New Delhi: A disability rights non-profit organisation has moved the Delhi High Court against quick food and grocery delivery platforms Swiggy and Zepto, claiming they are inaccessible for persons with visual-impairment. Hearing the plea filed by Mission Accessibility, the high court Wednesday issued notices to the two platforms and asked them to file their responses within a month. The matter is next likely to be taken up in May.
In its plea, the NGO has said Zepto and Swiggy do not comply with accessibility requirements prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016. Rule 15 of the law prescribes accessibility standards for various establishments, including information and technology platforms.
Essentially, the plea claims Swiggy and Zepto apps violate the digital accessibility standards. The petitioner has urged they be directed to make their platforms screen-reader friendly and provide alternative mechanisms for inaccessible elements on their applications.
“The lack of accessible search features, unlabeled interactive elements, absence of essential product details, and the inability of visually impaired users to position their device cameras for necessary transactions, such as returning items, create severe barriers to independent digital access,” it says, calling for non-compliant entities to be held accountable under the 2016 Act.
The matter was taken up Wednesday by a single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta. During the hearing, Mission Accessibility contended the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, mandates compliance with accessibility standards by 2019.
However, instead of ensuring accessibility, the two companies continue to roll out new services and offerings that remain inaccessible to screen-reader users, the petitioner argued.
During the hearing, the court also asked why the plea singled out Swiggy and Zepto. In response, advocate and Mission Accessibility co-founder Amar Jain, who is visually-impaired, said while other platforms like Zomato had taken significant steps towards accessibility and made commendable progress, Zepto and Swiggy have not done so.
Directing Zepto and Swiggy to file their replies within four weeks, the court issued notices to them. The matter is likely to be taken up in May.
ThePrint has e-mailed queries to both platforms but had not received a response by the time of publication. This report will be updated if and when a response is received.
This is the second case where Mission Accessibility has moved the high court, drawing its attention to how mobile-based app services are not complying with disability rules that mandate them to incorporate accessibility features.
Earlier, the group had filed a case against Rapido. Hearing the case in March, the court gave the ride-hailing service four months to comply with the rules.
Also read: Instant delivery doesn’t work outside India. Zepto, Blinkit are a success here for a reason
Inaccessibility & right to equality
By way of its petition, filed through advocates Sarah and Taha Bin Tasneem, Mission Accessibility sought to raise the issue of the inaccessibility of Swiggy and Zepto’s mobile app for disabled people, particularly those with visual disabilities.
The petition claims the inaccessibility of these applications violates the fundamental constitutional right to equality, freedom and life, along with the 2016 Act, and the Rules prescribed under it.
The petitioners argued that these platforms have failed to follow Sections 40 and 46 of the 2016 Act, and the provisions mentioned in Rule 15 of the RPwD 2017.
Section 40 mandates the Centre to formulate rules for PwDs laying down the standards of accessibility for the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, including appropriate technology, systems and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.
Section 46 says both government and private entities should provide their services in accordance with accessibility rules formulated by the Centre under Section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules.
What do the 2017 Rules say
The rules under the 2016 Act were framed in 2017.
Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules mandates that “every establishment shall comply” with standards relating to physical environment, transport and information and communication technology. These include standards for public buildings and bus codes for transportation systems, among others.
It also says that such standards will apply to government websites and that documents placed on websites should be in “Electronic Publication (ePUB) or Optical Character Reader (OCR) based PDF format”. This rule also contained a clause that the Centre must within a period of six months from the date of notification of these rules, specify the standards of accessibility with respect to other services and facilities.
Citing these provisions, the plea said that “the lack of accessible search features, unlabeled interactive elements, absence of essential product details, and the inability of visually-impaired users to position their device cameras for necessary transactions, like returning items” created major hurdles for users attempting to independently access them.
Mission Accessibility also added that the inaction on part of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which has also been made a party to the present suit, in enforcing these standards further exacerbated the issue.
Speaking to ThePrint, Mission Accessibility co-founder Amar Jain, who argued before the court on Wednesday said, “Petitions like these highlight the need for accessibility by design. Otherwise, we have to always go to courts for remediating barriers created by the lack of thought process put into making such services accessible for persons with disabilities.”
Emphasising that what becomes comfort for many can really help uplift the quality of life for persons with disabilities, if such services are made accessible for them, Jain shared his own example, and said, “Personally sharing my own example, for me to even get milk from a shop becomes difficult because there are street dogs throughout.
“In the mornings, you have a section of the public coming and feeding them outside the milk shop itself. Especially when we carry sticks as our assisting device, animals become more violent. Therefore, it is really important for services like these to become more accessible. This also highlights the gap in implementation and necessitates the need for some sort of penalty for non-compliance with the law.”
Co-founder Rahul Bajaj echoed similar sentiments. “”This (case) marks a significant step in underscoring the proposition that a failure to ensure digital accessibility will result in legal consequences for institutions that refuse to make their platforms accessible.”
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also read: Zepto becomes first startup in India to surpass billion-dollar valuation mark in a year