Summary
In a 2005 public interest writ petition on accessibility for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court, acting on a report by NALSAR's Centre for Disability Studies, held Rule 15(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 ultra vires the 2016 Act because it prescribes largely recommendatory guidelines instead of the mandatory, non-negotiable accessibility standards the Act requires. The Union was directed to frame a baseline of mandatory rules within three months and the statutory consequences of non-compliance were directed to be enforced.
Issues
- What is the content and constitutional basis of the right to accessibility for persons with disabilities, and how does it relate to reasonable accommodation.
- Whether Rule 15(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which adopts ministry-issued guidelines as the accessibility standards, is consistent with the mandatory compliance scheme of Sections 40, 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
- What directions should issue in view of the NALSAR-CDS report on the slow implementation of the 2017 judgment.
Provisions considered
- Section 40, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Read as mandating ('shall') that the Central Government frame rules laying down accessibility standards for the physical environment, transport, information and communication and public facilities; the Union was directed to delineate mandatory rules as Section 40 requires. (¶¶ 53, 66, 76)
- Sections 44, 45 and 46, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Section 44 bars building permission and completion or occupation certificates for non-compliant buildings (new infrastructure); Sections 45 and 46 set five-year and two-year deadlines for retrofitting existing public buildings and for service providers. Together they show the Act contemplates compulsory standards, and the deadlines have long passed. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 66, 77)
- Section 89, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The penalty for contravening the Act or rules confirms that the accessibility rules are meant to be enforceable; the Union, States and Union Territories were directed to apply it once mandatory rules are framed. (¶¶ 59, 66, 77)
- Rule 15(1), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017Although the rule says establishments 'shall' comply, the guidelines it adopts (such as the Harmonised Guidelines 2021 and the port and civil aviation guidelines) are largely recommendatory, aspirational or mutually inconsistent, so the rule fails to set the non-negotiable floor the Act requires and is ultra vires. (¶¶ 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75)
- Section 2(ze), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The definition of universal design was relied on to explain that products, environments and services should be usable by all without adaptation, a principle the Union must prioritise in framing the mandatory rules. (¶¶ 32, 78)
- Articles 14, 19 and 21, Constitution of IndiaAccessibility was grounded in equality, freedom of movement and expression, and the right to live with dignity, which require the State to take positive steps toward substantive equality for persons with disabilities. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Held
- Accessibility is not a standalone right but a prerequisite for persons with disabilities to exercise their other rights meaningfully; it is rooted in Articles 14, 19 and 21 and in substantive equality, and reflects the social model of disability that locates disability in societal barriers. (¶¶ 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 43)
- Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach: retrofitting existing institutions and activities, and building accessibility into new infrastructure and initiatives from inception on universal design principles. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 43)
- Accessibility is an ex ante duty owed to groups, which the State must discharge proactively through broad standards without waiting for individual requests; reasonable accommodation is an individualised, complementary duty arising when standards do not meet a particular person's needs. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 42)
- The Act creates a mandatory compliance mechanism: Section 40 obliges the Centre to frame accessibility rules, Section 44 makes them binding on new buildings, Sections 45 and 46 set deadlines for existing buildings and services, and Section 89 penalises contravention. (¶¶ 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66)
- Most standards adopted in Rule 15(1) are guidelines that 'sensitize', 'recommend' and 'guide', are to be met 'over time', and in places prescribe conflicting specifications, so they cannot practically be enforced as non-negotiable rules carrying consequences such as refusal of permission, withholding of completion certificates or fines. (¶¶ 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)
- Delegated legislation must stay within the policy of the parent Act. Because Rule 15(1) replaces the compulsion the Act intends with self-regulation, creating an aspirational ceiling without a non-negotiable floor, it contravenes the Act and is ultra vires; progressive realisation cannot dispense with a minimum floor of mandatory rules. (¶¶ 73, 74, 75)
- The Union must, within three months and in consultation with stakeholders including NALSAR-CDS, prescribe a baseline of mandatory rules, which may involve separating non-negotiable rules from the existing guidelines, guided by universal design, inclusion of all disabilities, assistive technology and ongoing consultation. Meanwhile progressive compliance with the existing standards and the Accessible India Campaign must continue. (¶¶ 76, 78, 79)
Result
Directions issued: Rule 15(1) held ultra vires; Union to frame mandatory accessibility rules within three months in consultation with stakeholders and NALSAR-CDS; once framed, consequences under Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 to be enforced; Union to pay NALSAR-CDS Rs. 50,00,000 by 15.12.2024; writ petitions adjourned to 07.03.2025 for the Union to report compliance.