Holding

The de‑boarding of the petitioner was unlawful, violating Rule 133‑A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and CAR 2008, and infringing her fundamental rights; the airline must pay Rs 10 lakh in damages.

Summary

Jeeja Ghosh, a person with cerebral palsy, was forcibly de‑boarded from a SpiceJet flight on 19 February 2012 despite having requested assistance only for her baggage. She alleged that the airline’s action violated the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, the Aircraft Rules, 1937, Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) 2008, and her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the de‑boarding was unlawful, amounted to discrimination and a breach of human dignity, and contravened Rule 133‑A of the Aircraft Rules and CAR 2008. The Court awarded her Rs 10,00,000 as damages, directed the airline to pay the amount, and issued directions to the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation to fine‑tune the CAR in line with international obligations such as the UNCRPD. The petition was allowed and disposed of with the relief granted.

Issues considered

The de‑boarding of a disabled passenger without medical justification violates the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Whether the airline’s action infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether private carriers are bound by the Civil Aviation Requirements, 2008 and Rule 133‑A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Whether damages can be awarded for violation of human dignity and statutory rights.

Legislation cited

Aircraft Rules, 1937s. Rule 133‑A
Biwako Millennium Framework for Action Towards an Inclusive, Barrier‑Free and Rights‑Based Society for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific
Civil Aviation Requirements, 2008s. Article 4.1, s. Rule 133‑A (as incorporated)
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 21
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1963

Subjects

disability rightsairline discriminationfundamental rightsArticle 21Persons with Disabilities Actcivil aviationhuman dignityUNCRPDdamages

Judgment

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 638

A JEEJA GHOSH & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of2012)
B MAY 12,2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Public Interest
Litigation - By a differently abled person - Alleging that she was
c de-boarded from aircraft (of private airlines) due to her disability -
Plea that the act resulted in agony, humiliation and emotional trauma
- And it amounted to violence to her human dignity and infringed
her fundamental rights guaranteed u/Art. 14 and 21 of the
Constitution - Held: The problems of the differently a bled are to be
D viewed from human rights perspective - Persons with disabilities
do not need sympathy but are entitled to enjoy the full range of
internationally guaranteed rights and freedom without discrimination
on the ground of disability - It is obligatory on the part of the State
to ensure that persons with disabilities get enabled to exercise those
rights - There should be a full recognition of the fact that persons
E
with disability are integral part of the community, equal in dignity
and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms as others
,> - The Act encapsulates the Governments obligation to ensure that
those with disabilities can achieve their full potential free from any
discrimination and harassment - The Act specifically deals with
F transportation system, including airports and aircrafts - Various
international legal instruments also guarantee the rights of the
disabled - The obligation to fulfill the right of the disabled not
limited to the Government, but even the private entities m:e fastened
with such obligation - The rights guaranteed under the Act and the
instructions under Civil Aviation Requirements are founded on the
G
sound principles of human dignity which is the core value of human
rights enshrined u/Art. 21 - In the present case, the decision to de-
board_the petitioner amounts to violation of r.133-A ofAircraft Rules,
1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements, 2008 guidelines and is also
in violation of her human dignity and thus her fundamental rights,
H though by a private enterprise - The erring airlines is directed to
638
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 639

award Rs. I 0 lakhs to the petitioner as damages - Constitution of A
India - Arts. 14 and 21 - Human Rights - Aircraft Rules, 1937 -
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
-Arts. 5 and 9 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1963 -
Art. 27 - Biwako Millenium Framework for Action Towards an
Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons With
B
Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific - Beijing Conclave by the
Governments of Asian and Pacific Countries.
Human Rights - Human dignity - Constitution of India
guarantees human rights through its Fundamental Rights - One
such right is enshrined u/Art. 21 i.e. right to life and liberty which
includes right to live with dignity - Thus human dignity is a c
constitutional value and a constitutional goal - Even right to equality
is based on the value of human dignity - Jn international human
rights law. equality is founded upon two complementary principles:
non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation - Constitution
of India - Arts. 14 and 21. D
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 encapsulates the Government's obligations to ensure that
those with disabilities can achieve their full potential free from E
such discrimination and harassment. The Act specifically deals
with transportation systems, including airports and aircrafts.
[Para 10] [649-A-B]
1.2 Further, various international legal instruments also
guarantee these rights for the disabled, including the United F
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD), which India ratified in 2007. The UNCRPD
specifically targets transportation systems. And the UNCRPD
makes clear that private carriers are covered as well in Article
9(2). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1963
G
requires India's internal legislation to comply with international
commitments. Further, the Biwako Millenium Framework for
Action Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based
Society for. Persons With Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific,
published in 2002 and signed by India as well, states that "existing
land, water and air public transport systems (vehicles, stops and H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A terminals) should be made accessible and usable as soon as
practicable." [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14) [649-B-C, D, F, H; 650-A-B)
1.3 Insofar as obligation to fulfill these rights are concerned,
the same is not limited to the Government or Government
agencies/State but even the private entities (which shall include
B private carriers as well) are fastened with such an obligation
·which they are supposed to carry out. [Para 18) (651-G)
1.4 In the year 2008, respondent No. 2, i.e. Directorate
General of Civil Aviation had issued Civil Aviation Requirements
(CAR) with regard to 'carriage' by persons with disabilities and/
or persons with reduced mobility. The very fact that such
c Requirements were issued by the Directorate General of Civil
Aviation reflects that the authorities are not oblivious of the
problems that persons with disabilities suffer while undertaking
air travel. At the same time, it was found that these instructions
did not adequately take care of all the hassles which such people
D have to undergo. The Government realised the shortcomings
in the CAR, 2008 and agreed to revise the same. The Ministry
of Civil Aviation appointed an expert commit~e. The report of
the Committee highlights some important areas whiCh were not
· covered in the CAR, 2008. The Committee made several
recommendations for amendment in the said CAR. Taking this
E report as the basis the Ministry has issued amended CAR dated
28th February (CAR, 2014). Though most of the
recommendations by the Committee are accepted, there is
some tweeking done by the Government and some of the
suggestions of the Committee are not incorporated in the
F revised CAR, 2014. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 24) [651-H; 652-A-C;
653-A, C; 654-E-F]
1.5 In certain respects the guidelines in CAR, 2014 can
be further fine-tuned by the official respondents, keeping in
view the recommendations of the Committee, where they have
not been fully implemented. These aspects may be reconsidered
G
by the DGCA/Government to see whether they can be
incorporated in CAR 2014 by proper amendments. [Para 26)
(672-E-F]
2.1 The rights that are guaranteed to differently abled
persons under the Act, 1995 are founded on the sound principle
H of human dignity which is the core value of human right and is
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 641

treated as a significant facet of right to life and liberty. Such a A
right, now treated as human right of the persons who are
disabled, has it roots in Article 21 of the Constitution.
l:fara 3~1 I678-Gl
2.2 Over a period of time, human dignity has found its way
through constitutionalism, whether written or unwritten. Even
B
right to equality is interpreted based on the value of human
dignity. The Constitution of India guarantees human rights that
are contained in Part III with the caption "Fundamental Rights".
One such right enshrined in Article 21 is right to life and liberty.
Right to life is given a purposeful meaning by this Court to
include right to live with dignity. It is the purposive c
interpretation which has been adopted by this Court to give a
content of the right to human dignity as the fulfillment of the
constitutional value enshrined in Article 21. Thus, human dignity
is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal. [Para 36) (679-
B-D]
D
2.3 CAR ipstructions have been issued keeping in view
the spirit of human dignity enshrined in Article 21 and the right
that are to be ensured to such persons. The underlying message
in all these provisions is the acknowledgment that human rights
are individual and have a definite linkage to human development,
both sharing common vision and with a common purpose. Respect E
for human rights is the root for human development and
realisation of full potential of each individual, which in turn
leads to the augmentation of human resources with progress of
the nation. Empowerment of the people through human
development is the aim of human rights. [Para 38) (680-E-F) F
2.4 In international ,human rights law, equality is founded
upon two complementary principles: non-discrimination and
reasonable differentiation. ,The principle of non-discrimination
seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise
all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to G
arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. Equality
not only implies preventing discrimination, but goes beyond in
remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic
discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing
the notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable
accommodation. The move from the patronising and paternalistic H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.

A approach to persons with disabilities represented by the medical
model to viewing them as members of the community with equal
rights has also been reflected in the evolution of international
standards relating specifically to disabilities, as well as in moves
to place the rights of persons with disabilities within the category
of universal human rights. [Para 39] [680-G-H; 681-A-B]
B
Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International
Norms and Standards Relating to Disability 10-2-2001
- referred to.
2.5 The problems of differently abled are to be viewed from
c human rights perspective. This thinking is reflected in two major
declarations on the disability adopted by the General Assembly
of the United Nations on December 20, 1971 and thereafter in
the year 1975. The position was reiterated in the Beijing Conclave
by the Government of Asian and Pacific Countries that was held
from December 01-05, 1992 and in order to convert the
D resolutions adopted therein into reality, the Indian Parliament
also passed the enactment, i.e. Act, 1995. All these rights
conferred upon such persons send an eloquent message that
there is no question of sympathising with such persons and
extending them medical or other help. What is to be borne in
E mind is that they are also human beings and they have to grow
as normal persons and are to be extended all facilities in this
behalf. The subject of the rights of persons with disabilities
should be approached from human rights perspective, which
recognised that persons with disabilities were entitled to enjoy
the full range of internationally guaranteed rights and
F freedoms without discrimination on the ground of disability.
[Paras 41-42) [681-F-H; 682-A-B)
2.6 It is obligatory on the part of the State to take positive
measures to ensure that in reality, persons with disabilities get
enabled to exercise those rights. There should be insistence
G on the full measure of general human rights guarantees in the
case of persons with disabilities, as well as developing specific
instruments that refine and given detailed contextual content of
those general guarantees. There should be a full recognition of
the fact that persons with disability were integral part of the
H community, equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 643

rights and freedoms as others. The persons suffering from mental A
or physical disability experience and encounter nonpareil form
of discrimination. They are not looked down by people.
However, they are not accepted in the main stream either even
when people sympathise with them. Most common, their lives
are handicapped by social, cultural and attitudinal barriers
B
which hamper their full participation and enjoyment of equal
rights and opportunities. This is the worst form of discrimination
which disabled feel as their grievance is that others do not
understand them. [Para 42] [682-B-E]
2.7 The petitioner was not given appropriate, fair and caring
treatment which she required with due sensitivity, and the decision
c
to de-board her, in the given circumstances, was uncalled for.
More than that, the manner in which she was treated while de-
boarding from the aircraft, depicts total lack of sensitivity on
the part of the officials of the airlines. [Para 34] [678-A-B]
2.8 It is not in dispute that the Pilot as well as the Crew D
members of the airlines are supposed to ensure the safety of
all the passengers and a decision can be taken to de-board a
particular passenger in the larger interest and safety of other
co-passengers. Such a situation did not exist when the petitioner.
was de-boarded. Neither was the decision to de-board taken by E
the airlines after taking due deliberations and with medical advise.
Petitioner is a disabled person who suffers from cerebral palsy.
But her condition was not such which required any assistive
devices or aids. She had demanded assistance regarding her
baggage at the time of security check-in, from the check-in
counter. For boarding of the aircraft, she came of her own. Even F
if it is assumed that there was some blood or froth that was
noticed to be oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she
was seated in the aircraft (though vehemently denied by her),
nobody even cared to interact with her and asked her the reason
for the same. No doctor was summoned to examine her condition. G
Abruptly and without any justification, decision was taken to
de-board her without ascertaining as to whether her condition
was such which prevented her from flying. This clearly amounts
to violation of Rule 133"A of Aircraft Rules, 1937 and the CAR,
2008 guidelines. [Para 35] [678-C-F]
H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A 2.9 A little care, a little sensitivity and a little positive
attitude on the part of the officials of the airlines would not
have resulted in the trauma, pain and suffering that the petitioner
had to undergo. This has resulted in violation of her human
dignity and, thus, her fundamental right, though by a private
enterprise (respondent No.3). [Para 46) [684-A-B)
B
2.10 Since respondent No.3 acted in a callous manner, and
in the process violated Aircraft Rules, 1937 and CAR, 2008
guidelines resulting in mental and physical suffering experienced
by the petitioner and also unreasonable discrimination against
her, a sum of Rs.10,00,000 is awarded as damages to be payable
c to her by respondent No.3. [Para 47) [684-C]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 98
of2012.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Divya Jyoti J aipuriar, Ms. Karuna Nundy,
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advs. for the Petitioners.
D P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Milanka Chaudhary, Abhishek Sharma, M.R.
Shamshad, Ms. Binu Tamta, Atulesh Kumar, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms.
Snidha Mehra, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. SIKRI, J. I. In the book on the rights of differently abled
persons authored by Joseph P. Shapiro, which is titled "NO PITY" 1, the
E
first chapter, 'Introduction' has the sub-title 'You Just Don't Understand'
and 'the very first sentence of the said book is : 'Nondisabled Americans
do not understand disabled ones'.
2. The present PIL, spearheaded by Jeeja Ghosh, who is herself
a disabled person, with the support of the NGO ADAPT (Able Disable
F All People Together), bears testimony to the statement of Shapiro. Irony
is that though the aforesaid remarks were made by Shapiro way back in
the year 1993 and notwithstanding the fact that there have been significant
movements in recognising the rights of differently ab led persons, much
is yet to be achieved. India also has come out with various legislations
and schemes for the upliftment of such differently abled persons, but
G
gap between the laws and reality still remains. Even though human
rights activists have made their best efforts to create awareness that
people with disabilities have also right to enjoy their life and spend the
same not only with the sense of fulfilment but also to make them contribute
1
'NO PITY': People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement' [Indian
H reprint by Universal Book Traders)
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 645
r
A. K. SIKRT, J.l

in the growth of the society, yet mindset of large section of the people A
who claim themselves to be 'able' persons still needs to be changed
towards differently abled persons. It is this mindset of the other class
which is still preventing, in a great measure, differently abled persons
from enjoying their human rights which are otherwise recognised in their
favour. Present case, though a PIL, got triggered by an incident which
B
proves aforesaid introductory statement made by us.
3. Petitioner no. I, Ms. Jeeja Ghosh is an Indian citizen with
cerebral palsy. She is an eminent activist involved in disability rights.
She is, inter alia, a Board member of the National Trust, an organization
of the Government of India, set up under the "National Trust for the
Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation c
and Multiple Disabilities" Act (Act 4 of 1999). Ms. Ghosh has been
felicitated by the West Bengal Commission for Women on the occasion
oflnternational Women's Day in the year 2004, and is the recipient of
the Shri N.D. Diwan Memorial Award for Outstanding Professional
Services in Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities by the National D
Society for Equal Opportunities of the Handicapped (NASEOH) in the
year 2007. Ms. Jeeja Ghosh is also the recipient of the 'Role Model
Award' from the Office of the Disability Commissioner, Government of
West Bengal, for the year 2009, and was also an elected Board Member
of the National Trust for Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple
Disabilities and Mental Retardation from 14th August, 2008 to 19th July, E
2011. This Curriculum Vitae of petitioner no. I amply demonstrates
how a person suffering from cerebral palsy, can overcome the disability
and achieve such distinctions in her life, notwithstanding various kinds of
retardation and the negative attitudes which such persons has to face
from_ the society. F
4. It so happened that Ms. Ghosh was invited to an International
Conference, North South Dialogue IV, in Goa, from the 19th to the 23rd
of February, 2012, hosted by ADAPT (Petitioner no. 2). The conference
was intended to put a special focus on people with disabilities and their
families, countries in the global South facing huge systemic ~nd institutional
barriers, and the tools for change that would make a difference in their G
lives in these countries. Additionally, Ms. Jeeja Ghosh was invited as
one of 15 international individuals to review an Indo-German project
which was being show-cased at the conference. ADAPT purchased
return plane tickets for Ms. Jeeja Ghosh, including a seat on flight SG
803, operated by SpiceJet Ltd. (Respondent no. 3) scheduled to fly from H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A Kolkata to Goa on the morning of 19th February, 2012. The conference
was to begin in the afternoon of the 19th February, 2012.
5. After being seated on the flight, Ms. Jeeja Ghosh was
approached by members of the flight crew who requested to see her
boarding pass, which she gave them. Then they proceeded to order her
B off the plane. Despite her tearful protestations and informing them that
she needed to reach Goa for the conference, they insisted that she de-
board. After returning to the airport and arguing with airlines officials,
she later discovered that the Captain had insisted that she be removed
due to her disability.
6. It is averred in the petition that as a result of the shock and
c trauma of this even,t she had trouble sleeping and eating, so she was
taken to a doctor the following day where she was prescribed medication.
Because of this, she was unable to fly to Goa on 20th February, 2012,
and, thus, missed the conference all together. Not only did this humiliate
and traumatize her, but it also deprived the conference organizer, ADAPT
D (petitioner no. 2) and all of the attendees of the opportunity to hear her
thoughts and experiences, and prevented her from providing her analysis
of the Indo-Gernrnn project under review.
7. Petitioner no. I grudges that even after four years of the said
incident whenever she has a flashback, she feels haunted with that scene
when she was pulled out of the plane, like a criminal. She continues to
E have nightmares. The petitioners, in these circumstances, have preferred
the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia for putting
the system in place so that other such differently abled persons do not
suffer this kind of agony, humiliation and emotional trauma which amount
to doing violence to their human dignity and infringes, to the hilt, their
F fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
8. We may mention, at this stage, that SpiceJet had sent a letter to
petitioner no. I apologizing for the incident. However, according to the
petitioners, the SpiceJet tried to trivialize the incident by just mentioning
that 'inconvenience caused' was 'inadvertent'. It is also mentioned in
the petition that before approaching this Court she had submitted a
G compliant to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment about the
incident as well as to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
West Bengal and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
Government of India. Both had issued show cause notices to SpiceJet
in response to which petitioner no. 2 was informed that a refund for
H flight, less' 1,500/- as a cancellation fee from the airlines on which the
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 647
rA.
K. SIKRI, J.l

return luggage had been booked through Jet Konnect, will be made. A
The petitioners perceive it as sprinkling salt on their wounds.
9. It is claimed that such behaviour by airlines Crew is as
outrageous as it is illegal. SpiceJet's staff clearly violated 'Civil Aviation
Requirements' dated I st May, 2008 (for short, 'CAR, 2008')with regard
to 'Carriage by Air of Persons with Disability and/or Persons with
B
Reduced Mobility' issued by the respondent No.2 - Directorate General
of Civil Aviation (for short, 'DGCA') as authorized by Rule ! 33A of the
Aircraft Rules, 193 7, which states:
"4.1 No airline shall refuse to carry persons with disability or
persons with reduced mobility and their assistive aids/devices,
escorts and guide dogs including their presence in the cabin, c
provided such persons or their representatives, at the time of
booking and/or check-in for travel, inform the airlines or their
requirement. The airlines shall incorporate appropriate provisions
in the online form for booking tickets so that all the required facilities
are made available to the passengers with disabilities at the time D
of check-in.
[ ... ]
4.4. All airlines and airport management shall run program for
their staff engaged in passenger handling e.g. cabin crew/
commercial staff including floor walkers and counter staff etc.
E
for sensitization and developing awareness for assisting passengers
with disabilities. The training program shall be conducted at the
time of initial training and a refresher shall be conducted every
three years on the subject. Only such persons who have current
course shall be assigned to handling disabled persons. The training
program should, inter alia, include assisting disabled persons in F
filing up travel documents as may be required while providing
assistance in flight.
[ ... ]
4.6. Many persons with disabilities do not require constant
assistance for their activities. Therefore, if the passenger declares G
independence in feeding, communication with reasonable
accommodation, toileting and personal needs, the airlines shall not
insist for the presence of an escort.
[ ... ]
4.8. All airlines shall provide necessary assistance to persons H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A with disabilities/impairment who wish to travel alone without an
escort.
[ ... ]
4.1 O(b) Once a passenger has bought a ticket for travel, it is
obligatory on part of the airline that he reaches the aircraft from
B the departure lounge, and at the end of the journey from the aircraft
to the arrival lounge exit, without incurring any further expenditure.
[ ... ]
4.13 Airlines shall provide assistance to meet the particular needs
of the persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility,
c from the departing airport terminal to the destination airport
terminal.
[ ... ]
4.14 Persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility
have equal choice of seat allocation as others, subject to safety
D requirements and physical limitations of the aircraft- like seats
near the emergency exits and seats with more leg-room.
[ ... ]
5.1 No Medical clearance or special forms shall be insisted from
persons with disabilities or persons with reduced mobility who
E only require special assistance at the airport for assistance in
embarking/disembarking and a reasonable accommodation in flight,
who otherwise do not require additional assistance.
[ ... ]
10.1 A disabled person or person with reduced mobility who
F considers that this regulation has been infringed may bring the
matter to the attention of the managing body of airlines, airport or
other concerned authorities, as the case may be.
I 0.2 The managing body of the airlines and the airport shall ensure
speedy and proper redressal of these complaints."
I 0. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Union of India
G
(respondent No. I) has an obligation to ensure that its citizens are not
subject to such arbitrary and humiliating discrimination. It is a violation
of their fundamental rights, including the right to life, right to equality,
right to move freely throughout the territory oflndia, and right to practice
their profession. The State has an obligation to ensure these rights are
H protected - particularly for those who are disabled. More specifically,
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 649
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights A
and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, 'Act, 1995') encapsulates
the Government's obligations to ensure that those with disabilities can
achieve their full potential free from such discrimination and harassment.
The Act specifically deals with transportation systems, including airports
and aircrafts.
B
11. Further, various international legal instruments also guarantee
these rights for the disabled, including the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified
. in 2007. Specifically, the UNCRPD requires in Article 5:
"2. State Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of c
disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and
effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.
3. In order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, State
Parties shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable
accommodation is provided." D
12. The UNCRPD specifically targets transportation systems suclr
as airlines when it states in Article 9:
"l. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and
participate fully in all aspects of life, State Parties shall take
appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities access, E
on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to
transportation, to information and communications, including
information and communications technologies and system, and to
other facilities and services open or provided to the public."
And the UNCRPD makes clear that private carriers are covered F
as well in Article 9(2):
"2. State Parties shall also take appropriate measures:
[ ... ]
(b) To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services G
which are open to or provided to the public take into account all
aspects of accessibility of persons with disabilities;"
13. The Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties, 1963 requires
India's internal legislation to comply with international commitments.
Article 27 states that a "State party... may not invoke the provisions of H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
14. Further, the Biwako Millenium Framework for Action Towards
an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons With
Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific, published in 2002 and signed by India
as well, states that "existing land, water and air public transport systems
B · (vehicles, stops and terminals) should be made accessible and usable as
soon as practicable."
15. According to the petitioners, filing of this petition was
necessitated because of the reason that petitioner no. I is not the only
disabled passenger to suffer such discrimination and humiliation. There
c have been many others who have undergone same kind of maltreatment
and trauma while undertaking such air flights. In the petition some such
instances are narrated. It is pointed out that one, Mr. Tony Kurian was
repeatedly denied the right to purchase tickets on an Indigo flight because
he is visually impaired. Ms. Anilee Agarwal was recently forced to sing
an indemnity bond before she could fly from Delhi to Raipur on Jet
D Connect, threatened with being "body-lifted" by four male flight crew
members, and finally "thrown down the steps" in an aisle chair when
she refused to be carried by hand. Mr. Nilesh Singit was told by a
SpiceJet captain that he was not allowed to fly with his crutches, and
has been asked to sign indemnity bonds on numerous occasions. Ms.
E Shivani Gupta recently reported that she has also been asked to sign
indemnity bonds on numerous occasions. Thus, according to the
petitioners, such problems exist across airlines and across the country
and requires clear national direction. It is further alleged that despite the
existing constitutional, statutory and international law on the issue,
situations continue where these differently abled persons face
F discrimination and harassment while traveling.
16 .. In this backdrop, the petitioners seek the following relief:
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, order or direction to the respondents directing
G them to follow 'Civil Aviation Requirements' dated I st May, 2008
with regard to 'Carriage by Air of Persons with Disability and/or
Persons with Reduced Mobility' as issued by the office of the
Director General of Civil Aviation.
(b) Issue an order directing respondent nos. I and 2 to monitor
the compliance ofall Indian airlines with respect to 'Civil Aviation
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 651
rA.
K. SIKRI, J.]

Requirements' dated 1st May, 2008 with regards to 'Carriage by A
Air of Persons with Disability and/or Persons with Reduced
Mobility', and to investigate any apparent violations and provide
penalties to airlines that fail to implement these requirements,
updating the Civil Aviation Requirements to include these penalties
if appropriate.
B
( c) Issue an order directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to investigate
the written complaint dated 21st February, 2012 by petitioner no.
1 and forwarded by the Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy, and to
take action in accordance with law against SpiceJet (respondent
no. 3) and any and all officials responsible for the above stated
violations.
c
(d) Issue an order directing SpiceJet (respondent no. 3) authorities,
their men, agents and persons acting on their behalf to adequately
compensate the petitions for lost money, wasted time, and the
humiliation and trauma suffe~ed during the above-mentioned
incident; D

( e) Issue a writ, order or direction or pass any other or further
order or orders in the interest ofjustice, as it may deem fit, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case."
17. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents, who are E
Union oflndia (respondent no. 1), DGCA (respondent no. 2) and SpiceJet
Ltd. (respondent no. 3 ). They filed their responses to the petition.· Insofar
as respondent no. 3 - SpiceJet Ltd. airline is concerned, it has given its
own version to the episode occurred on 19th February, 2012 and has
denied any maltreatment to petitioner no. I, giving their own version of
the entire incident and justifying the action they had taken, in the process. F
We shall advert to that aspect in detail later while considering prayer (d)
of this petition.
18. We have already taken. note of some of the international
covenants and instruments guaranteeing rights to persons with disabilities.
Insofar as obligation to fulfill these rights are concerned, the same is not G
limited to the Government or government agencies/State but even the
private entities (which shall include private carriers as well) are fastened
with such an obligation which they are supposed to carry out. We have
also mentioned that in the year 2000, respondent no. 2, i.e. DGCA had
issued CAR with regard to 'carriage' by persons with disabilities and/or
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A persons with reduced mobility.
19. The very fact that such requirements were issued by the
Directorate General of Civil Aviation reflects that the authorities are not
oblivious of the problems that persons with disabilities suffer while
undertaking air travel. At the same time, it was found that these
B instructions did not adequately take care of all the hassles which such
people have to undergo. Thankfully, the Government realised the·
shortcomings in the CAR, 2008 and agreed to revise the same, which
shows positive stance of the Government and also reflects that the
authorities did not treat the present petition as adversarial and accepted
that such causes require 'social context adjudication' approach. To this
c end in mind, the Ministry of Civil Aviation appointed an expert committee
known as 'Ashok Kumar Committee' (hereinafter referred to as the
'Committee') under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. Ashok Kumar, Joint
Secretary. The said Committee consisted of as many as 2 I members,
including members from the cross-section, i.e. the Ministry, Airport
D Authority of India, DGCA, different NGOs working for the benefit of
persons with disabilities, representative of airline, etc. This Committee
did stupendous task by taking care of all the nuances of the issue involved
and submitted its fabulous report, after reviewing the existing CAR for
persons with disabilities.

E 20. A perusal of CAR, 2014 discloses the tremendous efforts made
by the Committee taking care of most of the problems which such people
face. As the Executive Summa1y of the said report shows, the Committee
recommended that allocation of responsibility between airports and
airlines should be clearly defined to avoid delays and inconveniences/
hardships to Persons with Reduced Mobility (for short, 'PRM') arising
F due to lack of communication between service providers. It has also
been suggested that the equipment and other facilities should be
standardised in consultation with Department of Disabilities Affairs.
Internal audits should be introduced to ensure that assistive devices are
available in good condition and handling persons are properly trained in
G their use. This aspect should also be overseen by DGCA. Responsibilities
also need to be clearly defined for each stakeholder, namely, responsibility
of the airlines, their agents and ticketing website for ticketing, airport
operator for providing a helpdesk and assisting the passenger on arrival
at the airport, responsibility ofairline for check-in, responsibility ofCISF
for security check etc.
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 653
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

21. The report highlights some important areas which were not A
covered in the CAR, 2008. These include accessibility of ticketing system
and complaints and redress mechanism. A 'Complaints Resolljtion
Officer' to deal with issues relating to PRMs has been recommended
for each airport. It has also been suggested that Ombudsman be appointed
for settlement of complaints between complainant and airport/airline
B
through conciliation and mediation. The report covers the airport facilities
and equipment required in an exhaustive manner. It covers accessible
routes and passageways, wayfinding, signage, automated kiosks,
accesible telecommunication systems/announcements, arrival/departure
monitors, seating areas and guidance for service animals.
22. The Committee reviewed the CAR, 2008 and made several
c
recommendations for amendment in the said CAR. It suggested that the
definition of persons with reduced mobility should include such persons
who require assistance in air travel, for example, persons with hearing
and vision impairment, persons with autism etc., who have no visible
impairment but still require facilitation at the airport and in the aircraft. D
The Committe·e also suggested standardisation of training, standard
operating procedures, need for sufficient oversight by authorities, need
for clarity on requirement of medical clearance by passengers,
standardisation of equipment at airports and on aircraft, proper training
of security checking personnel and need for more clarity on seating
arrangement to PRMs. It was also suggested that curbside assistance E
kiosks should be mandated and guidelines should be issued on provision
of priority tags for passengers on wheelchairs. Recommendation was
made mandating location of dedicated parking space at airports and for
the accessibility of in-flight entertainment system. Safety briefings in
aircraft should also be made in sign language for persons who are hard F
of hearing/deaf. It should also cover emergency evacuation of blind
passengers.
23. The report highlights international best practices on interaction
with persons with disabilities, covering separately the interaction with
the blind, the deaf and persons with mobility disability etc. It also covers G
in detail the training procedure, including initial and recurrent training.
Significant recommendations include the following:
Revision of CAR on Carriage by Air of Persons with
Disabilities in a time bound manner.
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.

A Ensure compliance of recommendations within 3 years at
major airports and then at other airports in a phased manner.
Address a suggested funding mechanism for meeting cost
of implementation.
Define allocation ofresponsibilities for airlines, airports and
B others for their respective roles in providing facilities to
persons with disabilities.
Standardisation of equipment like wheelchairs and facilities
designed for PRMs.

c Establishment of Standard Operating Procedures for all
service providers and adequate training of their staff.
Web enabled booking, in-flight briefing and evacuation of
such persons.
Implement a mechanism for grievance redressal.
D
Airlines and airports declare their pol icy on facilities provided
to PRMs by publishing on their respective websites.
24. On the filing of the aforesaid repo1t in this Comt, the learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union oflndia
was asked about the action which the Government intended to take on
E
those recommendations. Taking this report as the basis the Ministry has
issued amended CAR dated 28th February 2014 (hereinafter referred
to as CAR, 2014). Though most of the recommendations are accepted,
there is some tweeking done by the Government and some of the
suggestions of the Committee are not incorporated in the revised CAR,
F 2014. This prompted the petitioners to give their comments pointing out
that some of the suggestions given by the Committee are not incorporated
and therefore CAR, 2014 needed fmiher modification and fine-tuning.
The Government had taken time to respond to the same.
25. Mr. Roh it Thakur, who is working as Assistant Director in the
G Office of DGCA, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Union of India
stating that the Government has no objection in the Court going into the
necessity of implementation of specific terms of the recommendations
of the said Committee without any formal amendment. The response to
the suggestions is given in a tabulated form and it is necessary to reproduce
the same in its entirety:
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 655
r
A. K. SIKRI, J .l

S.No. Suvl'estion Replv A
!. Definition/Scope of the The term 'Person with
CAR Disability' has been
While the Ashok Kumar retained in the CAR to keep
Committee Report's the terminology in line with
proposed definition was !CAO Annex 9 and Circular
accepted, the draft CAR 274 on and Penons wiili
also incorporates the Disabilities (Equal
B
category of Opportunities, Protection of
"incapacitated persons" Rights and Full
which should be removed Participation) Act, 1995
and substituted with published in Part 11, Section
"persons with I of the Extraordinary
additional/specific
Support requirements".
Gazette of India, Min is try
of Law, Justice And
c
Company Affairs.
The term physical or
mental impairment is How ever, every effort has
defined to include "such been made to include all
diseases and conditions as concerned terminology
orthopaedic, visual, within the ambit of the D
speech and hearing definition to cater the needs
impairments; cerebral of affected persons. The
palsy, epilepsy, muscular term "incapacitated" has
dystrophy, multiple · been adopted from 14 CF R
sclerosis, cancer, heart Pt 382 with addition of
disease, diabetes, mental definition on "physical or
retardation, emotional mental impairment" for E
illness, drug addiction added clarification.
and alcoholism" - and it
is to be noted that autism The term "autism" has been
has been excluded from included in CAR as per the
this. This must be recommendation.
rectified to include
autism, and in the F
alternative, the definition
proposed by the
Committee must be
accented in its entirety.
2. ,_P_._ro"'c""u"'r""e,..m.._,e,,,n,_,t_ _ _ __,o"-'f With regard to airport
~st=a=n=d=a~rd=i=s=ed~--a=s=s~is=t~iv~e in frastru ctu re and
devices facilitation for person with
G
The Committee disabilities, Chapter 9.11 of
recommended that all !CAO document 9184
airports should procure Airport Planning Manual
all ass1st1ve equipment and Annex 9 provides the
based on a schedule standards which are
of standardised guidelines for !CAO
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A equipments. The Contracting States. The
Committee recommended standardisation processes are
that the standardisation normally better achieved through
should be done in deliberations with stakeholders
consultation with the ensuring economic viability and
Department of Disability their implementation in a
Affairs in a suitable time feasible manner. Department of
frame. This is not reflected Disability A ffairs is a separate
B in the draft CAR, which Authority under Ministry of
poses a problem because Social Justice and
then there will be no Empowerment, which is not
obligation to standardise under this office purview.
assistive devices and ensure Organisations perfonn ing
a minimum quality for the functions under the provisions of
. same. Therefore,, the Aircraft Rules, 1937 can only be
Committee brought under the am bit of CAR
c rec om rn endations with issued by this office.
regard to procurement of
standardised assistive In view of the above, matter
devices must be accepted. cannot be resolved by issuance
of direction for standardisation
within stipulated time frame to
the Department of Disability
Affairs. However, concern has
D been addressed in the CAR
through training requirement of
personnel in consultation with
the department.
3. Internal Audit Systems Para 4.3.1 to 4.3.7 of the CAR
deals with the training of
The Committee personnel for staff engaged in
E recommended that Airlines passenger handling for
and airport operators must sensitisation and developing
have an internal audit awareness for assisting persons
5ystem in place to ensure with disability or reduced
that assistive devices are mobility.
available and are in good
condition and assistance and Pam 4.4.2 of the CAR mentions
training are provided in that stakeholders develop an in-
F adequate and proper house document on handling
manner. The Committee persons with disability or
recommended that the reduced mobility and the proof
DGCA would oversee as the of its compliance shall be made
regulator. The draft CAR available to DGCA and other
mandates surveillance of the enforcement agencies. In place
operators by the DG CA as of internal audit on regular
part of Annual Surveillance interval, the ass1st1ve devices
G Programme. The audit require maintenance as per OEM
system must be an internal instruction and checks by
one, on the lines of the operators. The effectiveness of
Ashok Kumar Committee their maintenance c'an" be
recommendations, which ensured through annual
can be more frequent and surveillance stated at 4.4.9 of the
detailed. CAR.
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 657
rA. K. SlKRl, J.l
4. Help Desk Concern regarding help A
The Committee rec om mended a desk wou Id be addressed
telephonic help desk, which through compliance of
would be fully accessible, to be CAR Para 4. I, Para 4.2 and
set up to receive assistance 4.4 and more specifically
requests in advance from through 4.1.1, 4.1.7, 4.1.17,
passengers with disabilities. 4.1 .23,"4.2.10, 4.4.1, 4.4.2
Any request for on board and 4.4.3. B
assistance would be
communicated to the airline.
This is a necessity as this would
ensure a failsafe fully
accessible means of
com rnuni cation for persons
with disabilities and
communicate specific needs to
also c
airlines which may be unstated
at the time of booking. The
draft CAR removes this
requirement completely and the
same must be incorporated in
the final CAR. The proviso to
4.1.1 seems to keep some leave D
so that in a event a travel agent
or a represen ta tivc or on
account of any communication
failure, the airline docs not have
a record of such a request, the
person with disability may be
denied permission to board the E
aircraft. This cannot be the
case. 4.1.5 applies only to the
"emergency travel". A irlincs
must be always prepared to take
a person with disability on
board and so the 48 hours of
requ irem en! seems to ind icatc F
that airlines will not be
prepared otherwise - if there is
a time limit at all, it needs to be
reduced.
5. Curbside Assistance Kiosks The suggestion made is
The Committee mandates that addressed under Paras 4.2.9
curbside assistance kiosks at the and 4.2.10 of the CAR G
airport are to be set up by the which states that airport
airport authority, providing live operator shall ensure that
assistance and intermediaries. persons with disability or
including guiders, readers and reduced mobility are
transported within the
airport in the same
condition, comfort and H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A professional sign language safety as those available for
interpreters must be made other passengers and that the
the the curbside kiosks. facilities at the airport are
These kiosks should be at accessible to persons with
the first point of contact of disability or reduced mobility
the passenger and the during their transit through the
B airport premises. This may airport.
be at parking, in case the
passenger has his own
transport, or at the drop-off
points at the airport in case
of hired transportation.
c The airport must facilitate
movement of persons
with disabilities from these
areas to check-in
counters by providing
qualified/properly trained
D personnel and necessaiy
assistive aids/equipment.
For this purpose the
passenger will be required
to call the assistance kiosk
in advance. This also
E provides for special
provisions for entering
airp01ts, for example,
allowing auto rickshaws
inside the airport where
barred, if plying a person
F
with a disability. Similarly,
for persons who are
blind/are visually impaired,
getting from the drop-off
point to the entty to the
departure gate is extremely
G
difficult. TI1e draft CAR
eliminates the curbside
kiosk facility. The draft
CAR states that "Once
persons with disability or
reduced mobility report at
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA & ORS. 659
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

the airport with valid booking A
and intention to travel, the
airline shall provide
assistance to meet their
particular needs and ensure
their seamless travel from the
departure terminal of the B
departing airport upto the
aircraft and at the end of the
journey from the aircraft to
the arrival terminal exit,
without any additional
expenses". This seems to c
indicate that the CAR does
not cover entry into and exit
from the larger airport
premises, which is severely
problematic and must be
amended to reflect the D
intention of the Committee.
6. Wheelchair usage The Aircraft (Carriage of
While the Committee Report
Dangerous Goods) Rules,
retains the right of passengers
2003 have been framed to
with disabilities to use their
give effect to the provisions
mode of assistance
of Annex 18 to the Chicago E
throughout their journey, the
Convention and the Technical
CAR places several
Instructions for the Safe
restrictions on the same.
Transport of Dangerous
Passengers who intend to
Goods by Air issued by
check-in with their own
ICAO. Since the carriage of
wheelchair are to be given an
dangerous goods by air has a F
option of using a
direct bearing on the safety of
station/airport wheelchair. If
aircraft operations, strict
the passenger prefers to use
compliance with these
their own wheelchair , they
provisions is of paramount
sha II be pennitted to use it
importance. The caITiage of
provided the wheelchair to
dangerous goods is a highly G
specifications as laid down by
skilled job, which requires
Disable Person Transport
proper packing, labelling and
Advisory handling etc. during various
stages such as storage,
.__~'--~~~~~~~~~~-'-l_o_a_d1_·n~g~,~~~--~~~---'
H
-'*·--

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.

A
Committee (DPTAC), UK. unloading and transportation.
The CAR also says that the Hence the CAR says that
acceptance of automated acceptance of automated
wheelchair/assistive devices wheelchair/assistive devices
using batteries shall be using batteries shall be
B subject to the application of subject to the application of
relevant regulations relevant regulations
concerning dangerous goods, concerning dangerous goods.
which will inconvenience
passengers. Instead, the CAR
c must lay down the protocol
for travelling with
wheelchairs and storage of
the same, with batteries being
removed/kept safely
depending upon whether they
D are dry or wet cell batteries.
The BCAS website must
include the rules concerning
carrying of battery-operated
personal wheel-chairs or
E other assistive devices/aids to
avoid ambiguity in any event.
If passengers are made/opt to
use the airport provided
wheelchair, they should be
allowed to keep wheelchairs
F till the point of boarding the
aircraft and not be forced to
shift between the wheelchair
and chairs to accommodate
other passengers. To that
G end, an adequate number of
wheelchairs must be
produced. Also it should not
be the case that the person
who is using a wheelchair,
who is accompanied by an
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDJA & ORS. 661
fA. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
escort, cannot use airport
assistance to push his or her
wheelchair. It should not be
obligatory on the part of the
escort to take over the
responsibility of the airport
assistance staff. B
7. Checking in assi stive aids Security check is under
While airlines should never insist the purview of BCAS and
on assistive aids and devices not under the air! ine
being checked in, in the event that purview.
assisti ve aids are to be checked in,
the Committee recommended that Para 4.1.23 states that c
certain safeguards be in place e.g. air! in es sha 11 make
the use of Priority tags, barring suitable arrangements for
the transport of assistive ass is ting persons with
aids/equipment by conveyor belt, disability or reduced
prioritizing the loading and mobility for their quick
unloading of ass1st1ve clearance and baggage
aids/equipment. These guidelines deliver and that their D
are completely missing from the checked-in baggage
draft CAR. should be given
"Assistive Device" tags
to ensure early
identification and
assistance by the E
air! ine ground staff.

8. Security Check - Responsibility Manner of security check
of CISF and their training is under
The Committee Report, in the purview of BCAS.
Annexure 4, details the manner in
F
which security checks should be However, issue has been
handled by the CISF, from the addressed m respect of
trammg of screeners to the air! ine and airport staff at
protocols they should employ. Para4.3.l,4.3.2and4.3.6
The manner in which passengers of CAR all airlines and
on wheelchairs, passengers who airport operators shall
are blind/have low vision, conduct training program G
passengers with hearing for their staff engaged in
impairments and those with passenger handling for
hidden disabilities are to be sensitization and
managed is detained. This detail developing awareness for
is lacking in the draft CAR, and it assisting persons with
is quite surprising because it is disability or reduced
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A
at the stage of security mobility and to ensure that
checks that most trouble is the staff is well briefed on
caused to persons with their legal responsibilities.
disabilities and The contents and duration of
there are violations of their the training program shall be
dignity. in accordance with the
B
guidelines issued by the
Department of Disability
Affairs, Ministry of Social
Justice & Empowerment.

c It shall be the responsibility
of airport operator to ensure
that security staff positioned
at airport undergoes
disability-related training.
9. Transfer to aircraft The term "subject to
D The Committee clearly limitations of the aircraft"
demarcates the separation was included in the CAR as
of responsibilities between some small sector flights use
the Airport and the smaller aircrafts, whose aisle
Airlines, and that the width may not allow
Airport is responsible for movement of aisle
E placing the passenger in the wheelchair.
aircraft and disembarking
the passenger as well. On However, issue has been
board, the responsibility is addressed through Para 4.1.34
solely with the airline. which stated that airlines shall
With regard to boarding ensure that aircraft coming
F and disembarking, the newly into service or after
Committee Rep01i major refurbishment shall be
mandates that airports fitted with special equipment
have appropriate boarding to cater for the needs of
ramps, am bu lifts, persons with disability or
aerobridge, boarding-aisle reduced mobility
G chair, wheelchairs or other commensurate with• the size
assistance needed. as of aircraft.
appropriate. The
Committee Report stresses Para 4.1.9 For embarkation/
that no passenger shall be disembarkation and in-flight
manually lifted. In the draft use, airlines shall have
H CAR, the onus is on
~~-~~~-'---~~--~~~~--'~
provision of onboard I
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 663
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
airlines and they are only aisle wheelchairs for persons
required to have provision of with disability or reduced
onboard aisle wheelchairs for mobility not carried on
persons with disabi.lity or stretchers, wherever possible
reduced mobility not carried subject to limitations of
on stretchers, "wherever aircraft. The onboard aisle B
possible subject to limitations wheelchair shall conform to
of aircraft''. This leaves specifications as laid down by
scope for passengers with Disabled Persons Transport
disabilities being treated in a A d v i s o r y C o m mi t t e e
manner that is against their (DPTAC), UK. c
dignity and self respect. This
must be removed. Airports
must be responsible for
procuring assistive aids and
devices to ensure hassle free
boarding and disembarking D
from the aircraft.
I 0. Ambulift: Presently, The suggestion is with regard
ambulifts are procured by to commercial arrangement
airports and airlines are asked between airline and airport.
to pay ambulift charges every DGCA would take up the E
time they use it, and so it is matter for resolution with
advisable that they be airline and airport as and
charged a sum amount for a when difficulty reported.
month whether they use it or However, the provision of
not. By this eve1y airline will ambulift is covered under
bemadetousethese1vicefor point No. 4.2.12 of the F
its disabled passengers rather CAR.
than not use it for want of
extra payment for each use.
Also the ambulift and other
equipment shall be
G
maintained in good condition
with periodic monitoring and
it should be registered in
record about maintenance
details, reoair details,
H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A
duration under
maintenance/repair, dates,
duration and number of times
for which service was
unavailable to passenger.
B The Complaints Resolution
Officer should also monitor
the register.
11. On Board the Aircraft The concern is covered
The Committee Report under Para 4.1.5 of the
mandates that for the benefit CAR.
c of passengers with
disabilities. Communication The concern has been
of essential information addressed by Para 4.1.20
concerning a flight should be which states "Airlines
in accessible formats. Safety should provide safety
D videos should be available in briefing and procedure for
sign language and with emergency evacuation in
subtitles. In flight respect of person with
entertainment must be in disability or reduced
accessible formats, and cabin mobility in any of the form
crew should assist passenger of passenger briefing card,
E to access toilet if requested individualized verbal
using onboard aisle chair. briefing, video display (in
Further, Aisle chairs should aircraft with In-flight
be mandated to be carried on Entertainment System), etc.
· board for flights longer than 3
hours. These provisions do
F
not find mention in the CAR,
and they are most essential to
ensure the safety and comfmt
of passengers with
disabilities.
G On board airlines which serve
meals, or where paid meals
have been requested for in
advance by a passenger with
a disability, the same will be
served with cutlery
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 665
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

which is universally A
designed so as to allow for
the passenger to eat
unassisted as far as
possible. In cases where
the passenger IB unable to
eat on his own, the crew B
will assist in feeding the
passenger in a manner
which does not impinge
upon his diJwitv.;
12. Ticketing System and .The W3C web accessibility
Website standards are not recognised
The draft CAR does not, by Indian Govt. However, c
unlike the Committee procedures similar to the
Report, mandate that mentioned st and ard s are
airline, airport and ticketing incorporated in the CAR at
websites have to adhere point nos. 4. I. I, 4.1.2,
specifically to W3C web 4.1 .3 and 4 .4.1.
accessibility standards D
(available at
http://www.w3.org/W AI/int
ro/wcag.php). The same
must be mandated as it is
the global standard in
accessibilitv.
13. Complaint Mechanism The concern regarding E
In case of deficiency of appointment of ombudsman
service relating to persons under DGCA at more than 70
with disabilities, the airports with a staff strength
Committee Report details a of nearly 400 is not aviable
procedure which begins solution. The Grievance
from the Complaints Redressal Mechanism is F
Resolution Officer (CRO), covered under point 4.5 of
who is placed at the Airport the CAR.
itself, who will make
attempts to resolve the DGCA has issued Air
grievance, and if the same Transport Circular 01 of 2014
fails, he is mandated to which addresses the issue.
assist the passenger in The effectiveness of G
making a complaint to the grievance redressal
Ombudsman appointed mechanised would be
under the DGCA. In the monitored through
draft CAR, the complaint smveillance.
mechanism places the In addition to basic
training, operators are H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A so I e burden o n the required to provide specific
passenger to file the training for personnel who
Complaint before the Nodal may be required to provide
Officer, and there is no direct assistance to disabled
accessible means of persons and persons with
complaint mechanism and reduced mobility.
B neither is there any
obligation on any authority
to try and resolve the matter
at the first stage. The draft
CAR must incorporate the
Complaint redressal
mechanism as suggested
c under the Committee
Report.
14. Accessibility. way finding Concern on accessibility, way
and signage finding and signage, seating
The Committee Report has area, accessible airport
detailed the manner and infrastructure has been
D extent to which Universal addressed in para 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
Design must be adopted by 4.2.3, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 which
Airports in their are in line with !CAO
infrastructure. It 1s documents. The inclusion of
important that the same be the same in detail would
designed in accordance be repetition.
E with the principles of
Universal Design which
have been detailed in
Annexure 3 of the
Committee Report. While
the same has been
mentioned in the draft
F CAR, the provisions are not
as comprehensive as that of
the Committee Report.
The draft CAR must
expand the same.
15. Seating Areas Para 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the
G The C9mmittee deals with CAR is with regard to special
the importance of reservations in the terminal
designated seating areas building and parking of the
and their positioning and airport for persons with
signage for the benefit disability or reduced mobility.
of passengers with
H disabilities. Aircraft and
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 667
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

airport staff should be able A
to identify these areas and
provide regular updates to
persons with disabilities
seated in these areas on the
status of their flights and
enquire about their needs. B
Further, seating areas
should allow for resting
accommodation, where
persons with severe
dysfunction/dis ab Ii ng
medical conditions could
c
lie down and
rest/ stretch/straighten
themselves. There is no
such emphasis in the Draft
CAR, which is silent on the D
soeci fie issue of seatim>.
16. Service Animals The carriage ofanimals guide
While the general concerns dogs for persons with
relating to service animals disability or reduced mobility
and their ability to travel is as mentioned in Para 4.1 .16
with the person they are of the CAR. Further, carriage E
assisting have been of animals by air is governed
addressed in the document, by Aeronautical Information
the question of relieving Circular (AIC) 9 of 1985,
are as for the Ser vice wherein the concerns
Animals, which has been mentioned in the
detailed in the Committee suggestion are addressed. F
Report, has not been dealt
with in the Draft CAR.
17. Training and Sensitization Para 4.3.1 to 4.3. 7 of the
Annexure 2 of the CAR is with regard to
Committee Report has trainings that needs to be
detailed provisions relating provided to staff and security G
to training and sensitization personnel dealing with
of all personnel working persons with disability or
dealing with the reduced mobility.
travelling public at
Para 4.3.6 : It shall be the
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A various levels in the responsibility of airport
airports and airlines. The operator to ensure that
disability sensitivity security staff positioned at
extended to needs of all a i r p o r t u n d e r g o e s
types of disabilities, disability-related training.
especially those which are
B not given much importance However, Immigration and
in the mainstream, like Security are under different
psychosocial disabilities public authorities. The issue
and autism. However, the is required to be addressed by
Draft CAR restricts this themselves separately.
extensive training
c programme to staff of
Airlines and airport
Operating staff only, and
not to Governmental
Agencies who come into
contracts with passengers -
D
like Security personnel,
Immigration. Officers, and
Customs Officers, to name
a few. Best practices shall
also include training of all
E officials at airport and
airlines functioning within
the airport to undergo
periodical orientation on
perspective to disability
rights and dignified ways of
F handling persons with
disabilities and not just the
security personnel alone.
The orientation can be part
of their periodic
internal review meetings.
G 18. Accessible Airport With regard to construction
Infrastructure and other design related
It is essential that the needs queries relating to the airport,
for a cc es s i b I e and issue is address.ed through
universally designed ICAO Annex 9 and
Airport Infrastructure are ICAO Airport Manual.
H met bv Airport Operators. 1 Aimort ooerators are 1
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 669
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

To this end, the Committee required to demonstrate A
Report detailed an extensive compliance to those
Annexure viz. Annexure 3 guidelines. The international
with each and every standards are being complied
requirement. Not only is this by the Airport Operators. In
not reflected in the Draft view of the above,
CAR, but no standards of any redundancy in the regulation B
sort are mentioned. Nor is is not desirable.
there any requirement
specified that persons with
disabilities or universal
design experts would be
consulted in the design c
aspects of Airports. This is a
major shortcoming of
the Draft CAR.
19. Offloading of Passengers Jn order to discourage airlines
While the Draft CAR seems form offloading passengers
to be clear on the question of on basis of disability, airlines D
medical papers, the exact have been asked to specify in
grounds on which medical writing the basis of such
clearance is required by refusal indicating its opinion
passengers and the medical that transportation of such
grounds on which a passenger persons would or might be
can be refused travel or inimical to the safety of E
offloaded is not clarified. flight. The same has been
Under no circumstances can mentioned in Para
persons with disabilities be 4.1.35 of the CAR.
asked to provide medical
clearance papers if they have Passengers having any of the
no other ailment or medical conditions mentioned in Para F
condition which would hinder 4.1.26 (a) through (f) are
their ability to fly. The required to produce medical
Government Issued Disability certificate. Other cases, it
Card is sufficient does not require such
documentation for all certificate. The concern has
purposes. There is some been addressed through para G
ambiguity with regard to 4.1.15 which stated "if
pilot's discretion in passengers for any reason
offloading passengers which have to be offloaded,
highest possible priority
for transportation sh al 1
be given to persons H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.

A
requires to be clarified as m:ll with disability or reduced
and this discretion cannot mobility, including their
extend to evicting persons escorts, if any.
with disabilities off a flight.
20. Seating versus Safuty Concern was accepted.
B The Committee Report has
dealt with this issue in detail, The CAR has specifically
and laid down the important made provision for
guidelines in seating of passengers with disability or
persons with disabilities to reduced mobility to be given
ensure the greatest emphasis preferential seating for better
c on safety of the person with evacuation procedures, in
disabilities to ensure the case of an emergency. Para
greatest emphasis on safety of 4.l .13 of the CAR deals with
the person with disability as the reservation of seats for
also the fellow passengers. such passengers.
D The Draft CAR does not
reflect the importance of this
issue. The placing of the .-.....
escort/companion of the
person with disability and the
person with disability should
E be mandated and not give the
loophole of "all reasonable
efforts". There should also
be a mandate of reserving
front seats for persons with
disabilities. The additional
F priority to not discomforting
persons with disability or
reduced mobility while
considering decisions relating
to offloading passengers is
appreciated.
G 21. Temporary replace of Concern was accepted.
damaged wheelchairs
While the Committee Para 4.4.8 of the CAR states
Report categorically states that a passenger shall be
that temporary compensated in case
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 671
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

replacement wheelchairs wheelchair or other assistive A
must be provided to device is damaged during travel
passengers on a like-for- by air.
like basis as far as possible,
free of cost, in the Draft
CAR the provision is
modified to state that in the B
event a passenger's
wheelchair is damaged,
temporary substitute be
provided on request. The
term 'on request' needs to
be removed. Also, the c
mandate for this
replacement to be
'free of cost' is missing.
22. Guidelines relating to the Para 4.1.8 of the CAR lays
maximum permissible down the condition for usage
wej~ht and djmensjons of of own wheel chair . till D
assistive aids/equipment to embarlrntion.
carried Assistive devices weighing up
The Committee Report to 15 Kg free of charge as
specifically deals with this additional baggage have been
issue and prescribes that allowed subject to the limitation
irrespective of the weight of the aircraft. The same is E
and dimensions of assistive addressed in Para 4.1.24 of the
aids/equipment they should CAR.
be allowed to be checked
in free of cost. It is
important that the
permissible weight is high F
enough such that motorized
wheel chairs and mobility
scooters can be checked-in
free of cost. All assistive
aids/equipment that can fit
in the internal storage space G
shall be allowed to be taken
on board. Other than for
takeoff and landing, the
assistive aids shall be made
available for the passenger
on reauest. The Draft CAR
H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A does not deal with this issue
at all.
,2J. Priority in using toilet The term "Priority to access
facilities in aircraft toilets of the aircrafts" is
The Committee Report discriminatory as for as equal
B specifies that persons with opportunity, protection or
disabilities must be given rights of citizen is concerned.
priority to access toilets on However, new aircrafts are
the aircraft. The mandated with separate
Draft CAR is silent on this. toilet for person with
disabilitv.
c 24. Priority check-in counters Para 4.1.22 and 4.1.23
The Committee Report addresses the concern.
specifies that airlines shall
operate priority check-in
counters for those persons
with disabilities who
D require quick check-in.
The Draft CAR is silent on
this.
26. The reply/comments which is given by the official respondents
to the suggestions given by the petitioners, and as encapsulated in the
E tabulated form above, takes care of many of the apprehensions expressed
by the petitioners. However, notwithstanding the same, in certain respects
the guidelines can be further fine-tuned by the official respondents, keeping
in view the recommendations of the Committee, where they have not
been fully implemented. We, therefore, are ofthe opinion that the following
aspects may be reconsidered by the DGCA/Government to see whether
F
they can be incorporated in CAR 2014 by proper amendments:
( 1) In spite of procurement of standardised assistive devices,
which is mentioned at S.No. 2 above, it is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that all airports should procure all
assistive equipments based on the schedule of standardised
equipments and this standardisation should be done in consultation
with the Department of Disability Affairs in a suitable time frame.
It is pointed out that the same is not .reflected in the CAR, 2014.
The explanation given by the respondents is that the standardised
' processes are normally better achieved through deliberation with
H stakeholders ensuring economic viability and Department of
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 673
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

Disability Affairs is a separate authority which is not under the A
purview of DGCA. However, that could not be the reason for
not making a joint effort or involving the Department of Disability
Affairs. We, therefore, direct that the concerned officers of the
DGCA as well as officers from the Department of Disability
Affairs, which is under the Ministry of Social Justice and
B
Empowerment, shall have a joint discussion on this aspect to
consider the recommendation given by the Committee.
(2) On 'Help Desk' (mentioned at S.No.4), the Committee had
recommended a telephonic help desk which would be fully
accessible, to be set up to receive assistance requests in advance
from passengers with disability. In response, it is stated by the
c
respondents that concern regarding help desk would be addressed
thrqugh compliance of various sub-paras of para 4 of draft CAR.
In spite of complying the same in an indirect manner through the
said provisions, it may be considered to specifically provide for a
separate help desk to take care of the complaints, queries etc. of D
all passengers with disability.
(3) Regarding wheelchair usage (S.No.6), though the Committee
had recommended that the passengers with disabilities should be
allowed to retain the use of their wheelchair, this has not been
accepted keeping in view the safety of aircraft operations. The E
concern of the respondents may be justified to some extent, but
we still feel that this aspect be reconsidered, viz. whether it would
be feasible to allow such passengers to use their wheelchairs, at
the same time imposing conditions which may take care of safety.
We say so because of the reason that in the Committee there
were representatives from security agencies as well and still such F
a recommendation is made which implies that the members of the
Committee would have kept in view the safety norms and yet
made this recommendation as it appeared to be feasible to them.
(4) In spite of security check of such disabled passengers, the
Committee has suggested, in Annexure 4, in detail the manner in G
which security check should be ,handled by the Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF). Admittedly, in the CAR this has not been
incorporated. The issue is skirted by merely stating that security
check and their training is under the purview of Bureau of Civil
Aviation Security (BCAS). BCAS can be involved and in H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A consultation with the officers of BCAS this aspect can be
reconsidered.
(5) Insofar as facilities to passengers with disability while on
board the aircraft is concerned (S.No.11 ), the suggestion of the
Committee was that the communication of essential information
B concerning a flight should be in accessible formats. Likewise,
flight entertainment should also be in accessible formats and the
cabin crew should assist the passenger to access toilet if requested
using on-board aisle chair. We find that para 4.1.5 of the CAR
does not cover all the aspects of the recommendations given by
the Committee. It would be more appropriate to incorporate the
c same in the CAR so that it becomes a bounden duty of the airlines
to ensure that passengers with disability are taken care of more
appropriately while they are on-board.
(6) Insofar as complaint mechanism is concerned (S.No. 13), the
Committee has given detailed procedure to address such
D complaints, which begins from the Complaints Resolution Officer
(CRO) who is placed at the airport itself. The response of the
official respondents is that it may not be feasible in small airports.
Even if that be so, to begin with, such a mechanism can be
introduced at big/major airports. This aspect, therefore, needs to
E be reconsidered.
(7) At S.No. 17, the aspect of training and sensitisation is dealt
with. This is one aspect which needs serious attention. No doubt,
some provisions are made in CAR, 2014 with regard to training
that is to be provided to the staff and security personnel dealing
F with persons with disability or reduced mobility. We impress upon
the official respondents to draft a suitable module for such training
which ensures that the staff and security personnel, who are trained
in this behalf, are suitably sensitised. It hardly needs to be
emphasised that unless such staff is sensitive to the needs of
persons with disability or reduced mobility and is properly equipped
G to take care of such passengers with the empathy that is required,
whatever mechanism is put in place is not going to be successful.
Therefore, we urge upon the respondents to prepare such training
modules, the manner in which training is to be provided and ensure
that the airlines as well as airports conduct such training
H programmes, at regular intervals, forthe concerned officials who
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 675
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

are supposed to deal with these passengers. A
(8) Equally important is the issue of offloading of passengers
(S.No.19) which needs to be taken care of with all seriousness it
deserves. We are of the view that suitable provision in the training
module itself be provided in this behalf as well.
We direct that the official respondents, in consultation with B
other departments as mentioned above, shat I consider the aforesaid
aspects, and even other aspects which deserve such attention but
may not have been specified by us, within a period of three months
and on that basis whatever further provisions are to be incorporated
should be inserted. c
27. With this, we address ourselves to the relief claimed by Jeeja
Ghosh against respondent No.3 - SpiceJet Ltd., i.e. prayer (d) of the
writ petition.
28. The petitioners have stated in detail the treatment which was
meted out to Jeeja Ghosh on February 19, 2012 when she was forcibly D
de-boarded by the flight crew due to the insistence of the Captain of the
aircraft, because of her disability. It is stated that she was going from
Kolkata to Goa to attend a conference which was organised by petitioner
No.2, which she had to miss. She has also narrated the trauma, shock
and mental pain which she has suffered as a result of this event.. E
29. We have already mentioned the gist of the event as narrated
by the petitioners. We may mention at this stage that Jeeja Ghosh has
also filed a claim before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Kolkata, which is pending adjudication. We were informed
that the State Commission has been adjourning the matter from time to
F
time because of the pendency of the instant writ petition. Both the sides
agreed that the claim of Jeeja Ghosh be decided by this Court in the
present writ petition itself. For this reason, we had heard the petitioners
as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3, on this issue.
30. Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit stating its own version
G
in respect of the incident. The allegation ofrespondent No.3 is that it is
Jeeja Ghosh who failed to follow the procedure laid down in Article 4.1
of CAR, 2008 by not informing respondent No.3, at the time of booking
of tickets as well as at the time of check-in, about her disability. It is the
say of respondent No.3 that this led to confusion and subsequent de-
boarding of Jeeja Ghosh occasioned by the lack of knowledge of her H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A condition among the crew members present there and her visible disability
and poor health condition, as according to the respondents her condition
had taken a turn for the worse as soon as she boarded the aircraft and it
was not possible to take risk by allowing her to take five hour long flight
journey without being escorted by any person who could have taken
care of her. It is stated that had she informed about her sickness, the
.B
airlines would have made proper escort arrangements. It is further stated
that by not disclosing her disability, it is Jeeja Ghosh who was jeopardising
her own safety and the safety of other persons on· board the aircraft. It
was also argued that the crew of respondent No.3 in fact complied with
Rules 22 and 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (for short, 'Rules, 1937')
c by de-boarding Jeeja Ghosh and that in the circumstances that existed, it
was a bona fide act on the part of the officials of respondent No.3.
According to them, the action was in the larger interest of other persons
in the aircraft as their safety was also paramount and had to be taken
care of.
D 31. Referring to Article 5.2 of CAR, 2008 it is argued that a medical
clearance may be required by the airlines when the airline, inter alia,
receives information that there exists a possibility of medical condition
getting aggravated during or because of the flight, of a passenger. Refuting
the claim of the petitioners that medical condition of Jeeja Ghosh was
not a disability stricto sensu, it is the say ofrespondent No.3 that as per
E
the medical literacy, cerebral palsy affects body movement, muscle
control, muscle coordination, muscle tone, reflex, posture and balance.
It can also impact fine motor skills, gross motor skills and oral motor
functioning. Therefore, Jeeja Ghosh could have faced serious
consequences during the long air journey which would have been much
F serious.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, refuted
the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for respondent No.3. It was
vehemently denied that Jeeja Ghosh had failed to follow the procedure
laid down in Article 4.1 of CAR, 2008. Article 4.1 reads as follows:
G "No airline shall refuse to carry persons with disability or persons
with reduced mobility and their assistive aids/devices, escorts and
guide dogs including their presence in the cabin, provided such
persons or their representatives, at the time of booking and/or
check-in for travel, inform the airlines of their requirement. The
airlines shall incorporate appropriate provisions in the online form
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 677
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

of booking tickets so that all the required facilities are made available A
to the passengers with disabilities at the time of check-in."
33. Learned counsel argued that the aforesaid provision is in two
parts: one applies to persons with disability and the second party applies
to persons with disability who require assistant devices or aids. It was
argued that the proviso applies to the latter category only whereas Jeeja B
Ghosh is merely a person with cerebral palsy and did not require any
assistant device or aid. The only assistance she required was regarding
her baggage which she asked for at the time of security check-in. Thus,
there was no reason as to why she was asked to de-board the aircraft
when there was no assistant device or aids about which she ought to
have informed the airlines. It is claimed that so far as requirement of C
assistance regarding baggage is concerned, she had duly informed the
officials of the airlines. Refuting the argument of learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3 predicated on Rules 22 and 141 of the
Rules, 1937, it was submitted thatthe Operations Manual of the airline
places an obligation on the Pilot in-charge not to commence the flight D
until he/she is sure of the safety of all the passengers. In the present
case, there was no evidence to prove that Jeeja Ghosh had posed any
hazard to the safety of the Pilot in-charge or other passengers. Moreover,
the decision to de-board her was taken without even interacting with
her. The claim ofrespondent No.3 that blood and froth was oozing out
of the sides of her mouth is denied with the submission that there is no E
evidence to prove the same. On the contrary, it is claimed, she was
completely fine and it was only the conduct of the respondent airline
which became a cause of her subsequent sickness. Referring to the
offer given by the airline to fly Jeeja Ghosh on the very next day, it is
submitted that this act on the part of the airlines itself shows that Jeeja F
Ghosh was alright and there was no medical condition which would
have been prevented her from flying. Mocking the stand of the airline
that the person having cerebral palsy would, in emergency situation, not
be able to respond to the safety instructions and she is a risk to herself
and potential danger to the lives of co-passengers also, the submission
of the petitioners is that it is in complete contravention of CAR, 2008 G
which prohibits the airlines from refusing to carry a person with disability
or person with reduced mobility. The relevant provisions in this regard
have already been extracted above.
34. After considering the respective arguments of the counsel for
the parties and going through the relevant provisions of Rules and CAR, H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.

A 2008 brought to our notice, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that
Jeeja Ghosh was not given appropriate, fair and caring treatment which
she required with due sensitivity, and the decision to de-board her, in the
given circumstances, was uncalled for. More than that, the manner in
which she was treated while de-boarding from the aircraft, depicts total
lack of sensitivity on the part of the officials of the airlines. The manner
B
in which she was dealt with proves the assertion of Shapiro as correct
and justified that 'non-disabled do not understand disabled ones'.
35. It is not in dispute that the Pilot as well as the Crew members
of the airlines are supposed to ensure the safety of all the passengers
and a decision can be taken to de-board a particular passenger in the
c larger interest and safety of other co-passengers. The question is, whether
such a situation existed when Jeeja Ghosh was de-boarded? Whether
this decision was taken by the airlines after taking due deliberations and
with medical advise? Unfortunately, the answer is a big 'NO'. Jeeja
Ghosh is a disabled person who suffers from cerebral palsy. But her
D condition was not such which required any assistive devices or aids.
She had demanded assistance regarding her baggage at the time of
security check-in, from the check-in counter. For boarding of the aircraft,
she came of her own. This was noticed not only by the persons at the
check-in counter but also by security personnel who frisked her and the
attendant who assisted her in carrying her baggage up to the aircraft.
E Even if we assume that there was some blood or froth that was noticed
to be oozing out from the sides of her mouth when she was seated in the
aircraft (though vehemently denied by her), nobody even cared to interact
with her and asked her the reason for the same. No doctor was
summoned to examine her condition. Abruptly and without any
F justification, decision was taken to de-board her without ascertaining as
to whether her condition was such which prevented her from flying.
This clearly amounts to violation of Rule 133-A of Rules, 193 7 and the
CAR, 2008 guidelines.
36. The rights that are guaranteed to differently abled persons
under the Act, 1995 are founded on the sound principle of human dignity
G
which is the core value of human right and is treated as a significant
facet of right to life and liberty. Such a right, now treated as human right
of the persons who are disabled, has it roots in Article 21 of the
Constitution. Jurisprudentially, three types of models for determining
the content of the constitutional value of human dignity are recognised.
H These are: (i) Theological Models, (ii) Philosophical Models, and (iii)
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 679
rA. K. SIKRI, J.l

Constitutional Models. Legal scholars were called upon to determine A
the theological basis of human dignity as a constitutional value and as a
constitutional right. Philosophers also came out with their views justifying
human dignity as core human value. Legal understanding is influenced
by theological and philosophical views, though these two are not identical.
Aquinas and Kant discussed the jurisprudential aspects of human dignity
B
based on the aforesaid philosophies. Over a period of time, human dignity
has found its way through constitutionalism, whether written or unwritten.
Even right to equality is interpreted based on the value of human dignity.
Insofar as India is concerned, we are not even required to take shelter
under theological or philosophical theories. We have a written Constitution
which guarantees human rights that are contained in Part Ill with the c
caption "Fundamental Rights". One such right enshrined in Article 21 is
right to life and liberty. Right to life is given a purposeful meaning by this
Court to include right to live with dignity. It is the purposive interpretation
which has been adopted by this Court to give a content of the right to
human dignity as the fulfillment of the constitutional value enshrined in
D
Article 21. Thus, human dignity is a constitution~! value and a
constitutional goal. What are the dimensions of constitutional value of
human dignity? It is beautifully illustrated by Aharon Barak1 (former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oflsrael) in the following manner:
"The constitutional value of human dignity has a central normative
role. Human dignity as a constitutional value is the factor that E
unites the human rights into one whole. It ensures the normative
unity of human rights. This normative unity is expressed in the
three ways: first, the value of human dignity serves as a normative
basis for constitutional rights set out in the constitution; second, it
serves as an interpretative principle for determining the scope of F
constitutional rights, including the right to human dignity; third, the
value of human dignity has an important role in determining the
proportionality of a statute limiting a constitutional right."
37. All the three goals of human dignity as a constitutional value
are expanded by the author in a scholarly manner. Some of the excerpts G
thereof, are reproduced below which give a glimpse of these goals:
"The first role of human dignity as a constitutional value is
expressed in the approach that it comprises the foundation for all
2 Aharon Barak "Human Dignity - The Constitutional Value and the Constitutional
Right" Cambridge University Press (2015) H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A of the constitutional rights. Human dignity is the central argument
for the existence of human rights. It is the rationale for them.all.
It is the justification for the existence of rights. According to
Christoph Enders, it is the constitutional value that determines
that every person has the right to have rights ...
B The second role of human dignity as a constitutional value is to
provide meaning to the norms of the legal system. According to
purposive interpretation, all of the provisions of the constitution,
and particularly all of the rights in the constitutional bill of rights,
are interpreted in light of human dignity...
c Lastly, human dignity as a constitutional value influences the
development of the common law. Indeed, where common law is
recognized, judges have the duty to develop it, and if necessary
modify it, so that it expresses constitutional values, including the
constitutional value of human dignity. To the extent that common
law determines rights and duties between individuals, it might limit
D the human dignity of one individual and protect the human dignity
of the other."
38. We should, therefore, keep in mind that CAR instructions have
also been issued keeping in view the spirit of human dignity enshrined in
Article 21 and the right that are to be ensured to such persons. The
E underlying message in all these provisions is the acknowledgment that
human rights are individual and have a definite linkage to human
development, both sharing common vision and with a common purpose.
Respect for human rights is the root for human development and
realisation of full potential of each individual, which in turn leads to the
augmentation of human resources with progress of the nation.
F
Empowerment of the people through human development is the aim of
human rights.
39. In international human rights law, equality is founded upon two
complementary principles: non-discrimination and reasonable
differentiation. The principle of non-discrimination seeks to ensure that
G
all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms.
Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal
participation. For example, when public facilities and services are set
on standards out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to
exclusion and denial of rights. Equality not only implies preventing
H discrimination (example, the protection ofindividuals against unfavourable
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 681
fA. K. SIKRI, J.l

treatment by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in A
remedying discrimination against groups suffering systematic
discrimination in society. In concrete terms, it means embracing the
notion of positive rights, affirmative action and reasonable accommodation.
The move from the patronising and paternalistic approach to persons
with disabilities represented by the medical model to viewing them as
B
members of the community with equal rights has also been reflected in
the evolution of international standards relating specifically to disabilities,
as well as in moves to place the rights of persons with disabilities within
the category of universal human rights. {See-Report of United Nations
Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International Norms and
Standards Relating to Disability 10-2-2001}. c
40. Earlier the traditional approaches to disability have depicted it
as health and welfare issue, to be addressed through care provided to
persons with disabilities, from a charitable point of view. The disabled
persons are viewed as abnormal, deserving of pity and are, and not as
individuals who are entitled to enjoy the same opportunities to live a full D
and satisfying life as other members of society. This resulted in
marginalising the disabled persons and their exclusion both from the
mainstream of the society and enjoyment of their fundamental rights
and freedoms. Disability tends to be couched within a medical and
welfare framework, identifying people with disabilities as ill, different
from their non-disabled peers, and in need of care. Because the emphasis E
is on the medical needs of people with disabilities, there is a corresponding
neglect of their wider social needs, which has resulted in severe isolation
for people with disabilities and their families.
4 I. However, the nations have come a long way from that stage.
Real awareness has dawned on the society at large that the problems of F
differently abled are to be viewed from human rights perspective. This
thinking is reflected in two major declarations on the disability adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 20, 1971
and thereafter in the year 1975. The position was reiterated in the Beijing
Conclave by the Government of Asian and Pacific Countries that was G
held from December 01-05, 1992 and in order to convert the resolutions
adopted therein into reality, the Indian Parliament also passed the
enactment, i.e. Act, 1995.
. ,. ,
42. All these rights conferred upon such persons send an eloquent
message that there is no question of sympathising with such persons and H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A extending them medical or other help. What is to be borne in mind is
that they are also human beings and they have to grow as normal persons
and are to be extended all facilities in this behalf. The subject of the
rights of persons with disabilities should be approached from human
rights perspective, which recognised that persons with disabilities were
entitled to enjoy the full range of internationally guaranteed rights and
B
freedoms without discrimination on the ground of disability. This creates
an obligation on the part of the State to take positive measures to ensure
that in reality persons with disabilities get enabled to exercise those rights.
There should be insistence on the full measure of general human rights
guarantees in the case of persons with disabilities, as well as developing
c specific instruments that refine and given detailed contextual content of
those general guarantees. There should be a full recognition of the fact
that persons with disability were integral'Part of the community, equal in
dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedoms as
others. It is a sad commentary that this perceptions has not sunk in the
mind and souls of those who are not concerned with the enforcement of
D
these rights. The persons suffering from mental or physical disability
experience and encounter nonpareil form of discrimination.They are not
looked down by people. However, they are not accepted in the main
stream either even when people sympathies with them. Most common,
their lives are handicapped by social, cultural and attitudinal barriers
E which hamper their full participation and enjoyment of equal rights and
opportunities. This is the worst form of discrimination which disabled
feel as their grievance is that others do not understand them.
43. As pointed out in the beginning, the very first sentence of the
book "NO PITY" authored by Joseph P.Shapiro reads:
F "Non disabled Americans do not understand disabled ones."
The only error in the aforesaid sentence is that it is attributed to
Americans only whereas the harsh reality is that this statement has
universal application. The sentence should have read:

G "Non disabled people do not understand disabled ones."
For, non-disabled people generally look upon disabled ones with
pity. The general feeling is that these' invalid people' are incapable of
doing anything in life. They are burden on the society which the society
bear. Of course, they sympathize with disabled persons. They may
even want to willingly bear the burden. They may help them financially
H
JEEJA GHOSH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 683
rA. K. SIKRI, J.l

or otherwise. However, what they do not understand is the feeling of A
the people with disabilities. Disabled people no longer see their physical
or mental limitations as a source of shame or as something to overcome
in order to inspire others. What non-disabled people do not understand
is that people with disabilities also have some rights, hopes and aspirations
as everyone else. They do not want to depend on others. They want to
B
brave their disabilities. They want to prove to the world at large that
notwithstanding their disabilities they can be the master of their own
lives. They can be independent. They can be self-reliant. They do not
want sympathies of non-disabled. They want to be trusted. They want
to be treated as valued member of the society who can contribute to the
developmei1t and progress of the society. For this they want the proper c
environment to grow. Our society automatically under-estimates the
capabilities of people with disabilities. People with disabilities want this
change in the thinking of non-disabled. It is the thinking of Disability
Rights Movement, USA that it is not so much the disabled individual
who needs to change, but the society. Says disability rights activist Judy
D
Heumann:
"disability only becomes a tragedy for me when society fails to
provide the things we need to lead our lives-job opportunities, or
barrier-free buildings, for example. It is not a tragedy to me that
I am living in a wheel chair."
E
44. Helen Keller represents the mind of such disabled persons
when she says "I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do
everything, but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do
something I can do".
45. It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities F
that they are unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and
discrimination faced by them in employment, access to public spaces,
transportation etc. Persons with disability are most neglected lot not
only in the society but also in the family. More often they are an object
of pity. There are hardly any meaningful attempts to assimilate them in
the mainstream of the nation's life. The apathy towards their problems G
is so pervasive that even the number of disabled persons existing in the
country is not well documented.
46. Jeeja Ghosh herselfis a living example who has, notwithstanding
her disability, achieved so much in life by her sheer determination to
H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A overcome her disability and become a responsible and valuable citizen
of this country. A little care, a little sensitivity and a little positive attitude
on the part of the officials of the airlines would not have resulted in the
trauma, pain and suffering that Jeeja Ghosh had to undergo. This has
resulted in violation of her human dignity and, thus, her fundamental
right, though by a private enterprise (respondent No.3).
B
4 7. On our finding that respondent No.3 acted in a callous manner,
and in the process violated Rules, 1937 and CAR, 2008 guidelines resulting
in mental and physical suffering experienced by Jeeja Ghosh and also
unreasonable discrimination against her, we award a sum of' I 0,00,000
as damages to be payable to her by respondent No.3 within a period of
c two months from today.
This petition stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
48. We would like to conclude this judgment by observing that to
most disabled persons, the society they live in is a closed door which has
D been locked and the key to which has been thrown away by the others.
Helen Keller has described this phenomena in the following words:
"Some people see a closed door and turn away. Others see a
closed door, try the knob and if it doesn't open, they turn away.
Still others see a closed door, try the knob and if it doesn't work,
E they find a key and ifthe key doesn't fit, they turn way. A rare
few see a closed door, try the knob, if it doesn't open and they
find a key and if it doesn't fit, they make one!"
These rare persons we have to find out.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Petition allO\Yed.
F