Font size:
Print
Mandatory Accessibility Standards
Context:
The Supreme Court of India recently directed the Union government to establish mandatory rules ensuring accessibility in public spaces and services for persons with disabilities.
More on News:
- The Court found that the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, and the associated guidelines, were not consistently treated as compulsory, reaffirming accessibility as a fundamental right.
- According to the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)’s Centre for Disability Studies, while various ministries have issued 17 accessibility standards, such as those for Indian Railways and the Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways, the SC noted inconsistencies in these standards across sectors, complicating enforcement and leading to differing accessibility benchmarks.
- While Delhi has 3,775 low-floor CNG buses for accessible travel, Tamil Nadu has only 1,917 accessible buses out of 21,669.
What is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act?
- As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), India is obligated to promote accessibility as an essential right.
- Article 9 of the CRPD mandates measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to the physical environment, transportation, and public information, in both urban and rural areas.
- India’s RPwD Act, enacted in 2016, draws on the CRPD’s principles to secure a life of dignity and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities.
- The RPwD Rules of 2017 were intended to specify accessibility standards.
- However, the Supreme Court noted that these 2017 rules are currently self-regulatory, creating guidelines rather than enforceable standards.
What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
- The judgement follows a writ petition filed in 2005 by Rajive Raturi, a visually challenged person, who requested directions for ensuring safety and accessibility in public spaces.
- The SC ruled that the current RPwD rules lack “non-negotiable” mandatory standards, only providing suggestive guidelines.
- Rule 15 (1) was deemed ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the RPwD Act, as it contradicted the Act’s legislative intent.
- The Court ordered the Union government to frame mandatory rules under the RPwD Act within three months of the judgement.
- The government must consult stakeholders, including NALSAR’s Centre for Disability Studies, in this process.
- Once established, the Court directed that non-compliance should result in penalties, such as withholding completion certificates or imposing fines.
