New Delhi: Lack of robust enforcement mechanisms, and passing the buck of compliance onto the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities are major hurdles in effective implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2024 landmark ruling that declared right to accessibility as a fundamental right, the top court was informed during a compliance hearing.
The 2024 order had directed the Centre to frame rules ensuring adequate infrastructure at public places for accessibility.
However, nearly two years after the landmark Rajive Raturi v. Union of India ruling was delivered in November 2024 by a three-judge bench—upholding the fundamental right to accessibility as “crucial” and legally enforceable—significant hurdles remain for its proper implementation.
The rules were meant to overcome “severe inadequacies” in existing welfare mechanisms for Persons With Disabilities, or PwDs.
On 11 February, the petitioners in the Rajive Raturi case went back to the court pointing to such roadblocks.
During the hearing, they informed the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Vishwanathan about their apprehensions.
The proposed rules, the petitioners claimed, rest with the responsibility to ensure compliance of accessibility norms in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD).
This, the petitioners added, indicated that other ministries and departments were shirking from doing their bit. Essentially, all concerned ministries must work in tandem, as opposed to the burden falling entirely on one ministry’s shoulders, they submitted to the court.
After hearing the petitioners and the government, the court granted the Centre four more months to file its report in the case. It directed the Centre to look into all aspects and anomalies highlighted by the petitioners.
Also Read: Win for UPSC aspirants with learning disabilities as Delhi HC upholds CAT order directing 0.5% quota
The Rajive Raturi ruling
In the 2024 decision, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had directed the Centre to establish mandatory accessibility standards—uplifting the rights of disabled persons to access public spaces to a constitutional mandate.
“Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities, to exercise their rights fully and equally,” the bench had said.
Essentially, the SC ruling struck down Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, as violative of the 2016 Act due to its discretionary or “recommendatory” nature. The problem, the court said, was that Rule 15 treated accessibility standards as mere guidelines, rather than as “mandatory” and non-negotiable obligations.
The judgment also underscored that complying with accessibility norms is not optional but mandatory, and failure to do so will have strict consequences.
This is what led the court to direct the Centre to come up with mandatory rules, as required by Section 40 of the Act, which essentially states that the Centre, in consultation with the chief commissioner, must formulate rules laying down accessibility standards regarding physical environment, transportation, information, and communication for persons with disabilities.
The Centre was then given a three-month period to come up with these guidelines, but released them starting in July last year, following a five-month delay.
After the 2024 ruling, six different groups were formed to come out with non-negotiable accessibility standards for different sectors. Each group came out with its own draft rules, which were published in the public domain starting last July.
During the hearing last week, the petitioners told the court that anomalies in the ‘Draft Non-Negotiable Rules for Products for Persons with Disabilities’ needed to be looked at.
The court is now monitoring compliance of its November 2024 ruling.
According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court’s directions said that in order to secure compliance of the rules, completion certificates—issued to a building indicating that it meets accessibility standards as per Section 44(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act—must be withheld and fines imposed in case of non-compliance.
But the rules were silent with regard to those sectors where there is no requirement of obtaining a prior governmental clearance before starting operations, such as in the case of a website. In these cases, the deterrent effect of withholding a completion certificate would not be applicable.
Therefore, the petitioners maintained that the relevant ministry should be made responsible for obtaining an undertaking from the concerned establishment that its product or service is in compliance with the new rules, as a precondition for obtaining market access.
In support of this submission, the petitioners relied on Rule 15(2) of the 2017 Rules, which says that respective ministries and departments have to ensure compliance of accessibility standards. They faulted the “bureaucratic perception” that only the DEPwD should be responsible for ensuring disability inclusion and access.
Additionally, the petitioners also sought all vacancies of disability commissioners to be filled within a time period prescribed by the court. At present, offices of Disability Commissions are lying vacant in multiple states like Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Who gets to be ‘normal’ at the workplace? Ask people with disabilities