problem in access to books and reading materials.
For a person with a visual or print disability, the fact that a book has been published or uploaded digitally does not necessarily make its contents accessible. Screen readers, refreshable Braille displays and text-to-speech technologies depend upon the underlying publication being prepared in a form they can interpret. A digital publication can therefore remain functionally inaccessible if its text, structure or non-textual material cannot be meaningfully processed through assistive technology.
The grievance goes beyond the non-availability of individual books. It challenges a framework in which access may depend on whether an accessible version has already been produced, whether a publication is subsequently converted into an accessible format within a prescribed period, and on publishers, educational institutions or other stakeholders to ensure the timely availability of such material.
The RPwD Act already recognises obligations concerning inclusive education, learning material and accessible information. It specifically requires measures to ensure that content available in audio, print and electronic media is available in accessible formats.
The reading-material petition, however, seeks to move accessibility from an intervention made after a barrier is encountered to something incorporated into the publication ecosystem itself, through an effective and time-bound mechanism for accessible reading material.
It also recognises reasonable accommodation in terms of necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments required in a particular case to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise rights equally with others, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden. But accessibility and reasonable accommodation are not the same thing.
That distinction has assumed particular importance following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024)
The Supreme Court held: “It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning that the State is required to implement accessibility measures proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. …The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests. For example, inaccessible information for a person with intellectual disabilities would require reasonable accommodation (such as a verbal ex planation), whereas accessible information (e.g., in an easy-read format) would eliminate the need for such accommodation.”
The same approach finds support in India’s international commitments. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) requires States to identify and eliminate barriers to transportation, information and public services, while the Marrakesh Treaty (ratified by India in 2014) seeks to ensure that persons with visual and print disabilities can access published works in accessible formats. Together, these instruments reinforce the principle that accessibility is not a matter of charity or convenience, but a prerequisite for equal participation.
The notices issued by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court do not determine the merits of either case. Yet they signal a growing judicial recognition that disability discrimination often operates through inaccessible systems rather than explicit exclusion. Whether the barrier lies in navigating an airport or accessing a book, the common question before the courts is no longer whether accessibility is a right, but whether institutions are doing enough to make that right a reality.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)