Font size:
Print
Accessibility Rules based on Principles
Context:
In a landmark judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court declared Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
More on News
- The Court highlighted that while the Act imposed a mandatory obligation on the government to ensure accessibility, Rule 15 adopted a discretionary tone, creating a gap between legislative intent and implementation.
India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act in 2016, replacing the earlier legislation.
Implications of the Judgment
- Rule 15 served as the statutory foundation for accessibility guidelines issued by various ministries and departments, including the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs’ guidelines for barrier-free environments and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ bus body code.
- By striking it down, these guidelines lost their statutory authority.
- The Court directed the government to develop minimum mandatory accessibility requirements within three months, ensuring uniformity across sectors.
- This judgment underscores the fragmented nature of accessibility guidelines and the absence of universal principles to address inclusivity.
- Moving forward, a principle-based framework is essential to create comprehensive, intersectional accessibility standards.
Understanding Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation
- The Court examined the interplay between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, both rooted in the constitutional principle of substantive equality.
- Accessibility ensures standardised inclusivity from the outset, while reasonable accommodation provides tailored solutions to address specific challenges in particular contexts.
- Both are complementary, with accessibility laying the groundwork for inclusivity and reasonable accommodation addressing residual barriers.
- As technology evolves, so must accessibility tools. The rise of Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things necessitates a dynamic approach to digital accessibility, ensuring inclusivity in rapidly changing environments.
Phased Realisation of Accessibility
- The Court criticised the current approach to accessibility guidelines for focusing on long-term goals without establishing enforceable minimum standards for immediate implementation.
- It called for a phased realisation model, where the baseline for accessibility standards progressively advances.
- Canada’s roadmap to full accessibility by 2040, which includes periodic reviews every five years, offers a model for harmonising accessibility standards over time.
- A similar approach could help India adapt to evolving needs and challenges.
- The RPwD Act’s broad definition of barriers, encompassing both tangible and intangible obstacles such as attitudinal barriers, necessitates evolving accessibility parameters.
- Accessibility must align with the evolving understanding of disability, which is increasingly seen as arising from environmental factors rather than individual limitations.
- This perspective underscores the need for universal design principles that extend beyond persons with disabilities to include vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the elderly.
Best Practices
- Karnataka Mobile Adalats: Providing access to justice for individuals with disabilities in remote areas by addressing rights violations directly.
- Mission Vatsalya & ICDS: Ensuring special provisions for children with disabilities within Child Care Institutions (CCIs).
- Brazilian Model – Workforce Inclusion: Mandating that companies with over 100 employees allocate 2%-5% of their workforce to individuals with disabilities, enforced through fines and penalties.
- Japanese Model – Subsidiaries for Employees: Encouraging the creation of suitable working conditions for employees with disabilities through subsidies and support systems.
Strengthening Social Audits
- Section 48 of the RPwD Act mandates regular social audits of government schemes to ensure they address the needs of persons with disabilities.
- However, the lack of standardised guidelines under the RPwD Rules has created inconsistencies in scope and methodology, leading to gaps in implementation.
- Clear and operationalised social audit guidelines can improve accountability, identify service delivery bottlenecks, and address changing disability-related challenges.
- For instance, auditing schemes that provide assistive technologies could lead to better targeting and enhanced service delivery.
Streamlining Rules for Effective Implementation
- The earlier accessibility rules suffered from excessive bureaucratic complexity, with overlapping mandates from different ministries.
- For example, a sporting complex faced conflicting guidelines from the ministries of Urban Affairs, Sports, and Transport, increasing compliance costs and causing delays in grievance redressal.
- To address this, the new rules must be clear, actionable, and streamlined.
- Establishing a nodal authority—whether a sectoral regulator or the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment—could resolve jurisdictional ambiguities and ensure effective implementation.
This judgment is a critical step toward achieving inclusivity and universality in accessibility standards, reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities and setting a robust framework for the future.
