Holding

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 imposes a mandatory statutory duty on the Union and State governments to make public places and transport accessible to visually disabled persons, and the Court may enforce specific compliance deadlines.

Summary

The petition, filed by a visually disabled individual, sought comprehensive accessibility measures for roads, transport, public buildings, airports, railways, websites and other public facilities. The Court held that the right to accessibility for persons with disabilities is a constitutional right under Articles 19(1)(c) and 21, and is statutorily reinforced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The ten action points proposed by the petitioner were found to be incorporated in the 2016 Act, creating a statutory duty on the Union and State governments to implement them within specified deadlines. The Court issued detailed time‑bound directions for retrofitting government buildings, conducting accessibility audits, making transport and communication systems barrier‑free, and establishing advisory boards. The Union’s claim of financial constraints was rejected, emphasizing that the Act imposes mandatory obligations irrespective of fund availability. The petition was ultimately disposed of after the Court’s comprehensive directives.

Issues considered

The extent to which the right to accessibility for visually disabled persons is protected under Articles 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the ten action points proposed by the petitioner are enforceable as statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Whether the State has a duty, independent of financial resources, to ensure barrier‑free public infrastructure and services.
Whether the Union and State governments can be directed to meet specific deadlines for retrofitting and audits of public buildings and transport facilities.
Whether the petition is adversarial in nature and can be entertained under Article 32.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 73rd Amendment, s. 74th Amendment, s. Article 19(1)(c), s. Article 21, s. Article 41
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995s. 44, s. 45, s. 46
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 16, s. 25(l)(b), s. 2(b), s. 2(i), s. 2(k), s. 2(v), s. 2(w), s. 2(zd), s. 2(ze), s. 40, s. 44, s. 45, s. 46, s. 60, s. 66

Subjects

disability rightsvisual impairmentaccessibilitybarrier‑free environmentfundamental rightsPersons with Disabilities Actpublic buildingstransport accessibilitywebsite accessibilitysign language interpretersadvisory boards

Judgment

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 827

RAJIVE RATURI A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of2005)
DECEMBER 15, 2017 B

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Visual~v
disabled person - Proper and adequate access to public places -
Writ petition by a visually disabled perso11, seeking safe accessibility
to roads and transport facilities - Enumeration of ten action points
c
by the petitioner for providing proper access to public facilities to
such perso11s - Held: Right of the disabled persons flows from the
Constitution as also are statutorily recognised - Having regard
thereto, no denial of the fact that visually impaired persons need to
be provided proper and safe access to roads and transport as well D
as to buildi11gs, public places etc. - Without these facilities, moveme11t
of such perso11s gets impaired and can be treated as infringement
of their fundamental rights 11/Art. 19(l)(c), guaranteed to each and
every citizen of this country - Therefore, the prayers niade not
adversarial in nature - Ten action points enumerated by the
E
petitioner, are now statutorily recognised under the Disabilities Act,
2016 - It becomes a statutory obligation on the part of the Central
Government as well as the State Governments to do the needful by
the target dates - Union of India has been filing status reports from
time to time in the form of affidavits by bringing on record the various
measures taken by the Govemment to make the lives of such disabled F
persons as comfortable as possible - Though, Central Government
has taken va/'ious measures, many State Governments have not
respo11ded at all - In view thereof, issuance of important directions
and deadlines set to make public places accessible to visually
disabled- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
G
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Constitution of India
- Arts. 32, 19(1)(c).
Rights of visually impaired persons - At international level
and national level - Discussed.
H
827
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 12 S.C.R.

A Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The right of the disabled persons not only flows
from various international covenants to which India is a signatory,
it is recognised as Constitutional right as well. There cannot be
any dispute about the rights of the differently-abled persons,
B particularly those who have visual impairment, to provide them
adequate access to all the facilities on the road as well as
convenient access to transport facilities etc. Without these
facilities, movement of such persons gets impaired and this can
even be treated as infringement of their fundamental rights under
c Article 19{1){c) of the Constitution, which is guaranteed to each
and every citizen of this country. In order to ensure that this
right is exercised by visually disabled persons as well, it becomes
the duty of the State and public authorities to lay down proper
norms in respect of the built environment and public facilities
i.e. roads, buildings, public places, transport {air, land and water)
D carriages etc. It is a well known fact that persons with visually
impaired disability represent far more 'vulnerable section of
society' and 'at-risk cases' vis-a-vis their present surroundings
which also becomes evident from the well known fact that
insurance companies charge a higher premium on insurance
policies extended to the visually disabled as compared to the
E other persons. [Para 10) (843-B-E)

1.2 Pursuant to Beijing Declaration, India enacted Persons
with Disabilities {Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995. This Act, in no uncertain terms,
brings out one of the important features thereof, namely, the
F creation of a barrier free built environment. The very Preamble
to the Disabilities Act discloses that th.is Act was enacted by the
legislature to fulfill its international obligation to enact a disability
specific law nationally. Sections 44, 45 and 46 provided extremely
specific and unambiguous guidelines for making the built
G environment, roads and transport facilities accessible for visually
disabled persons. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 has repealed the earlier Disabilities Act, 1995. This
Disabilities Act, 2016 lays down the provision relating to barrier
free environment. Section 40 mandates the Central Government

H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 829

to frame Rules and laying down the standards of accessibility for A
physical environment, transportation system, information &
communication system and other facilities & services to be
provided to the public in urban and rural areas. Rule 15 deals
with accessibility standards for public buildings, passenger bus
transport and information and communication technology. As
B
regards public buildings, the accessibility standards prescribed
under the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-
free built environment for persons with disabilities and elderly
persons issued by Ministry of Urban Development have been
adopted. This implies that all the public buildings are now required
to conform to these standards. [Para 15, 16] (848-G-H; 849-A-B, c
D-E; 850-H; 851-A-B]
1.3 Apart from conferring rights on disabled persons, there
are adequate provisirins which cast an obligation on the State
also to make provisions for safeguarding the interest of the
handicapped persons. 73rd and 74'h Amendment of the D
Constitution of India make it a Constitutional obligation for the
State to make provisions for safeguarding the interest of the
weaker section of the society, including 'handicapped and mentally
retarded'. Article 41 of the Constitution which is in the nature of
a Directive Principle, imposes a duty on the State to make an
effective provision, inter alia, for public assistance to disabled E
persons and it is a well-established principle that the State has an
obligation to apply the Directive Principles of securing a social
order in promotion of the welfare of the people. Further, the
intention of the legislature was clear and unambiguous when it
enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, F
Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act), an important
feature of which was the creation of a barrier-free built
environment. The provisions of Disabilities Act, 1995 and
Disabilities Act, 2016 have already taken note of. These
provisions emphasize the importance of providing non-
discriminatory access by removing all physical barriers. More G
specifically, they seek to provide access to public places in the
following ways:
A) Suitably altering buses, airplanes, train compartments
and vessels to make them accessible to persons with disabilities;
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A B) Adapting toilets in these aforementioned vehicles and
waiting rooms to make them accessible, especially for wheelchair
users;
C) Installing auditory feedback in traffic signals for the
benefit of the visually impaired;
B D) Making necessary curb cuts and slopes in pavements
for wheelchair users;
E) Engraving the surface of zebra crossings for the visually
impaired;
F) Engraving the edges of railway platforms for the benefit
c of the visually impaired;
G) Designing appropriate symbols of disability (for
identification of reserved parking spaces, etc);
H) Providing warning signals at necessary places;
I) Building ramps in all public places;
D J) Providing auditory feedback in lifts; and
K) Providing ramps in all healthcare facilities including,
inter alia, hospitals and rehabilitation centres. [Para 18) [851-G-
H; 852-A-H; 853-A-BJ
1.4 For effective implementation of these provisions, the
E. following measures need to be undertaken by the State authorities
for removing obstacles that prevent the disabled from accessing
public places:
(i) Making the gates to public places accessible by
incorporating necessary accessible standards. More
F specifically, they must be made wide enough to allow
wheelchairs to pass easily and must provide enough space
for the wheelchair to turn around after entering inside.
(ii) Stair must be marked with a broad yellow line to allow
the visually impaired to understand the difference in
G gradient.
(iii) At places like airports, railway stations, etc passengers
must be clearly informed about the details of their flight/
train such as the gate number for boarding, etc via public
announcement systems (this practice is, surprisingly,
H gradually declining).
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 831

(iv) A minimum of 3-5 parking spaces near the entrance A
must be reserved for persons with disabilities. This must
be clearly indicated by showing the international symbol
for disability i.e. the wheelchair symbol.
(v) All unnecessary obstructions must be removed, and all
access ways must be well lit. Moreover, clear signposts, B
along with their Braille equivalents should be put up.
(vi) Elevators must have clear Braille signs and auditory
feedback. The buttons of elevators must be accessible from
a wheelchair. Pictograms must be put up near elevators
and other important places such as toilets. c
(vii) Employees working at public places must be provided
necessary training to enable them to understand the unique
set of challenges that persons with disabilities face. They
should be informed about the best practices for dealing with
these challenges. o
(viii) Wheelchairs and mobility scooters should be available
at every public place. [Para 19) (853-B-G]
1.5 The Disabilities Act, 1995 put a rider by mentioning
that responsibility of the State to provide these facilities is subject
to adequate economic resources to bear the expenditure involved E
in making these facilities disabled friendly, Disabilities Act, 2016
thankfully does not mention any such condition. On the contrary,
Section 45 of the Act provides for time limits for making existing
infrastructure and premises accessible and action for that purpose.
Furthermore, Section 44 casts an obligation on all kinds of F
establishments i.e. Government as well as private establishments,
to mandatorily observe accessible norms while building any
structure. [Para 20] [853-H; 854-A-BJ
1.6 Having regard to the Constitutional and Statutory
Scheme, there is no denial of the fact that visually impaired persons
need to be provided proper and safe access to roads and transport G
as well as to buildings, public places etc. Therefore, it is
emphasised that the prayers made in the instant petition cannot
be viewed as adversarial in nature. It is not regarded so by the
respondents as well, particularly the Union of India. In fact, the
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A manner in which the instant case has proceeded would reflect
the commitment of the Central Government in taking care about
the aforesaid needs of the visually disabled persons. It is for this
reason the Union of India has been filing status reports from time
to time in the form of affidavits by bringing on record the various
measures which the Government has taken for fulfilling its
B
Constitutional and statutory obligations in this behalf. This petition
was filed in the year 2005 and the various measures t.akcn by the
Government has been monitored in the last 12 years. It is a 'work
in progress' and the Union of India has been taking various
measures to make the lives of such disabled persons as
c comfortable as possible. [Para 21] (854-C-G]
1.7 Ten action points which arc enumerated by the
petitioner, for providing proper access to public facilities to the
persons suffering from visually disability, arc now statutorily
recognised under the Disabilities Act, 2016. The Legislature has
D cast a duty on the executive wing for making provisions in this
behalf. This legal position is accepted by the Union of India in its
affidavit dated August 23, 2017. Jn this affidavit, the respondent
had itself mentioned various provisions under the Disabilities
Act, 2016 which mandate the respondents to make provisions
for these facilities. Not only this, such provisions even specified
E the deadlines for undertaking these measures. Thus, it becomes
a statutory obligation on the part of the Central Government as
well as the State Governments to do the needful by the target
dates. Though, Central Government has taken various measures,
. many State Governments have not responded at all. Having
F regard to the said position emerging on record, the following
directions are issued:
(i) Making 20-50 important government buildings in 50
cities fully accessible December 2017 (State Govt.
Buildings)

G Since, this deadline is set by the AIC itself, this should be
met. In ilny case, as per the provisions of Section 46 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016, all Government buildings providing
any services to the public arc to be made fully accessible
by June, 2019 which has to be adhere to.
(ii) Making 50% of all the govt. buildings of the national
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 833

capital and all the state capitals fully accessible by December A
~
Though the deadline for identifying the buildings was fixed
as February 28, 2017, according to status report dated
August 8, 2017, only 7 States have identified the buildings.
Remaining States arc directed to identify the buildings by B
February 28, 2018 and it is made clear that no further time
shall be granted. Insofar as deadline for retrofitting is
concerned, the work should be completed by December,
2018.
(iii) Completing accessibility audit of 50% of govt. buildings
and making them fully accessible in 10 most important cities/ C
towns of states/UTs not covered in targets (i) and (ii) by
December 2019.
Position regarding this action point is the same as noted in
respect of action point 2, namely, only seven States have
submitted their list of 10 most important cities/towns and 0
not a single building has been identified so far. The States
are directed to identify 10 most important cities/towns and
complete accessibility audit of 50% of Government buildings
in these cities/towns by February 28, 2018. Likewise,
retrofitting of these be completed by December 2019 as
per the revised deadline set out by CCC. E
(iv) Central Govt. buildings.
Having regard to the comments given by the petitioner in
its affidavit dated August 23, 2017 on this aspect, time frame
of August, 2018 is given for completing this target.
(v) Accessibilitv in airports. Completing accessibilitv audit F
of all the international airports and making them fully
accessible by December 2016.
The demand of the petitioner that Civil Aviation Ministry
should follow the prescribed template i.e. UT Roorkee template
on the Government website appears to be justified which should G
be implemented as expeditiously as possible. The Union of India
should thereafter conduct the accessibility and audit and upload
the same on the website by June, 2018.
(vi) Accessibility in Railways. Ministrv of Railways was
required to make all Al, A and B category railway stations H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A fully accessible by July 2016. 50% of all railway stations to
made fully accessible by March 2018.
As is clear from the affidavit dated June 30, 2017 filed by
the petitioner, as many as 12 directions arc sought under
this action point. Insofar as providing of various facilities
in the railway stations arc concerned, which arc listed by
B
the petitioner, there cannot be any dispute that the Indian
railways is statutorily obligated to make those provisions.
The petitioner has, however, sought time bound directions
for providing such facilities. Wherever the provisions of
the Disabilities Act, 2016 prescribe the deadlines, the
c respondent is to provide those facilities within those time
framework. Insofar as other facilities arc concerned, in
respect of which the petitioner wants those facilities by
specified period, no period is fixed. Instead, the
appropriate/competent authority in the railways is directed
to make an assessment in this behalf so as to ascertain as
D
to by what date(s) these facilities will be provided. Such a
study can be undertaken and exercise be completed within
a period of three months and report in that behalf shall be
filed in the Court, chalking out the progressive plan.
(vii) 10% of government owned public transport carriers
E are to be made fully accessible by March 2018.
Herc again, Section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016
provides for comprehensive accessibility in all modes of
transport including but not remitted to the bus transport.
Therefore, it becomes the duty of the Union, States as well
as Union Territories to ensure that all Government buses
F
arc disabled friendly in accordance with the Harmonized
Guidelines. Likewise, the respondents arc duty bound to
sec that private buses also become disabled friendly. Thus,
we direct the Government to lay down the plan giving the
dates by which the aforesaid task shall be undertaken,
G keeping in view the directions which arc sought by the
petitioner in this behalf and the same shall be filed within
three months.
(viii) Comprehensive revision of target deadliness under
accessibility of knowledge and ICT Eeosvstcm. At least 50%
of central and state govt. websites arc to meet accessibility
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 835

standards by March 2017. At least 50% of the oublic A
documents are to meet accessibility standards by March
2018.
On this action point, the petitioner has sought five
directions. Again, there cannot be any dispute that such
provisions have to be made as Disabilities Act, 2016 itself B
mandates that. The only question is about the time schedule.
On certain aspects, AIC had itself mentioned the target
date. In any case, let there be a study undertaken in this
behalf as well by the Union oflndia and report be filed within
three months stating as to by what date(s) compliance shall
be ma~. C
(ix) Bureau of Indian Standards to embed disability aspect
in all relevant parts of revised National Building Code.
It is expected that the respondents would regularly update
the Harmonized Guidelines keeping in view the provisions
of Disabilities Act, 2016 and technological advancement vis- D
a-vis the needs of persons with disabilities.
(x) The target of training additional 200 sign language
interpreters by March 2018.
Needful be done in this behalf as well within reasonable
time and the Government is directed to file an affidavit within
three months stating the time period within which the same E
can be accomplished.
(xi) As per the provisions of Sections 60 and 66 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016, all States and Union Territories arc
required to constitute the Central and State Advisory
Boards. In order to effectively implement the provisions
F
of the said Act, it becomes the duty of the States and Union
Territories to constitute such Advisory Boards. Therefore,
it is directed that these Advisory Boards be constituted by
all States and Union Territories within a period of three
months from today. The matter be listed for directions after
three months on receiving reports in terms of the said G
order. [Paras 28 & 29] [908-C-F, G-H; 912-A-E; 911-A-
H; 910-A-H; 909-A-H]
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory
of Delhi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 608 : (1981] 2 SCR
516; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Umed Ram
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Sharma & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 68 : (1981) 2 SCR 516;
Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 7
SCC 761 : [2016) 4 SCR 638; Jacob M Puthuparambil
& Ors. v. Kera/a Water Authority & 01:1·. (1991) 1 SCC
28 : (1990) 1 Suppl. SCR 562; Justice Sunanda
Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Am: (2014)
B
14 SCC 383 : [2014] 4 SCR 113; Justice Sunanda
Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India & Am: 2017
(5) SCALE 288 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
. [1981) 2 SCR 516 referred to Para 11
C (1981) 2 SCR 516 referred to Para 12
(2016) 4 SCR 638 referred to Para 13
(1990) 1 Suppl. SCR 562 referred to Para 18
(2014] 4 SCR 113 referred to Para 26
2017 (5) SCALE 288 referred to Para 26
D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
243 of2005
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
WITH
W.P. (Civil) No. 228 of2006.
E Colin, Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Rajanmani, Ms. Sija N. Pal, Ms. Jyoti
Mendiratta, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ad vs. for the Petitioner.
Ranjit Kumar SG, Ms.Pinky AnandASG, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh,
D.L. Chidanand, R.R. Rajesh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, A.K. Srivastava,
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Raj Bahadur, Shreekant N. Terdal. Ms. Anil
F Katiyar, D.S. Mahra, Ms. Sushma Suri, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Avnish
M. Oza, Chirag Jain, A. Selvin Raja, Anil Grover, Piyush Hans, Satish
Kapoor, B.S. Gutam, Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Naresh Kr. G.,Ashok Kr.
Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Pareena Swarup, Ameet Singh, Ms. Alka ·
Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, M.R. Shamshad, D.K. Thakur, V.K. Sharma,
Milind Kumar, Jogy Scaria, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Ms. Maha
G Lakshmi, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms.Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh,
Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Anuradha
Arputham,Amit Arora, AlputhamAruna and Co., Ms. Niranjana Singh,
Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Rajesh Srivastava, P. V. Yogeswaran, Pragati
Neekhra, EdwardBelho,K. Entaoli Sema,Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang
Michael, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,
H
RAJNE RATURl v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 837

Ranjan Mukherjee, Anil Shrivastav, Raj Singh Rana, Jatinder Kumar A
Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai
Singh, Kuldip Singh, Rajan Chatterjee, Adee! Ahmed, Piyush Sachdev,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms.Diksha Rai, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas,
Aditya Raina, M.T. George, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, V.K. Verma,
V.N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Prakash Jodhar, Mis Corporate
B
Law Group, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, S. Doura, Guntur Prabhaka1,
Ms. Prerna Singh, Sanjay Kuarnr Visen, V.G Pragasam, S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian, T. Mahipal, Mishra Saurabh, Jayesh Gaurav, Gopal
Prasad, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ms. Susmita Lal, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, C.K. Sasi, Kunal A. Cheema, Yogesh K. Ahirrao, Nishant
Ramakantrao Katncshwarkar, B.S. Banthia, Ms. Charu Mathur, c
T.N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, T. Veera Reddy, G.N. Reddy,
K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil
Ujjwal Singh, Moj ahid Karim Khan, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
A~ K. SIKRI, J. I. The petitioner herein, who is a visually
disabled person, is resident ofGurgaon (now 'Gurugram') and works in
Delhi with a human rights organisation. He has filed this petition in public
interest on behalf of the disabled persons (though better expression to
describe these persons is 'differently-abled persons') for proper and
adequate access to public places. In particular, this petition seeks providing E
all accessibility requirements to meet the needs of visually disabled persons
in respect of safe access to roads and transport facilities. It is stated in
the petition that there are sixty to seventy million disabled persons in
India and almost 50% thereof suffer from visual disability. The
fundamental concern of these visually impaired persons is safe
F
accessibility to movements on footpaths and accessibility to roads and
transport. It is stated in the petition· that internationally acceptable
mandatory components of physical accessibility arc the following: ·
a) Safety: the environment must be such where disabled people
can move around safely.
b) Independence: the environment must be such where disabled G
persons can use the facilities independently.
c) Affordability: the barrier free or accessible environment should
not come with a premium.
d) Logical layout: the environment must be such where disabled
persons arc able to navigate without too much physical exertion H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A i.e. not having to move to the length and breadth of the building
to access information or make use of the facilities'.
2. As per the petitioner, physical accessibility when translated vis-
a-vis road and transportation facilities for the benefit of visually disabled
persons would imply the following features:
B MEASURES IN RESPECT OF ROADS:
a) Installation of auditory signals at every red light so as to aid
visually disabled persons to cross the roads safely. This signal
emits a series of sounds, which would indicate the oppo11une
time to cross the road.
b) Construct zebra crossings at a slight incline so as to aid in
c guidance to visually disabled persons and to enable them to
navigate along this raised safe passage of zebra crossings.
This slightly raised level wo9uld indicate the course of the
zebra crossing to visually disabled persons, who would be
able to sense the slight level difference with the aid of their
D walking stick.
c) Insert guiding blocks in zebra crossings so as to aid in guidance
to visually disabled persons and to enable them to navigate
along with safe passage of zebra crossings.
d) Placing warning blocks along the edges of the pavement or
E footpath so as to denote a level difference between the road
and the pathway and tO ensure the continuity of the pathway.
Warning blocks refers to a standard cement block, such as is
used on pavements and footpaths, consisting of a series of
small blisters on them so as to warn visually disabled persons
wherever there is a gap in the pavement, a level difference
F or to indicate the point where the pavement or footpath ends
and a road or a zebra crossing starts.
e) Providing for unobstructed footpaths with minimum
hindrances in such manner so as to leave obstacle-free walking
areas in a straight line on the footpath at either left or right
G edges of the footpath.
f) Placing guiding blocks on pavements and footpaths so as to
1
Based on a paper by Sunita Singh titled 'Accessibility Issues' in book called 'Disability
Management in India - Challenges and Commitment•, edited by C.S. Mohapatra and
published by the National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped, Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Public
H Administration (IIPA).
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 839
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

aid visually disabled persons in directional guidance. Guiding A
blocks are constructed on the same lines as warning blocks,
the only difference being that while warning blocks consist
of blisters made on a block, guiding blocks comprise oflincs
engraved on a block. These engraved lines on the cement
block, which the visually disabled persons can sense with the
B
aid of their walking stick, serve as an orientation tool to guide
visually disabled persons along a certain direction.
g) Colouring the nosing of stairs in subways/overhead bridges/
escalators. Colouring· the edges of the stairs would be of
immense guidance to persons with low vision so as to enable
such persons to negotiate each step with ease and orientation. c
h) Providing for specially designated parking areas, which do
not obstruct pathways. This feature would ensure that visually
disabled persons could negotiate pathways without the
apprehension of colliding with parked vehicles.
i.) Construction of a protective fencing around obstacles on D
footpaths an pavements so as to serve as a warning of the
obstacle ahead.
j) Providing for signboards/advertisement boards and hoardings
to be placed above head levels. This feature would ensure
that there is no probability of visually disabled persons suffering
head injuries owing to collision with signboards/advertisement E
boards.
k) Erecting a temporary barricade around places where
construction work is in progress so as to serve as a timely
warning to visually disabled persons.
1) Constructing highlands in the middle of main roads, so as to F
make crossing roads safer for the visually disabled. A highland
would divide the main road in to two separate traffic zones of
traffic moving in opposite directions, wherein a visually
disabled person, through the aid of his ears, can concentrate
on the traffic sounds coming from one particular direction
G
whilst crossing over.
MEASURES FOR TRANSPORT FACILITIES:
m) Providing an efficient audio announcement system in all
modes of mass public transport, using Delhi Metro, which
has incorporated this feature with great success, as a model.
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 12 S.C.R.

A n) Providing for bus stops to have route maps and schedules in
Braille, which is placed at eye-level.
o) Providing for a standardized texture of flooring in front of bus
stops.
p) Providing for easily accessible entry and exit points at bus
B stops, railway stations and airports.
q) Providing for an exclusive and designated ticketing area and
assistance/information counter for visually disabled persons
at the point which is nearest possible to the entry point and at
every platform.
r) Providing for a designated place for disabled friendly coaches
c by placing guiding blocks for disabled-friendly coaches at
railway stations, till the time the entire transport system
becomes disabled friendly entirely.
s) Constructing warning blocks along with edges of platforms at
all railway stations.
D t) Modifying the foot board of public transport vehicles so as to
make it more accessible for the visually disabled with
sufficient and uniform width of steps and between steps.
3. As per the petitioner, though there are few instances where
some of these measures arc being implemented, but the authorities have
E moved with a slow pace and in sporadic manner. To illustrate the same,
the petitioner has tabulated these measures in Anneuxre P-4 to the writ
petition to show that in most of the cases no action is taken by various
States and Union Territories.
RIGHT OF VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS TO GET
THESE FACILITIES
F
(i) At International Level
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.
G 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 ofpersons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion
and denial of rights. Equality not only implies preventing discrimination
(example, the protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment
H by introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 841
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination in A
. 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 members of the
community with equal rights has also been reflected in the evolution of B
international standards relating specifically to disabilities, as well as in
moves to place the rights of persons with disabilities within the category
of universal humanrights. 2 ". •

5. 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 c
persons are viewed as abnormal, deserving of pity and care, and not as
individuals who are entitled to enjoy the same opportunities to live a full
and satisfying life as other members of society. This had resulted in
marginalizing the disabled persons and their exclusion both from the
mainstream of the society and enjoyment of their fundamental rights D
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 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). However, Real awareness of E
the problems of disabled and their human rights perspective came to
fore, in international thinking, in the 1970s when United Nations took
number of initiatives, which embrace the growing international concept
of the human rights of persons with disabilities and equalization of
opportunities to them.
F
6. Two major declarations on the disabled were adopted by the
General Assembly in that decade. First is the declaration on the rights of
mentally retarded persons dated December 20, 1971 which provided that
the mentally retarded person should enjoy the same rights as other human
beings, including the right to proper medical care, economic security, the
right to training and rehabilitation, and the right to live with his own family G
or with foster parents. Furthermore, the Assembly declared that there
should be proper legal safeguards to protect the mentally retarded person
against every form of abuse if it should become necessary to restrict or
'See Report of United Nations Consultative Expert Group Meeting on International
Norms and Standard~ Relating to Disability I 0-2-200 I H
842 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A deny his or her rights. In 197 5, the General Assembly of the UN adopted
the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, which proclaimed
that "disabled persons have the same civil and political rights as other
human beings." The Declaration states, "Disabled persons should receive
equal treatment and services, which will enable them to develop their
capabilities and skills to the maximum and will hasten the process of
B
their social integration or reintegration." This Declaration is a
comprehensive instrument with a clear focus on the rights of persons
with disabilities. Thereafter, the year 1981 was observed as International
Year of the Disabled Persons with its central theme as "Full Participation
and Equality".
c 7. In the very next year the UN General Assembly adopted the
World Programme ofAction which placed "Equaliz.ation of Opportunities"
as a central theme. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights under International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) in 1994 assumed the responsibility for disability rights
D by issuing a General Comment No.5, in which the Committee makes an
analysis of disability as a human rights issue. Article 6 of the Covenant
emphasizes "Right to Work"; Article 7 refers to "the Right of everyone
to the enjoyment ofjust and favourable conditions of work which ensures
adequate remuneration"; Article 11 recognizes that everyone has the
"Right to an adequate standard ofliving for himself and his family, including
E adequate food, clothing and housing"; Article 15 recognizes the "Right
of everyone to take part in cultural life".
8. Even at Asian level, significant development took place when
the Government ofAsian and Pacific countries (ESCAP Region) in their
meeting held in Beijing on 1" to 5'h December, 1992 called "Meet to
F Launch the Asian and Pacific Decades of Disabled Persons" adopted
to the proclamation on "Full Participation and Equality of People with
Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific regions, with this ending view, it
year marked 1993-2002 as the decade of disabled persons. This paved
the way for enactment of the "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
G Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, which
was enacted in the year 1996.
9. The underlined message in the aforesaid documents is the
acknowledgment that human rights are individual and have a definite
linkage to human development, both sharing common vision and with a
H common purpose. Respect for human rights is the root for human
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 843
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

development and realization offull potential of each individual, which in A
tum 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.
(ii) Rights under the Indian Constitution
l 0. This right not only flows from various international covenants B
referred to above to which India is a signatory, it is recognised as
Constitutional right as well. There cannot be any dispute about the rights
of the differently- abled persons, particularly those who have visual
impairment with which category we are concerned in the present case,
to provide them adequate access to all the facilities on the road as well c
as convenient access to transport facilities etc. Without these faciiities,
movement of such persons gets impaired and this can even be treated
as infringement of their fundamental rights under Article 19( l )( c) of the
Constitution, which is guaranteed to each and every citizen of this country.
In order to ensure that this right is exercised by visually disabled persons
as well, it becomes the duty of the State and public authorities to lay D
down proper nom1S in respect of the built environment and public facilities
i.e. roads, buildings, public places, transport (air, land and water) carriages
etc. It is a well known fact that persons with visually impaired disability,
with which we are concerned, represent far more 'vulnerable section of
society" and 'at-risk cases' vis-a-vis their present surroundings which E
also becomes evident from the well known fact that insurance companies
charge a higher premium on insurance policies extended to the visually
disabled as compared to the other persons.
11. Article 21 of the Constitution gives right to life, mandates that
every citizen has right to live with dignity. It is an umbrella right which F
subsumes several other rights that enable life to be led meaningfully. In
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
& Ors. 3, this Court has held that:
"The fundamental right to life which is the most precious human
right and which fo1ms the ark of all other rights must, therefore, G
be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it
with significance and vitality which may endure for years to come
and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of human
person."
'(1981) 1sec608
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A Right to dignity has been particularly recognized in this judgment
as one of the facets ofright to life:
"every act which offends against or impairs human indignity would
constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live."
.This expansive understanding of right to life assumes greater
B proportions in respect of persons with visual impairments, who need a
higher number of compensative skill enhancing facilities in order to go
about their daily lives without suffering the indignity of being generally
perceived as being dependent and helpless.
12. The vitality of the issue of 'Accessibility' vis-a-vis visually
c disabled persons' right to life can be gauged clearly by this Court's
judgment in State ofHimuchul Pradesh & Anr. v. Umed Rum Sharma
& Ors. 4, where the right to life under Article 21 has been held broad
enough to incorporate the right to accessibility. Relevrmt paragraphs of
this judgment have been reproduced below:
D "Read in the background ofA1ticle 38(2) every person has right
under Article 19( l )(d) to move freely throughout the territory of
India. He has also the right under Article 21 to his life which
embraces not only physical existence oflife but the quality oflife
and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life
E itself. Therefore, to the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible
and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads
for communication in reasonable conditions. Denial of that right
would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness
by the ambit of the Constitution.
It appears to us that in the facts of this case, the controversy lies
F
within a short compass. It is well settled that the persons who
have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected
by the absence of usable road because they arc poor Harijan
residents of the area .• their access by communication, indeed to
life outside is obstructed and/or prevented by the absence of road.
G The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without
workable roads, no communication is possible. Every person is
entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in
the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19( I)( d) of
the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the
H '(1986) 2 sec 68
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 845
[A. K. SIKRI, J.)

Constitution every person has right under Article 19( l )(d) to move A
freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right
under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embrnces
not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for
residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself.
These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition B
that there should be road for communication in reasonable
conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of
that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness
and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. To the residents of
the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has
constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication." C
J3. Right to dignity, which is ensured in our Constitutional set up
for every citizen applies with much more vigour in case of persons
suffering from disability and, therefore, it becomes imperative to provide
such facilities so that these persons also are ensured level playing field
and not only they are able to enjoy life meaningfully, they contribute to D
the progress of the nation as well. In a recent judgment in Jeeja Ghosh
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 5 , these aspects were highlighted by
this Court in the following form:
37. The rights that arc guaranteed to differently-abled persons
under the 1995 Act, are founded on the sound principle of human E
dignity which is the core value of human right and is treated as a
significant facet ofright 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 arc recognised. These arc: (i) Theological Models, F
(ii) Philosophical Models, and (iii) Constitutional Models. Legal
scholars were called upon to determine 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 a
by theological and philosophical views, though these two are not
identical. Aquinas and Kant discussed the jurisprudential aspects
ofhuman dignity based on the aforesaid philosophies. Over a period
of time, human dignity has found its way through constitutionalism,
'c2016J 1sec161
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A whether written or unwritten. Even right to equality is interpreted
based on the value of human dignity. Insofar as India is concerned,
we arc 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 III with the
caption "Fundamental Rights". One such right enshrined in Article
B
21 is right to life and liberty. Right to life is given a purposeful
meariing 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 fulfilment of the
constitutional value enshrined in Article 21. Thus, human dignity
c is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal. What are the
dimensions of constitutional value ofhuman dignity'? It is beautifUJly
illustrated by Aharon Barak [Aharon Barak, Human Dignity -
The Constitutional Value and the Constitutional
Right (Cambridge University Press, 2015)] (former ChiefJustice
of the Supreme Court ofisrael) in the following manner:
D
"The constitutional value of human dignity has a central
· normative role. Human dignity as a constitutional value is the
factor that 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
E serves as a normative basis for constitutional rights set out in
the Constitution; second, it serves as an interpretative pririciple
for determining the scope of constitutional rights, including the
right to human dignity; third, the value ofhuman dignity has an
important role in determining the proportionality of a statute
F limiting a constitutional right."
xxx xxx xxx
40. 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
G that 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 ofrights.
Equality not only implies preventing discrimination (example, the
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 847
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

protection of individuals against unfavourable treatment by A
introducing anti-discrimination laws), but goes beyond in remedying
discrimination against groups suffering systematic discrimination
in society. In concrete terms, it means embracjng the notion of
positive rights, aftirmative action and reasonable accommodation.
The move from the patronising and paternalistic approach to
B
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. (Sec Report of United Nations Consultative c
Expert Group Meeting on International Norms and Standards
Relating to Disability, 10-2-2001.)
xxx xxx xxx
43. All these rights conferred upon such persons send an eloquent
message that there is no question of sympathising with such D
persons and 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 arc 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 E
that persons with disabilities were entitled to enjoy the full range
of internationally guaranteed rights and 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 F
rights guarantees in the case of persons with disabilities, as well
as developing specific instruments that refine and give detailed
contextual content of those general guarantees. There should be
a full recognition of the fact that persons with disability were integral
pa11 of the community, equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the
G
same human rights and freedoms as others. It is a sad commentary
that this perception has not sunk in the mind and souls of those
who are not concerned with the enforcement of these rights. The
persons suffering from mental or physical disability experience
and encounter nonpareil form of discrimination. They are not looked
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A down by people. However, they are not accepted in the mainstream
either even when people sympathise with them. Most common,
their lives are handicapped by social, cultural and attitudinal barriers
which hamper their full participation and enjoyment of equal rights
and opportunities. This is the worst form of discrimination which .
the disabled feel as their grievance is that others do not understand
B
them.
xxx xxx xxx
46. It is the common experience of several persons with disabilities
that they are unable to lead a full life due to societal barriers and
discrimination faced by them in employment, access to public
c spaces, transportation, etc. Persons with disability are the 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 is so pervasive that even the
number of disabled persons existing in the country is not well
D
documented."
(iii) Rights conferred under the Statute
14. Right of these persons not only flows from the Constitution
but are statutorily recognised as well. As mentioned above, pursuant to
Beijing Declaration, India enacted Disability Act, 1995 (hereinafter
E
referred to as the' Act') 6• This Act, in no uncertain terms, brings out one
of the impo11ant features thereof, namely, the creation of a barrier free
built environment. The very Preamble to the Disabilities Act discloses
that this act was enacted by the legislature to fulfill its international
obligation to enact a disability specific law nationally. The first in the
F statement of objects and reasons are:
i. To spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention
of disabilities: and
ii. To create a barrier free environment for Persons with
Disabilities.
G 15. Under its chapter VIII, titled "Non-Discrimination", the
Disabilities Act, 1995 aimed to provide persons with disabilities with a
non-handicapping environment to ensure them equal opportunities and
full participation in all aspects oflife, including social, economic, political
6This Act now stands repealed and is replaced by Act, 2016 which is enforced w.e.f.
H April 19, 2017.
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 849
(A. K. SIKRI, J.]

and cultural, at par with other citizens. Sections 44, 45 and 46 under this A
chapter provided extremely specific and unambiguous guidelines for
making the built environment, roads and transport facilities accessible
for visually disabled persons.
Under Section 44 establishments in the transport sector are required
to design rail compartments, buses, etc. in such a way as to promote B
easy access to disabled persons.
Section 45 provides for installation of signals at traffic lights on
public roads, kerb cuts. and slopes to be made in pavements, engravings
on edges of railways platforms, designing appropriate symbols of disability
and warning signals at appropriate places. C
Section 46 directs the appropriate governments and local .
authorities, within the limits of their economic capacity and development,
to provide for ramps, Braille symbols and auditory signals in elevators in
hospitals, primary health centres and other medical care and rehabilitation
institutes. D
16. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
reforred to as the 'Disabilities Act, 2016') has come into force on April
19, 2017 and this Act has repealed the earlier Disabilities Act, 1995. This
Disabilities Act, 2016 lays down the provision relating to barrier free
environment. Those relevant provisions, are as under: · E
Section 2(i) - 'establishment includes a Government establishment and
private establishment"
Section 2(k) - 'Government establishment' means a corporation
established by or under a Central Act or State Act or an authority or a
body owned or controlled or aided by the Government ora local authority F
or a Government company as defined in section 2 of the. Companies
Act, 2013 (18 of2013) and includes a Department of the Government.
Section 2(v)- "private establishment" means a company, firm, cooperative
or other society, associations, trust, agency, institution, organisation, union,
factory or such other establishment as the appropriate Government may, G
by notification, specify; (w) "public building" means a Government or
private building, used or accessed by the public at large, including a
building used for educational or vocational purposes, workplace,
commercial activities, public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or
recreational activities, medical or health services, law enforcement
H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 12 S.C.R.

A agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or platforms,
roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways;
Section 2(w)- "public building" means a Government or private building,
used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for
educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities,
B public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical
or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial
foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus,
airports or waterways;
Section 2(zd) - "transportation systems" includes road transport, rail
transport, air transport, water transport, para transit systems for the last
c mile connectivity, road and street infrastructure, etc;
Section 2(ze) - "universal design" means the design of products,
environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised
design and shall apply to assistive devices including advanced technologies
D for particular group of persons with disabilities.
Section 2(b)- "appropriate Government" means,-
(i) in relation to the Central Government or any establishment
wholly or substantially financed by that Government, or a Cantonment
Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (41 of 2006), the
E Central Government;
(ii) in relation to a State Government or any establishment, wholly
or substantially financed by that Government, or any local authority, other
than a Cantonment Board, the State Government.
Section 16 mandates the appropriate Government and the local authorities
F to endeavour that all educational institutions funded or recognised by
them provide inclusive education to the children with disabilities and
towards that end shall make buildings, campus and various facilities
accessible.
Section 25(l)(b) mandates the appropriate Government and local
G authority to take necessary measures for the persons with disabilities to
provide barrier-free access in all parts of Government and private
hospitals and other health care institutions and centres.
Section 40 mandates the Central Government to frame Rules and laying
down the standards of accessibility for physical environment,
transportation system, information & communication system and other
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 851
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

facilities & services to be provided to the public in urban and rural areas. A
Rule 15 deals with accessibility standards for public buildings, passenger
bus transport and information and communication technology. As regards
public buildings, the accessibility standards prescribed under the
Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built
environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued by B
Ministry of Urban Development have been adopted. This implies that all
the public buildings are now required to conform to these standards.
,17. It is pertinent to mention at this point that the Ministry Urban
Development and Poverty Alleviation had in the year 1993, at the outset
of the Asia-Pacific Disability Decade, received monetary grants from
UN-ESCAP as part of project for 'the Promotion of Non-Handicapping C
Environments for Disabled and Elderly Persons in the Asia-Pacific
Region". The project had developed a set of guidelines on the promotion
of non-handicapping physical environments for disabled persons and
therefore provided funds to implement these guidelines within a period
of three years, beginning May 1995. D
As a follow up action to the enactment of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation Act) 1995, the Ministry of Urban Development in
collaboration with UN-ESCAP, undertook demonstrative .exercises in
Delhi to create a barrier-free built environment in a 2 square kilometer
area of Indraprastha Estate. E
This was followed by the formulation of guidelines for creation of
a barrier-free environment by the Centre Public Works Department
(CPWD) under the Ministry of Urban Development and Employment,
developed "Guidelines on Space Standards for Barriers Free Built
Environment "which also included model building bye-laws for inter alia, F
road construction, to facilitate their adoption by local bodies in the states.
A reference was made to all state governments to make suitable
amendments in their building bye-laws to respond to this Act. Thus, there
is no paucity for provisions in the Jaw to safeguard the rights of the
visuaJly disabled
G
DUTY OF THE STATE
18. Apart from conferring rights on disabled persons, there are
adequate provisions which cast an obligation on the State also to make
provisions for safeguarding the interest of the handicapped persons. 73'd
and 74'" Amendment of the Constitution of India make it a Constitutional H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A obligation for the State to make provisions for safeguarding the interest
of the weaker section of the society, including 'handicapped and mentally
retarded'. Article 41 of the Constitution which is in the nature of a
Directive Principle, imposes a duty on the State to make an effective
provision, inter alia. for public assistance to disabled persons and it is a
well-established principle that the State has an obligation to apply the
B
Directive Principles of securing a social order in promotion of the welfare
of the people. The importance of Atiicle 41 in the Constitutional scheme
can be measured by this Court's judgment in Jacob M. Puthuparambil
& Ors. v. Kera/a Water Authority & Ors. 7 wherein it was held that a
Court should interpret an Act so as to advance Article 41. Further, the
c intention of the legislature was clear and unambiguous when it enacted
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full ParticipationAct), an important feature of which wa~ the creation
of a barrier-free built environment. Chapter 8 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 deals squarely with the issue ofnon-discrimination
D
in transport and the built environment: The provisions of Disabilities Act,
1995 and Disabilities Act, 2016 have already taken note of. These
provisions emphasize the importance of providing non-discriminatory
access by removing all physical barriers. More specifically, they seek to
provide access to public places in the following ways:
E A) Suitably altering buses, airplanes, train compartments and
vessels to make them accessible to persons with disabilities;
B) Adapting toilets in these aforementioned vehicles and waiting
rooms to make them accessible, especially for wheelchair
users;
F C) Installing auditory feedback in traffic signals for the benefit
of the visually impaired;
D) Making necessary curb cuts and slopes in pavements for
wheelchair users;
E) Engraving the surface of zebra crossings for the visually
G impaired;
F) Engraving the edges of railway platforms for the benefit Of
the visually impaired;
G) Designing appropriate symbols of disability (for identification
or reserved parking spaces, etc);
H '(1991) 1sec28
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 853
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

H) Providing warning signals at necessary places; A
I) Building ramps in all public places;
J) Providing auditory feedback in lifts; and
K) Providing ramps in all healthcare facilities including, inter alia,
hospitals and rehabilitation centres.
19. For effective implementation of these provisions, the following B
measures need to be undertaken by the State authorities for removing
obstacles that prevent the disabled from accessing public places:
i. Making the gates to public places accessible by incorporating
necessary accessible standards. More specifically, they must be made
wide enough to allow wheelchairs to pass easily and must provide enough c
space for the wheelchair to turn around after entering inside.
ii. Stair must be marked with a broad yellow line to allow the
visually impaired to understand the difference in gradient.
iii. At places like airports, railway stations, etc passengers must
be clearly informed about the details of their flight/train such as the gate D
number for boarding, etc via public announcement systems (this practice
is, surprisingly, gradually declining).
iv. A minimum of 3-5 parking spaces near the entrance must be
reserved for persons with disabilities. This must be clearly indicated by
showing the international symbol for disability i.e. the wheelchair symbol. E
v. All unnecessary obstructions must be removed, and all access
ways must be well lit. Moreover, clear signposts, along with their Braille
equivalents should be put up.
vi. Elevators must have clear Braille signs and auditory feedback.
The buttons of elevators must be accessible from a wheelchair.
F
Pictograms must be put up near elevators and other important places
such as toilets.
vii. Employees working at public places must be provided
necessary training to enable them to understand the unique set of
challenges that persons with disabilities face. They should be informed
about the best practices for dealing with these challenges. G

viii. Wheelchairs and mobility scooters should be available at every
public place.
20. One aspect that needs to be highlighted is that whereas
Disabilities Act, 1995 put a rider by mentioning that responsibility of the
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A State to provide these facilities is subject to adequate economic resources
to bear the expenditure involved in making these facilities disabled friendly,
Disabilities Act, 2016 thankfully does not mention any such condition.
On the contrary, Section 45 of the Act provides for time limits for making
existing infrastructure and premises accessible and action for that
purpose. Furthermore, Section 44 casts an obligation on all kinds of
B
establishments i.e. Government as well as private establishments, to
mandatorily observe accessible norms while building any structure.
THE PRESENT CASE
21. Having regard to the aforesaid Constitutional and Statutory
Scheme, there is no denial of the fact that visually impaired persons
c need to be provided proper and safe access to roads and transport as
well as to buildings, public places etc. We may, therefore, emphasise
that the prayers made in the present petition cannot be viewed as
adversarial in nature. We find comfort in the fact that it is not regarded
so by the respondents as well, particularly the Union of India. In fact,
D the manner in which the present case has proceeded would reflect the
commitment of the Central Government in taking care about the aforesaid
needs of the visually disabled persons. It is for this reason the Onion of
India has been filing status reports from time to time in the form of
affidavits by bringing on record the various measures which the
Government has taken for fulfilling its Constitutional and statutory
E
obligations in this behalf. This petition was filed in the year 2005 and the
various measures taken by the Government has been monitored in the
last 12 years. It may not be necessary to refer to various status reports
filed by the Government depicting the steps which arc taken by it, as
that would unnecessarily burden the present judgment. As was rightly
F stated by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General who appeared on
behalf of Union oflndia, that it is a 'work in progress' and the Union of
India has been taking various measures to make the lives of such disabled
persons as comfortable as possible. Thus, instead ofreproducing those
steps which are taken by the Government from time to time, we would
like to confine the discussion by referring to affidavit dated June 30,
G
2017 filed by the petitioner in response to the status report filed by the
Union oflndia on April 12, 2017. In this at1idavit, the petitioner has
tabulated his remarks and comments to the said status report and the
direction which it seeks from this Court. Therefore, this affidavit depicts
what remains to be done at the end of the respondents. It may be pointed
H out that affidavit which was filed by the Union oflndia on April 12, 2017
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 855
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

was in response to the ten action points which were submitted by the A
petitioner. In the said affidavit, the Union of India gave its updated status
on those points in the following manner:

Sr. Targets set Petitioner's ,\ction taken
No. under AIC Remarks'
B
1 Making 20-50 Accessibility - Access audit of
important audits of only 1653 buildings
government 1165 buildings as has been
buildings in 50 against 1633 completed and
cities fully buildings on the 1653 reports are c
accessible by website of shared with the
December DEPwD. Of States.
2017. (State 1293 buildings, a
Govt. proposal for only - As on
Buildings) 366 buildings 30.03.2017, the
received. cost estimates for D
Sanction of retrofitting of
Rs.1402.81 lakh 647 buildings
has been issued have been
only 67 received under
buildings. Scheme for
Implementation E
PwD Act
(SIPDA).
Sanction of
Rs.71.60 crore
has been issued
F
for 354 buildings.

2 Making 50% of Standards and - Harmonized
all the govt. guidelines for Guidelines and
buildings of the accessibility need Space Standards
national capital to be drawn out for the barrier- G
and all the state prior to creating free environment
capitals fully accessibility m for PwDs were
accessible by buildings. issued by CPWD
December on 23/3/2016.
2018.
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
- Model Building Bye-
laws (MBBLs) were
issued by Ministry of
Urban Development on
18/3/2016 which has a
B separate chapter on
Accessibility for PwDs.
These are to be appointed
by the States and local
authorities. So far 33
states/UTs have adopted
c the accessibility
standards envisages m
theMBBLs.

- National Building Code
2016 has been notified
D and published on March
15, 2017, by Bureau of
Indian Standards. It is for
the States and Urban
Bodies to adopt these
standards. Once adopted,
E these standards would
become enforceable.

- In respect of this target,
States have to make their
buildings accessible from
F
their own budget, as per
the decision of Central
Coordination committee
(CCC). In this respect list
of buildings identified in
State capitals has been
G
received from
Meghalaya, Karnataka,
Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh,
Assam, Tamil Nadu and
Bihar only.
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 857
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
3 Completing States and UTs - In response to the
accessibility need to be letters sent to
audit of 50% of communicated States to provide a
govt. buildings standards and list of 10 important
and making them guidelines for cities, lists of cities
fully accessible creating have been received
in 10 most accessibility. from Bihar, B
important Meghalaya,
cities/towns of Karnataka, Sikkim,
states/UTs not Uttar Pradesh,
covered in targets Assam and Tamil
(i) and (ii) by Nadu only.
·December 201"9. However, list of c
Buildings in these
cities have not
been identified by
the respective
States.

4 Central Govt. No status of the
D
- CPWD informed
buildings report submitted that out of 50 cities
by MoUD ts of phase I, 11 cities
given on their do not have
website. General Pool
Office
Accommodation· E
(GPOA) Buildings
under maintenance
of CPWD. These
cities are Daman;
Imphal, Aizawl,
Gangtok, Agartala, F
Silvasa, Gurugram,
Kavaratii, Itanagar,
Kohima and
Jhansi.

- For the remaining
39 cities, 75 G
buildings were
identified, of which
retrofitting in 9
buildings in 4 cities

H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
have been completed.
Work is in progress for
43 Buildings in 25 cities.
Further work is also in
progress in respect of
buildings in other cities.
B
- Also, CPWD stated that
39 buildings of NCR
region have been
provided with accessible
features like a ramp with
c railing, disabled friendly
toilets, Auditory and
Visual Signage and
Braille Button in a lift in
case of multistoried
buildings.
D
-Total Number ofGPOA
buildings under
maintenance of CPW D in
Delhi NCR & State
capitals is 123
E
- Out of 62 buildings
(50% of 123 buildings),
retrofitting work has been
completed 111 21
buildings in 5 cities
(Delhi, Bangalore,
F Hyderabad, Lucknow,
Mumbai). Retrofitting
work is in progress in 24
buildings. Retrofitting
work of remaining
buildings will be
G completed by December
2017.

- In remaining 50% i.e.
61 buildings (123-62),
retrofitting work will be
completed by July 2018.
H I
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. X59
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
5 Accessibility m No information is - Out of 32
airports. available as to International
Completing whether this has Airports, 30
accessibility been done. airports have been
audit of all the provided with
international accessibility B
airports and features namely
making them ramps, accessible
fully accessible toilets, lifts with
by December Braille symbols
2016. and auditory
signals. Out of 65 c
Domestic Airports,
in 58 airports
accessibility
features have been
provided.
D
- Ministry of Civil
Aviation has
informed that most
of the airports have
been made barrier- ·E
free for PwDs.
Imphal, Srinagar,
Port Blair airports
are single level
airports therefore
no lift is required F
for passengers. In
Thiruvananthapurd
m, Gaya and
Dagdogra, the
upgradation of lifts
is under progress G
and the works are
likely to be
completed by April
30, 2017.

H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R

A
6 Accessibility m No information - Out of 709 Al,
Railways. provided on their A, B category
Ministry of website for the railway stations,
Railways was same. 644 have been
required to make made accessible
B all Al, A and B with short-term
category railway features. Short
stations fully term accessibility
accessible by features include
July 2016. 50% ramp with
of all railway railing, parking
c stations to made for disabled, the
fully accessible non-slippery
by March 2018. walkway from
parking to
Building,
Signage, suitable
D drinking water
facility,
Accessible toilet
at ground floor
and 'May I Help
You' booth.
E
- Info1mation has
not been received
from Railways
about the
, F remaining
stations.

- Long term
accessibility
feature include
G provision of the
facility for inter
platform transfer
and tactile
flooring of
platform.
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 861
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
7 l 0% of government No standards and - Ministry of Road,
owned public guidelines at Transport &
transport earners · present are Highways has
are to be made available to make issued instructions
fully accessible by government to the States and
March2018. owned public Executive Director
transport carriers of organisations of B
accessible. State Undertakings
to ensure that I 0%
of Government
owned Public
Transport is made
fully accessible to C
the PwDs by
March 2018.

8 Comprehensive World - MeitY has
revision of target Accessibility informed that the
deadliness under Guidelines, as Guidelines for D
accessibility of prescribed by Indian Government
knowledge and ICT W3C are not Website are
Ecosystem. At least being adhered to. compliant to
50% of central and Instead govt. has WCAG2.0.'"
state govt. websites framed their own
are to meet guidelines. - *((WCAG), E
accessibility developed through
standards by March the World Wide
2017. At least 50% Web (W3C's)
of the public
documents are to - MeitY has further
meet accessibility informed that
standards by March
F
under the Content
2018. Management
Framework (CMF),
100 govt. websites
are mandated to be
made accessible.
G
59
Ministries/Depts.
have on-boarded to
CMF. Out of these,
33 websites are
made Jive so far.
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
8 Comprehensive World - MeitY has infonned
revision of target. Accessibility that the Guidelines
deadliness under Guidelines, as for Indian
accessibility of prescribed by Government Website
knowledge and W3C are not are compliant to
B ICT Ecosystem. being adhered to. WCAG2.0.*
At least 50% of Instead govt. has
central and state frami:d thdr own - *((WCAG),
govt. websites guidelines. developed through
are to meet the World Wide Web
c accessibility (W3C's)
standards by
March 2017. At - MeitY has further
least 50% of the informed that under
public documents the Content
ari: to 1111:1!1 Management
D accessibility Framework (CMF),
st:111dards by 100 govt. websites
March 2018. are mandated to be
made accessible. 59
M inistries/Depts.
E have on-boarded to
CMF. Out of these,
33 websites are made
live so far.

9 Bureau of Indian No information - The new version of
F Standards to about the status National Building
embed disability is provided by Code oflndia (NBC),
aspect in all BIS m the has been
relevant parts of absence of which comprehensively
revised National there are no updated in the
Building Code. standards and revised NBC and is
G guidelines. released on 15 March
2017. This would be
enforceable once the
urban local bodies
adopt the same.
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 863
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

10 The target of No action to - A Task Force has A
training train 2000 sign been set up to develop
additional 200 language a module on Sign
sign language interpreters. Language.
interpreters by
March 2018. - ISLR TC plans to train
about 475 sign B
language interpreters
(about 75 trainees
through Diploma m
Indian Sign Language
Interpretation) and 400
others officials through c
short term training
programme. CRE
(Continuous
Rehabilitation
Education) and
Workshops till March, D
2018. Besides it 1s
proposed to train 25
interpreters who are
native speakers of sign
language SODA
(Siblings of Deaf E
Adult), CODA
(Children of Deaf
Adults). 25 educators
for the deaf and 25
Indian sing language
teachers training (deaf) F
till March, 2018.

- IS LRTC IS
developing a
comprehensive Indian
Sign Lanugage (ISL) G
Dictionary of about
6000 words from
various areas like every
day words, academic
words, legal, technical
and medical words. H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A 22. In its reply dated June 30, 2017, the petitioner has made his
remarks in respect of the aforesaid ten action points and also submitted
that certain directions arc required from this Court iri respect of six to
ten action points.

Sr. Targets set Action taken Petitioner's
B No. under AIC remarks

l Making 20-50 - Access audit - Petitioner's
important of 1653 analysis of a
government buildings has sample of the
buildings in 50 been access audits is set
c cities fully completed. out m the
accessible by Additional
December, Affidavit of the
2017. (State Petitioner dated
Govt. 6.1.17 from page 3
D Buildings onwards showing
the pitiable state of
access for disabled
persons. .

- As on - The cost
E 30.03.207, the estimates for
cost estimates retrofitting 647
for buildings has not
retrofitting of been disclosed,
thus suppressing
647 buildings
F m 50 cities the fun<ls required
have been for retrofitting
received under these 647
Scheme for buildings. Only the
implementation sanctioned amount
Pwd Act has been disclosed.
(SIPDA). It has not been
G
disclosed as to
Sanction of
whether this
Rs.71.60 crore
has been sanctioned amount
has been disbursed
I issued for 354
buildings. and used.
.

H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 865
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
- It does not appear
as if the central and
state governments are
bothered about the
revised deadline of
December 2017 B
(from July 2016) for
the retrofitting of the
buildings.

- 22 years after
enactment of PwD C
Act, 1995 and now
the RPD Act, 2016
(Which have almost
identical provisions
regarding access) no
progress has been D
made. Under both
Acts all buildings in
the states were to be
made accessible; not
just 1653. Out of the
thousands of E
government
buildings in the state
only a tiny fraction of
1653 buildings have
been chosen and
these too have F
missed the deadlines
for retrofitting.

- The Harmonized
Guidelines made by
the Central G
Government have
been annexed in Vol.
II of the UOI Status
Report dated 28.4.16.

H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
None of the audit
reports make any
reference to these
Guidelines. It appears
that the audits (though
B severely critical of the
access of the buildings)
have been made on
some ad hoc basis
without reference to the
guidelines.
c
Directions sought

I) The state
goveffilTients be
D directed to submit
within one month from
today the cost estimates
for the remaining I 006
buildings.

E 2) Union of India be
directed to disburse to
the res pee ti ve states the
entire funds required
for the retrofitting of
1653 buildings within 2
F
months from today.

3) For an order
directing the state
governments to
G complete the
retrofitting of 1653
buildings in accordance
with the Harmonized
Guidelines by
December, 2017.
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 867
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
4) For an order
directing the state
governments to
conduct the
accessibility audit of
all the 1653 buildings B
after the retrofitting
is completed within 3
months of
completion and to
upload the audits on
the website. c
5) For an order
directing that the
Chief Secretary of
the states and the D
Administratives of
the Union Territories
will be held
responsible for the
implementation of
the orders passed by E
this Court.

2 Making 50% of - Harmonized - Same as above.
all government Guidelines and Under both the
buildings of the Space Standards statutes all buildings
national capital for the barrier- are to be retrofitted. F
and the state free environment
capitals fully foe PwDs were
accessible by issued by CPWD
December on 23/3/2016.
2018.
G
- Model Building - The latest
Bye-laws Harmonized
(MBBLs) were Guidelines filed by
issued by the UOI in this Court
Ministry of
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
Urban in affidavit dated
Development on 28.4.16 read
18/3/2016 which together with any
has a separate revision done
chapter , on thereafter must be
B Accessibility for used.
PwDs. These are to
be adopted by the - Not a single state
States and local capital has made
authorities. So far any attempt either
as 33 States/UTs to identify the
have adopted the
c accessibility
buildings or to
make cost
standards estimates and to
envisages in the make financial
MBBLs. provisions for
retrofitti11g of the
- National Building buildings. In the
D
Code 2016 has meeting of the
been notified and Central
published on Coordination
March 15, 2017 by Committee held on
Bureau of Indian 29.11.16 as
Standards. It is for directed by the
E
the States and Supreme Court it
Urban Bodies to was decided that
adopte these all state
standards. Once governments
adopted, these would submit the
standards would be names of the
F enforceable. identified buildings
by 28.2.17.

Directions sought
- In respect of this
G target, States have I. For an order
to make their directing all
buildings States/UTs to
accessible from finalise and submit
their own budget, to UOI the list of
as per the decision
of Central
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 869
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
Coordination 50% of the
Committee government
(CCC). In this buildings of all
respect list of the state capitals
buildings that are to be
identified m retrofitted within B
State Capitals one month from
has been today.
received from
Meghalaya, 2. For an order
Karnataka, directing all
Sikkimk, Uttar States/UTs to c
Pradesh, Assam, make cost
Tamil Nadu and estimates,
Bihar only. disburse funds
and complete the
retrofitting of all
the identified D
buildings m
accordance with
the Harmonized
Guidelines read
together with any
subsequent E
revision, by
December 2018,
in such a manner
that 50% of the
work shall be
completed by F
December 2017
and a report be
made to this
Court in respect
thereof.
G
3. For an order
directing that the
Chief Secretaries
of the States
shall be held
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
responsible for the
implementation of
the orders made by
this Court.
B
4. For an order
directing all the
State/UTs to
complete an
accessibility audit
c of all the buildings
retrofitted in
accordance with
the Harmonized
Guidelines and to
upload these audit
D
reports.

3 Completing In response to the - Under both the
accessibility 1etters sent to statutes all
audit of 50% of States to provide buildings are to be
government a list of 10 retrofitted.
E
buildings and important cities,
making them lists of cities - No progress
fully accessible have been made. Cities not
m 10 most received from identified by many
important Bihar, states. Buildings
F cities/towns of Meghalaya, not identified
states/UTs not Kamat aka, by any state.
covered in Sikkim, Uttar Estimates not made
targets (i) and Pradesh, Assam of funds required
(ii) by and Tamil Nadu by any state.
December only. However,
G 2019. list of Buildings
in these cities
have not been
identified by the
respective Stales.

H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 871
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
Direction sought

1) For an order
directing all States/UTs
to identify 50% of the
government buildings B
in the l0 most
important cities/towns
within l month from
today and to allocate
adequate resources and
complete the c
retrofitting of these
buildings by December
2019 in such a manner
that half the work will
be completed by
December 2018 and an
D
interim report
submitted to this Court
and a final report
submitted thereafter.

2. For an order
E
directing all the
State/UTs to complete
an accessibility audit of
all the buildings
retrofitted in
accordance with the
Harmonized Guidelines F
and to upload these
audit reports.

3. For an order
directing that the Chief
Secretaries of the G
States shall be held
responsible for the
implementation of the
orders made by this
Court.
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
4 Central CPWD - Under both the
Government infonned that out statutes of 1995
buildings of 50 cities of and of 2016 all
phase I, l l cities buildings are to be
do not have retrofitted.
B General Pool
Accommodation - The minutes of I
(GPOA) the Central
Buildings under Coordination
maintenance of Committee
CPWD. These meeting held on
c cities are Daman, 29.11.16 as
Imphal, Aizawl, directed by the
Gangtok, Supreme Court
Agartala, Silvasa, reveals that audits
Gurugram, and retrofitting is
Kavaratti, to be done of 466
D Itanagar, Kohima buildings
and Jhansi. including 90
GPOA buildings
- For the by December, 2016
remaining 39
E cities, 75 Directions sought
buildings were
identified, of l) For an order
which retrofitting directing UOI to
in 9 buildings in complete the
4 cities have retrofitting of the
F been completed. mentioned 466
Work is . in buildings in
progress for 4 3 accordance with
buildings in 25 the Harmonized
cities. Further Guidelines as
work is also in revised and
G progress 111 thereafter to
respect of complete the
buildings in other accessibility audit
cities. by July, 2018 and
to upload the audits
on the websites.
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 873
[A. K. SIKRI, J.)

A
- Also, CPWD stated 2) For an order
that 39 buildings of directing that a
NCR region have Secretary, MoUD,
been provided with shall be the person
accessible features held responsible
like a ramp with for the
B
railing, disabled implementation of
friendly toilets, the orders made by
Auditory and Visual the Supreme Court.
Signage and Braille
Button in a lift in
case of multistoried
buildings.
c
- Total number of
GPOA buildings
under maintenance of
CPWD in Delhi NCR
D
& State Capitals is
123.

- Out of 62 buildings
(50% of 123
buildings), E
retrofitting work has
been completed in 21
buildings in 5
cities (Delhi,
Bangalore,
Hyderabad,
F
Lucknow, Mumbai).
Retrofitting work of
remaining buildings
will be completed by
December 2017.
G
In the remaining 50%
i.e. 61 buildings
( 123-62), retrofitting
work will be
completed by July
2018.
H
874 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A .

5. Accessibility in - Out of 32 - In the meeting of
international International the Central
and domestic Airports, 30Coordination
airports. airports haveCommittee held on
been provided29. l Ll 6 as
B with accessibilitymentioned above it
Completing
accessibility features namely was pointed out
audit of all the ramps, accessible that the
international · toilets lifts withaccessibility work
airports and Braille symbols done was only
c making them and auditory'basic' and that
fully accessible signals. Out of further provisions
by December 65 Domestic would be put in
2016 and Airports, in 58 place 'in a phased
domestic airports manner'. . It is
airports by accessibility mentioned that a
D March2018. features havetemplate for
been provided. accessibility audits
was prepared in
- Ministry of order to conduct
Civil Aviation audits and
E has informed that retrofitting in all
most of the airports. However,
airports have no audit has been
been made done.
barrier-free for
PwDs. Imphal, - In the Committee
F Srinagar, Port meeting it is stated
Blair airports are that 'airport
single level accessibility is riot
airports therefore confined to ramps,
no lift is required toilets and lifts.
for passengers. In The airports have
G
Thiruvananthapu to be_ made
ram, Gaya and accessible for all
Bagdogra, the kinds of disabilities
upgradation of and the
lifts 1s under accessibility should
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 875
(A. K. SIKRI, J.] -

A
progress and the include accessible
works are likely signage, accessible
to be completed parking places,
by April 30, tactile. floorings etc.
2017. A copy of the access
audit conducted by B
HT, Roorkie for the
Indira Gandhi
International· Airport
has been sent to
Ministry of Civil
Aviation, which will c
act as a template for
access audit and will
facilitate retrofitting
of the airports and
railway stations'.
D
- No mention is made
in the UOI status
report of the
domestic airports.
E
- . Harmonized
guidelines and NBC
clearly mention use
of non slippery matt
finish tiles which
have not been used. F
People using crutches
and callipers find it
difficult to . navigate
open spaces in
· airports as tiles are
very slippery. G
Carpets prevent
wheelchair users
from navigating their
wheelchairs in
carpeted walkways
'

H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A
and people using
crutches and
callipers who have
restricted leg
movements find it
8 difficult to drag
their feet on
carpets. No
uniform standards
are used in making
accessible toilets.
c For instance, rn
Mumbai, Delhi and
other airports no
latches are
provided from
inside.
D
- In the Central
Committee
meeting it was
stated by the
representative of
E the National Trust
'that a template of
access audit had
been provided to
the Ministry of
Railways and
F Ministry of Civil
Aviation for
conducting access
audit and
retrofitting of
railway stations
G
and airports. He
pointed out that
these Ministries
should follow the
prescribed
template and not
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 877
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
pick out only some
elements therefrom.
The representative of
the two Ministries
submitted that
B
retrofitting would be
carried out as per the
template, but had
been phased out in
view of the
availability of c
resources.'

Directions sought

1) For an order
directing UOI to D
complete the
retrofitting of all the
international and
domestic airports by
December 2017 E
(extending the earlier
deadline of April
2017) in accordance
with the Harmonized
Guidelines as revised
and the UT Roorkee F
access audit template
abovementioned.

2) For an order
directing UOI to
G
thereafter conduct the
accessibility audit
and upload these
audits on the website
by March 2018.
H
878 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R .

A
3) For an order
directing UOI to
produce in this
Court the
accessibility audit
B , done of IGIA by
' IIT Roorkee.

6. Accessibility m - Out of 709 Al, - The statute
Railways. A, l3 category requires full
c Ministry of railway stations, accessibility of all
Railways was 644 have been railway stations not
required to make made accessible just 50%.
all Al, A, B with short-term
category railway features, short- - In the Central
stations fully term accessibility Committee
D accessible by features include meeting it was
July 2016. 50% ramp with stated by the
of all railway railing, parking representative of
staticms to made for disabled, the the National Trust
fully accessible non slippery 'that a template of
by March 2018~ walkway from access audit had
E ·'
parking to b,een provided to
Building, the Ministry of '
Signage, suitable Railways and
drinking water Ministry of Civil
facility, Aviation for
F Accessible toilet conducting access
at ground floor audit and
and 'May I Help retrofitting of
You' booth. railway stations
and airports. He
- Information has pointed out that
G not been received these Ministries
from Railways should follow the
about the prescriobed
remaining · template and not
stations. pick out only
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 879
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
some elements
therefrom. The
representative of
the two Ministries
submitted that
retrofitting would B
be carried out as
per the template,
but had been
phased out in
view of tHe
availability of c
resources."

- Mere symbolic
efforts made to
provide
accessibility in D
railway stations.
For instance:

- To provide access
to drinking water
E
sources, instead of
lowering the
drinking water
source ad hoc
platforms have
been made with F
ramps for access.
These are
dangerous for users
of crutches and
callipers as the
ramps are mostly G
wet and slippery.

- Low ticket
counters are
provided 111 some
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
reservation
counters but no
low ticket windows
are provided for
buying general
tickets which are
B mostly used by
disabled.

- Some railway
stations have lifts
and escalators
c (Delhi has
escalators and lifts
at entrances from
both sides) but
escalators cannot
be used by most
D people with
orthopaedic
disabilities. Also
no such facilities
provided for
reaching other
E platforms.

- In the last railway
budget it as
announced that the
Central
F Government would
be providing for
lifts in 600 stations
for inter-platform
accessibility.

G - Physically
disabled have to be
carried up and
down to reach rn
between platforms
which 1s
undignified.
H I
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 881
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
- Battery operated cars
used for transporting
persons with disabilities
in Delhi railway station
have been withdrawn by
the railways as the B
company providing this
facility through CSR has
withdrawn the facility.

- Compartments for
persons with disabilities C
arc inaccessible and
generally used by RPF
and railway staff.

- Toilets at railway
stations have been D
converted into toilets for
disabled persons by
making cosmetic
adjustments in the
existing toilets without
any real attempt being E
made to comply with the
guidelines.

- In the UOI status report
no reference ·is made to
the compartments and F
reference is made only to
the railway stations even
though clause 11. 7 .2.2
provides detailed
guidelines on accessible
railway compartments G
including entrances,
wheel chair spaces, seats,
aisles and information
signs and
announcements.
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
Directions Sought

. l) For an order
directing UOI to
produce in this Court
B the accessibility audit
done by UT Roorkee
for the. New Delhi
I
Railway Station.

2) For an order
c directing UOI to
complete the
retrofitting of all the
709 Al, A & B
category railway
stations by December
D 2017 and to conduct
the accessibility
audits of these
railway stations by
,
March 2018 in
E accordance with the
Harmonized ·
Guidelines as revised
and the UT Roorkee
access , audit
template, and to
F upload the audit
reports on the
website.

3) For an order
directing the UOI tO
G complete the
retrofitting of 50% of
the remaining
railway stations in
the country by
December 2019 and
H I
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. &83
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
the remaining
railway stations by
· December 2020 in
accordance with the
Harmonized
Guidelines as revised B
and the HT Roorkee
accessibility template
and thereafter
complete the
accessibility audits
by December 2020 C
and upload the audits
on the website.

4) For an order
directing UOI to
immediately restart D
the facility of battery·
operated cars at New
Delhi Railway
Station and introduce
this facility at all
E
other Al, A & B
category railway
station by December,
2018 .
.

5) For an order F
directing UOI to
install in all railway
stations in the
country ramps and
lifts in 600 stations
for inter platform G
accessibility by
December 2017 and
lifts in the remaining
stations by December
2018.
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
6) Introduce strict
monitoring of and the
introduction of penal
provisions, for non
disabled persons using
B compartments for
disabled;

7) For an order
directing the UOI to
immediately arrange
c for hydraulic lifts or
collapsible ramps to
board compartments
reserved for disabled
persons.

D 8) For an order
directing the UOI to
immediately ensure
that all compartments
of all trains be
retrofitted with one
E toilet Ill each
compartment which is
accessible Ill
accordance with the
Harmonized Guidelines
as revised and the IIT
F Roorkee accessibility
template by December
2017.

9) For an order
directing UOI to
G
conduct a
comprehensive
retrofitting of all the
toilets for disabled
persons at all the
railway stations to
H I
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 885
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
ensure that they comply
with the Harmonized
Guidelines as revised and
the IIT Roorkee
accessibility audit by B
December 2017.

10) For an order directing
the UOI to replace all
disability compartments
with comp~1rtments that C
are constructed m
accordance with clause
l l.7.2.2 of the
Harmonized Guidelines
by December 2018.
D
11) For an order directing
that the Chairman,
Railway Board, shall be
responsible for the
implementation of the
E
orders of this Court.

I 2) For an order directing
UOI to act in accordance
with the audits filed by
the petitioner in respect F
of the Mumbai Railway
Stations and to forthwith
retrofit all the Mumbai
railway stations in
accordance with the said
audits, the Harmonized G
Guidelines as revised and
the IIT Roorkee
accessibility template by
December 2018.

H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
7 10% of Ministry of Road -The statutes cover
government Transport & all public
owned public Highways has transportation as well
transpbrt issued as all bus depots and
carriers are to instructions to bus stands. The AIC
B be made fully the State and therefore deals with
accessible by Executive only a small fraction
.
March 2018. Director of of the work to be
organisations of done.
State ·
Undertakings to - The UOI status
c ensure 10% of report covers only
Government buses and not bus
owned public depots and bus· stands
transport is made (clause 10.3)
fully accessible
D to the PwDs by - The Harmonized
March 2018. Guidelines clause
11. 7.1 onwards
extensively deals
with public transport.

E - Delhi Goyernment
informs that there are
6350 government
buses and not 4352
as stated in the status
report. Only 3775 are
F
said to be disabled
friendly.

- The law requires
that all pubIi c
G transportation be
made disabled
friendly and not just
government buses.
The guidelines cover
tramps, taxis, mini
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 887
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
buses and three
wheelers as well. as
taxi and , auto
rickshaws stands
and car parking.
No mention · is B
made of this in the
status report.

- Efforts are
minimal. All bus
stations remain
c
inaccessible and
are nightmares for
disabled. No·
accessible toilets
provided. · No D
provisions for.
passengers using
wheel chairs and
crutches and
callipers to board
buses. No E
provision of tactile
footpaths, kerbside
cuts for wheel
chair users to enter
footpath&, no
auditory signals at F
red light crossings,
no engraved zebra
crossings and no
islands between
roads. Pedestrian
G
infrastructure
not included as
targets in AI
campaign. These
are covered
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
in the Harmonized
Guidelines Section
11 on Transport and
Road Planning which
covers sidewalks and
B footpaths, kerb ramps
at walkways and
pedestrian crossings,
road intersections,
median
refuge/islands, traffic
c signals, subways and
foot over bridges.
There is no reference
to these in the status
report.

D Directions sought

!) For an order
directing UOI, States
and UTs to:

E a) Ensure that all
government buses arc
disabled friendly in
accordance with
clause 11. 7 .1.2 of the
Harmonized
F Guidelines by
December 2017 by
induction of new
buses and the
phasing out of buses
that arc not disabled
G friendly.

b) To ensure that all
private buses
operating arc
disabled friendly and
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 889
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
that all other buss
are not permitted to
operate after the
deadline of
December 2017.
B
c) To retrofit all
bus stations and
bus stands
compliant with
section 10.3 of the
Harmonized c
Guidelines, inter
alia, in respect of
accessible boarding
points, directional
signs, toilets, seats,
shelter and ramps D
etc.

d) To ensure that
all public
transportation
E
operating from
December 2018 is
compliant with the
Harmonized
Guidelines.
F
8. Comprehensive - MeitY has - The 2016 statute
rev1s10n of informed that the requtres all
target deadlines Guidelines for websites to meet
under the Indian accessibility
accessibility of Government standards not just
knowledge and Website (GIGW) 50%. Instead of all G
ICT arc compliant to the websites of
Ecosystem. At WCAG2.0.* government
least 50% running into
of
and
central - *((WCAG),
state developed
thousands, the
status report only
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
government through the World covers the central
websites are to Wide Web government
meet accessibility Consortium's websites and even
standards by (W3C's) there are total
March 2017. At number of central
B
least 50% of the MeitY has further and state
public documents informed that governments
are to meet under the Content websites are not
accessibility Management disclosed. The
standards by Framework (CMF), Central
c March 2018. 100 Govt. websites Coordination
are mandated to be Committee
made accessible. meeting gives a
59 figure of 2,000
Ministries/Depts. central government
Have on-boarded websites that are to
D to CMF. Out of be made accessible
these, 33 websites under the AlC
are made Ii ve so (50% of the total).
far. Out of the blue a
magical figure of
100 central
E
govenunent
websites are taken
as an arbitrary
target and it is
stated that 33 are
F operational. This
will not even
amount to I% of
all state and central
government
websites in the
G country.

- Similarly, though
the AIC requires
only 50% of public
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 891
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
documents to meet
the accessibility
standards by March
2018 there is no
reference m the
status report to this B
compliance.
Moreover, the statute
requires all public
documents to meet
the accessibility c
standards.

- Although the
Harmonized
Guidelines do not
refer to accessibility D
of documents there is
no controversy that
documents have to be
made accessible m
Braille, electronic,
audio formats etc. No E
documents have been
made accessible in
India.

- The status report F
also docs not touch
on public television
programmes (target
7.2 AIC), telephone
and mobile based
services such as PCR G
100 number,
ambulance and fire
services etc. TV
programmes for
example require sign
H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
language interpreters,
close captioning,
audio descriptions
etc. Moreover, the
AIC only covers
B government
programmes, which
is wrong because the
2002 statute covers
public information
services provided by
c private parties.

Directions sought

For an order
directing UOI and all
D
the states/UTs to:

1) Made all the
websites accessible
m accordance with
E W3C web content
Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG)
by March 2018 and
accessibility audits
completed by June
F 2018 and uploaded
on the website.

2) To make 50% of
all public documents
issued by the central
G government and the
state governments
accessible including
all publications such
as laws, regulations,
reports, forms and
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 893
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
informational
brochures (taken
verbatim from the AIC)
by March 2018 in
accordance with the
Organisation for
B
Standardization criteria
that are found in
ISO/IEC 40500:2012.

3) To make the
remainder of all public
documents accessible c
by December 2018.

4) To make 25% of all
government
programmes on TV
accessible by March
D
2018 as stated in the
AIC.

4) To make all
government and private
TV programmes E
accessible in terms of
"daily captioning and
sign language
interpretation" as set
out in Objective 7 of
the AIC by March F
2018.

5) To make telephone
and mobile based
services such as PCR
100, Ambulance, Fire G
and other emergency
services according to
internationally
accepted TTY facility
by December 2017.
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
9. Bureau of The new version of - The standard to
Indian National Building be used ought to
Standards to Code of India be the
embed disability (NBC), has been Harmonized
B aspect m all comprehensively Guidelines read
relevant parts of updated in the together with the
revised National revised NBC and is revised NBC.
Building Code. released on 15
March 2017. This
would be
c enforceable once
the local bodies
adopt the same.

IO. The target of - A task force has - The figure of
D training been set up to 200 sign
additional 200 develop a module language
sign language on sign language. interpreters is
interpreters by farcical. Sign
March 2018. - ISLRTC plans to language
E train about 475 interpreters are
sign language required at least
interpreters (about at all major
75 trainers through places where
Diploma in Indian communication
Sing Language and dealing with
F Interpretation) and the public both in
400 others officials the public and
through short private sector
term training take place. This
programme. CRE will cover
(Continuous railway stations,
G
Rehabilitation major bus
Education) and depots, hospitals,
Workshops till airports, major
March, 2018. government

H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 895
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
ISLRTC 1s offices, large
developing a private sector
comprehensive offices, shopping
Indian Sign malls, large
Language (ISL) educational
B
Dictionary of about institutions and the
6000 words from like. If a realistic
various areas like assessment is made
every day words, of New Delhi itself
academic words, it is quite possible
legal, technical and that the number of c
medical words. sign language
interpreters
required for the
capital city alone
would be in excess
of 200. Moreover, D
section 17 which
deals with
inclusive education
requires the
training and
recruitment of E
teachers who are
qualified m sign
language. Section
42 deals with
access to
information
F
and
communication
services require
sign language
interprct.:rs for all
TV programmes. G
Thus the
requirement for
sign language
interpreters must
be assessed
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
realistically by an
expert group and
would probably run
into tens of
thousands for the
B entire country. It
must be
remembered that
deaf persons
constitutes 30% to
40% of the
c disabled population
and the actual
figure IS stimated
at a minimum of 13
million persons. In
the absence of sign
D language
interpreters in the
educational
institutions and in
the country they
remam at the
E lowest rungs of the
disability sector
and suffer almost
complete
exclusion. Their
performance m
F education and
.
employment show
this extreme
discrimination.
Hence the sign
language
G
interpreters issue is
one of the most
important human
rights remaining to
be implemented in
India.
H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 897
[A. K. SIKRI, J.)

A
- The status report
refers to ad hoc
training of
personnel. This is
most unsatisfactory
and is completely B
distinct from the
generation of
qualified
interpreters. Thus
even the target of
200 has not been c
met. The status
report shows that
not even one
interpreter has
qualified.
D

Directions sought

1) For an order
directing the
Rehabilitation E
Council of India
(RCI), the National
Association of the
Deaf to submit to
this Court a
reasonable estimate F
of the number of
sign language
interpreter required
in India.
G
2) For an order
directing UOI and
all states and UTs
to jointly establish
an emergency
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
arrangement
nationwide where
475 sign language
interpreters qualify
by March 2018 as
B stated in the status
report and 500 sign
language interpreters
qualify every year
thereafter until the
target of the
c estimated sign
language interpreters
required in the
country is met.

3) For an order
D directing UOI and all
states/UTs to create a
special cadre of sign
language interpreters
m the Union and
state cadres for the
E immediate
employment of the
sign language
interpreters who
qualify.

F General directions
sought

I) For an order
directing all states
and UTs to constitute
G
the Central and State
Advisory Boards
required to be set up
under Sections 60
and 66 of the 2016
Act.
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 899
[A. K. SIKRI, J.)

23. Vide orderdatedAugust9, 2017, this Court sought the response A
of the respondents in respect of directions which arc sought by the
petitioner and listed above. In compliance therewith, the Union oflndia
has filed affidavit on August 23, 2017. In this affidavit, the Union of
India has itself accepted the position under the Disabilities Act, 2016 by
mentioning relevant provisions of the Act in detail, which have already
B
been taken note of.
24. The Government has also pointed out that the Bus Body Coat
as notified by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide GSR No.
895(E) dated September 20, 2016 has been adopted, in the form of
Central Motor Vehicles (12' 11 Amendment) Rules, 2016. It is also
mentioned that in case of Information & Communication Technology,
c
the guidelines for Indian Government websites as adopted by Department
of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances are to be complied
with by all the websites of establishments. The Ministry is working with
other line Ministries/Departments to finalise accessible standards for
other facilities and services. Insofar as directions sought by the petitioner D
in his affidavit dated June 30, 2017 arc concerned, the Union of India
has given its response thereto in the following manner:
"(a) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 1,
it is stated that the State Governments are being regularly reminded
up to submit cost estimates for retrofitting for the release of grant E
in aid. 822 proposals have been received so far, however, funds
amounting Rs.84.32 crore for 385 buildings has been released.
For remaining, 437 buildings funds could not be released due to
technical errors in the proposals, pending Utilization certificates
etc. Cost estimates of 780 buildings are yet to be received.
Directing the States to submit the proposal within a period of one. F
month may not be practical since the States are required to get
their cost estimates done through their Executive Engineers of
Public Works Department. Further, the direction sought by the
petitioner to disburse the entire fund to the States within a period
of two months is also not feasible. During the current financial G
year, an amount of Rs.207 crorc is available under Central
Government's scheme called 'Scheme for Implementation of
Persons with Disabilities Act (SIPDA)'. Thus, release of funds
depends on the amount available with the Government at that

H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A point of time. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the
States to submit the proposal within a period of six months and
the Central Government would release the fund, ifthe proposal is
complete in accordance with the scheme within a period of two
months from the receipt of the proposal, subject to the availability
of the funds.
B
It is further submitted that it may also not be practically feasible
possible to direct the State Governments to complete retrofitting
by December, 2017. It may be noted that after sanctioning of the
proposal, the State Governments are required to float tender and
assign the work to the agency which may take time. Fmiher, the
c completion of work will take time. It may not be feasible in all the
cases to complete the work within a period of six months. The
States may be directed to complete the process of initiation of
retrofitting work by December, 2017.
It is submitted that the State Governments may be directed
D to conduct accessible audit after retrofitment so as to see whether
all the findings of the access audit report have been adequately
addressed or not.
(b) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 2, it
is stated that it may be appropriate to give three months time for
E the States to submit the list of 50% of the Government buildings in
all State Capitals as per target 2 of AIC. It may perhaps be
appropriate to advise the States/UTs to devise work plan to ensure
retrofitmcnt in these buildings by December, 2018 and conduct
accessibility audit as soon as the retrofitment work is over.
F ( c) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Numbcr3, it
is submitted that it may be appropriate to give three months time
for the States to submit the list of buildings in l 0 most important
cities as per target 3 of AIC.
( d) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 4, it
G is submitted that CPWD/Ministry of Urban Development is the
nodal Department for maintenance of General Pool Office
Accommodation (GPOA) buildings. CPWD has intimated that
out of 50 cities of phase I, 11 cities do not have GPOA buildings

H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 901
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

under maintenance of CPWD. For the remaining 39 cities, 75 A
buildings were identified, ofwhich retrofitting in 49 buildings in 27
cities have been completed and work is in progress for 9 buildings
in 8 cities. Retrofitting of all the 466 buildings within a period of
one year may not be feasible as it involves allocation of funds.
(e) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 5, it B
is submitted that Ministry of Civil Aviation has been requested to
carry out retrofitting activities as per extant guidelines/instructions.
The access audit report of llT Roorkee with respect to Indira
Gandhi International Airport has been placed on the website of
the Department.
c
(f) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 6, it
is submitted that the access audit report of IIT Roorkee with
respect to New Delhi Railway Station has been placed on the
website of the Department.
(g) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 7, it D
is submitted that Ministry of Road Transport & Highways being
the concerned M\nistry to take a view on the possibility of phasing
out. However, as per Section 46 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, the
service providers whether Government or private shall provide
services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated
by the Central Government under Section 40 within period of 2 E
years from the date of notification of such rules. Mostly the
passenger bus transportation is in the domain of State Governments.
It is for the States to take. a call in the matter. It may be appropriate
to direct them to comply with the provisions of Section 46 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016. F
(h) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 8, it
is submitted that with a view to help the State Government to
make their website accessible as per GIGW andW3C compliance,
DEPwD has issued a work order to ERNET India for 917 State
Government websites to be made accessible as per GIGW and G
W3C compliance. Now the accessibility standards has been
prescribed for websites and the document to upload on it under
Rule 15(1)(c) of the 2017 Rules.All the establishments are required
to comply with these standards.

H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.

A (i) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 9 no
specific directions has been sought. It may be noted that
Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for barrier-free built
environment for persons with disabilities and elderly persons issued
by Ministry of Urban Development has been adopted as reference
for accessibility norms and therefore only these guidelines are to
B
be mandatorily followed.

(j) With respect to the directions sought under Serial Number 10,
it is submitted that Rehabilitation Council oflndia (RCD has done
this exercise earlier with reference to order of High Com1 of
c Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6250 of 2010 - The National Association
of Deaf v. Union of India & Ors. Accordingly, the Department
has staited training of its officials to develop a pool of sign language
interpreters in the public offices. So far six batches of sign
fanguage training have been completed and about 100 sign
language interpreters have been trained. Status reports are bring
D filed in the High Court from time to time."

25. It is, thus, stated that though the respondent has taken
appropriate steps in respect of ten action points spelled out by the
petitioner and is attempting to fulfil the needs of such visually impaired
E persons in all possible manners.

26. This affidavit also refers to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Justice S11nanda Bltandare Foundation v. Union of India &
Anr. 8 wherein certain directions were given by this Court. It is mentioned
that while dealing with the compliance of the directions contained in the
F aforesaid judgment, this Court has passed order dated April 25, 2017
(reported as Justic'e Suna11da Bltandare Foundation v. Union ofIndia
& Anr. 9 ), as per which following directions arc given:

"25. We have referred to certain provisions only to highlight that
the 2016 Act has been enacted and it has many salient features.
G As we find, more rights have been conferred on the disabled
persons and more categories have been added. That apart, access
to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund
and the State fund for persons with disabilities have been created.
• (2014) 14 sec 383
9
H 2017 (5) SCALE 288
RAINE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 903
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and A
requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with
disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities, educational
institutions and the companies. The statute operates in a broad
spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights and provide
punishment for their violation.
B
26. Regard being had to the change in core aspects, we think it
apposite to direct all the States and the Union Territories to file
compliance report keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Act
within twelve weeks hence. The States and the Union Territories
must realize that under the 2016 Act their responsibilities have
grown and they are required to actualize the purpose of the Act, C
for there is an accent on many a sphere with regard to the rights
of the disabilities. When the law is so concerned for the disabled
persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law
exc1,,'Uting authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude.
The steps taken in this regard shall be concretely stated in the D
compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing
the States, a duty is cast also on the States and its authorities to
see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable
to the cooperative soCieties, companies, firms, associations and
establishments, institutions, are scrupulously followed. The State
Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the E
requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report so
that this Court can appreciate the progress made.
27. The compliance report to be filed by the States shall be supplied
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
Union oflndia as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/ F
intervenor so that they can assist the Court.
28. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order passed
today to the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators
of the Union Territories."
G
27. In respect of the action taken by the respondents as mentioned
in its affidavit dated August 23, 2017, the petitioner has furnished the
following comments:

H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
Sr. Petitioner's Comments to the UOJ response dated 23'd
No. August, 2017

1 I) tbe petitioner reiterates the time limits in the directions
sought (in Col. 2) for the following response:
B
• The original deadline of July 2016 under this target has
been extended by the Central Coordination Committee
(CCC) in its meeting on 29.11.2016 to December 2017.
(Annexure R-2 of tbe Action Taken Report of UOI
dated 14.12.2016)

c • The 2016 Act vide Section 46 requires that all service
providers, botb Government and private, make their
facilities, including buildings, accessible within a period
of two years from the date of notification of the
Accessibility Rules (notified in June 2016). Therefore
all government buildings providing any services to the
D public are to be made fully accessible by June 2019.

• Whereas Section 46 of the 2016 Act contemplates all
buildings and facilities throughout tbe cow1try to made
accessible by June 2019, the AIC targets very limited
number in Phase I, i.e. 1653 buildings. Therefore, the
E December 2017, set by the CCC ought to be adhered to
and the timeframes in tbe direction sought by the
Petitioner have been made with regard to the revised
CCC deadline.

2) The Submission by UOI that funds disbursal under SIPDA
F will be subject to availability is not tenable. The 2016 Act
nowhere contemplates the implementation of accessibility in
public buildings and services to be contingent on availability of
fimd in SIPDA. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the
accessibility provisions of the 2016 Act being mandatory, funds
as the required must be allocated by the Central Government
G from the Consolidated Funds oflndia.

3) It is further reiterated that after retrofitting the State Govt,
buildings, they should be audited according to tbe Harmonised
Guidelines keeping in view that the audits commissioned by
UOI prior to retrofitting were not according to the Harmonised
H Guidelines.
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 905
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
3 It is to be noted that as per the UOL Status Report elated
08.08.2017, only 7 States have submitted their lists of 10
most important cities/towns and not a single building has
been identified so far. Therefore the reason stated under
Target 1 above, Petitioner reiterates that the States be B
directed to identify the 10 most important cities/towns and
50% of the Govt, buildings in these cities/towns within 1
month from today and the retrofitting of these be
completed by December 2019 which is the revised
extended deadline set down by the CCC.
c
4 With regard to this target, the CCC in its meeting on
29.11.2016 has extended the deadline for retrofitting 466
Central Govt. buildings to December 2016. 8 months have
. already passed since then and only 49 building have been
retrofitted. The submission of the UOI that afl' 466
D
buildings cannot be retrofitted within l year because of
limitations in funds allocated cannot be accepted, As.noted
above the 2016 Act Vide Section 46 requires. all Govt.
service providers to make their facilities including the
buildings accessible by June 2019, which requirement is
not subject to allocation of funds. Admittedly 466 E
buildings under this target would constitute only a small
fraction of the total number of Central Govt. buildings to
be made accessible under the 2016 Act. Therefore, the
Petitioner reiterates the timeframe of July 2018 for
completing this target.
F
5 The Petitioner has brought to the attention of this Hon'ble
Court by its Affidavit dated 30.06.2017 of several features
in which the airports in the country are not accessible. It
may be noted that in its meeting on 29.11.2016, the CCC
had noted that the accessibility work done on airports was
G
only basic and that the Civil Aviation Ministry should
follow the prescribed template, i.e. HT Roorkee template
on the Govt, website would not serve 'its purpose reiterates
the directions sought with regard to this Target.

H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 12 S.C.R.

A
6 The Petitioner has brought to the attention of this Hon'ble
Com1 by its Affidavit dated 30.06.2017 of several features
in which the railways in the country are not accessible. In
pm1icular the Petitioner conducted a survey of the New
Delhi Railway Station which has been claimed to have been
B accessible by UOI. The Petitioner annexed a number of
photographs showing several critical featw·es lacking in
accessibility. It may be noted that 111 its meeting on
i9.l l.2016, the CCC had noted that the accessibility work
done on railways was only basic and that the Railway
Ministry should follow the prescribed template, i.e. UT
c Roorkee template for New Delhi Railway Station and not
pick out any clements therefrom. It is submitted that merely
placing the IIT Roorkee template on the Govt, website
would not serve its purpose and therefore the Petitioner
reiterates the directions sought with regard to this target.
D It may be noted that Section 41 of the 2016 Act provides for
7
comprehensive accessibility in all modes of transport
including but not limited to bus transpo11. Read with Section
46 and Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules, the UOI and the States
are to ensure that all Public transport systems including
E transport carriers and roads are made fully accessible by
June 2019 in accordance with the Harmonised Guidelines.
Therefore, the Petitioner reiterates the directions sought for
with regard to this target.

8 It may be noted that Section 42 of the 2016 Act provides for
F comprehensive accessibility in information and
communication services including audios, print and
electronic media. Section 46 read with Rule 15 of the 2017
Rules mandates that the same be completed by June 2019
throughout the country i8t 1s m this context that the
Petitioner has sought directions to have 50% of the Govt,
G websites, 5% of the public documents and 25% of all TV
programmes to be made accessible by mid-2018. The UOI
response only indicates that work orders have been issued
for 917 State Govt, websites but no timeframe for
completion has been mentioned. The earlier status rep011
filed by the Govt, indicated that only I 00 of a total of 4000
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 907
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

A
Central Govt. websites were being made accessible. It is
therefore, clear that only a very small percentage of Central
and State Govt, websites are being made accessible and then
too no timeframes have been given. With regard to the
public documents' and TV programmes, mere advisories
have been issued to the private and public broadcasters and B
to the Govt, departments for making their programmes and
their documents accessible but no timeframe have been
mandated for the same. More significantly, there is no plan
for either the Central or State Govts, to audit the
accessibility features of websites. Documents and TV
programmes after the accessibility work had been c
completed. It is iri this contest that the Petitioner reiterates
the directions sought under this target.

9 The Harmonised Guidelines being the repository for all the
accessibility guidelines m the built environment,
D
transportation and information and communication, the
same should be regularly updated keeping in view the
provisions of the 2016 Act and technological advancements,
vis-a-vis the needs of persons with disabilities and further
any work on accessibility should be done and fully audited
with respect to the updated Harmonised Guidelines. E
.

LO As per the information available with the Petitioner, in the
NADVs. UOI matter, the estimation made by the RCI of the
number of sign language interpreters required was only for
Delhi but did not cover the rest of India. It is reiterated that
Sign Language Interpreters (SL's) arc required at all major F
places where communication and dealing with the public in
both the public and private sector take place. This will cover
railway stations, major bus depots, hospitals, airports, major
govt, offices banks, large private sector offices, shopping
malls, large education institutions and the like. Compliance
with the mandate of Section 40, 41, 42 and 46 of the 2016 G
Act read with Section2 (f), i.e. definition of
"Communication" to include sign language would require a
large number of SLI's to be trained and available across the
country by June 2019 and the figure of 100 SLI's quoted
by the UOI would be highly inadequate to meet this
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A
I0 requirement. Therefore, the Petitioner reiterates the
directions sought that RCI be directed to make reasonable
estimation of the number of SLI's required in India and
thereafter for the UOl and all States and lJT's to make
adequate arrangements to train and make available 500
B SLl's every year until the target of the estimated SLI's in
the country is met.

28. From the foregoing discussion, following pertinent aspects can
be discerned:
c a. Ten action points which are enumerated by the petitioner, for
providing proper access to public facilities to the persons
suffering from visually disability, are now statutorily recognised
under the Disabilities Act, 2016. To put it straight, the
Legislature has east a duty on the executive wing for making
provisions in this behalf. This legal position is accepted by the
D
Union oflndia in its affidavit dated August 23, 2017. In this
affidavit, the respondent had itself mentioned various
provisions under the Disabilities Act, 2016 which mandate
the respondents to make provisions for these facilities. Not
only this, such provisions even specified the deadlines for
E undertaking these measures. Thus. it becomes a statutory
obligation on the part of the Central Government as well as
the State Governments to do the needful by the target dates.
b. Though, Central Government has taken various measures,
many State Governments have not responded at all.
F c. In Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation case as well,
this Court has given various directions from time to time. In ·
its order dated April 25, 2017, the States as well as Union
Territories are directed to comply with the provisions of
Disabilities Act, 2016 and to report to the Court about the ·
G progress made by them in this behalf. The Court is, thus,
monitoring the progress in this behalf in the said writ petition.
Having regard to the aforesaid position emerging on
record, we dispose of these petitions with the following
directions:
H
RAJIVE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 909
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

i. Making 20-50 imuortant government buildings in A
50 cities fulll'. accessible December 2017 (State
Govt. Buildings)
Since, this deadline is set by the AIC itself, this should
be met. In any case, as per the provisions of Section 46
of the Disabilities Act, 2016, all Government buildings B
providing any services to the public are to be made fully
accessible by June, 2019 which has to be adhere to.
ii. Making 50% of all the govt. buildings of the national
cauital and all the state cauitals fullI accessible bl'.
December 2018.
Though the deadline for identifying the buildings was
c
fixed as February 28, 2017, according to status report
dated August 8, 2017, only seven States have identified
the buildings. Remaining States arc directed to identify
the buildings by February 28, 2018 and it is made clear
that no further time in this behalf shall be granted. Insofar D
as deadline for retrofitting is concerned, the work should
be completed by December, 2018.
iii. Co111uletin11; accessibilitI audit of 50% of' ii;ovt.
buildings and making them fullI accessible in 10
most imuortant cities/towns of states/UTs not E
covered in targets (i} and {ii} bl'. December 2019.
Position regarding this action point is the same as noted
in respect of action point 2, namely, only seven States
have submitted theirlist of l 0 most important cities/towns
and not a single building has been identified so far. The F
States are, therefore, directed to identify 10 most
important cities/towns and complete accessibility audit
of 50% of Government buildings in these cities/towns
by February 28, 2018. Likewise, retrofitting of these be
completed by December 2019 as per the revised deadline
set out by CCC. G

iv. Central Govt. buildings.
Having regard to the comments given by the petitioner
in its affidavit dated August 23, 2017 on this aspect, time
frame ofAugust, 2018 is given for completing this target.
H
910 SUPREME COURI REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A v. Accessibility in airports. Completing accessibility
audit of all the international airports and making
them fully accessible ltv December 2016.
The demand of the petitioner that Civil Aviation
Ministry should follow the prescribed template i.e. IIT
B Roorkce template on the Government website appears
to be justified' which should be implemented as
expeditiously as possible. The Union of India should
thereafter conduct the accessibility and audit and upload
the same on the website by June, 2018.
c vi. Accessibility in Railways. Ministry of Railwavs was
required to make all Al, A and B category railway
stations fully accessible by July 2016. 50% of all
railway stations to made fully accessible bv March
2018.

D As is clear from the affidavit dated June 30, 2017 filed
by the petitioner, as many as 12 directions are sought
under this action point. Insofar as providing of various
facilities in the railway stations arc concerned, which
are listed by the petitioner, there cannot be any dispute
that the Indian railways is statutorily obligated to make
E those provisions. The petitioner has, however, sought
time bound directions for providing such facilities.
Wherever the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016
prescribe the deadlines, the respondent is to provide those
facilities within those time framework. Insofar as other
F facilities arc concerned, in respect ofwhich the petitioner
wants those facilities by specified period, we are not
fixing such a period. Instead, we direct that the
appropriate/competent authority in the railways shall
make an assessment in this behalf so as to ascertain as
to by what date(s) these facilities will be provided. Such
G a study can be undertaken and exercise be completed
within a period of three months and report in that behalf
shall be filed in the Court, chalking out the progressive
plan.

H
RAJNE RATURI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 91 l
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

vii. 10% of government owned public transport carriers A
are to be made fully accessible by March 2018.
Here again, Section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016
provides for comprehensive accessibility in all modes of
transport including but not remitted to the bus transport.
Therefore, it becomes the duty of the Union, States as B
well as Union Territories to ensure that all Government
buses are disabled friendly in accordance with the
Harmonized Guidelines. Likewise, the respondents are
duty bound to see that private buses also become disabled
friendly. Thus, we direct the Government to Jay down
the plan giving the dates by which the aforesaid task c
shall be undertaken, keeping in view the directions which
are sought by the petitioner in this behalf and the same
shall be filed within three months.
viii. Comprehensive revision of target deadliness under
accessibility of knowledge and JCT Ecosystem. At D
least 50% of central and state govt. websites are
to meet accessibilitv standards by March 2017. At
least 50% of the public documents are to meet
accessibility standards bv March 2018.
On this action point, the petitioner has sought five E
directions. Again, there cannot be any dispute that such
provisions have to be made as Disabilities Act, 2016 itself
mandates that. The only question is about the time
schedule. On certain aspects, AIC had itself mentioned
the target date. In any case, let there be a study F
undertaken in this behalf as well by the Union oflndia
and report be filed within three months stating as to by
what date(s) compliance shall be made.
ix. Bureau of Indian Standards to embed disability
aspect in all relevant parts of revised National G
Building Code.
It is expected that the respondents would regularly
update the Harmonized Guidelines keeping in view the
provisions of Disabilities Act, 2016 and technological

H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.

A advancement vis-a-vis the needs of persons with
·disabilities.
x. The target of training additional 200 sign language
interpreters by March 2018.
Needful be done in this behalf as well within reasonable
B time and the Government is directed to file an affidavit
within threemonths stating the time period within which
the same can be accomplished.
xi. As per the provisions of Sections 60 and 66 of the
Disabilities Act, 2016, all States and Union Territories
c are required to constitute the Central and State Advisory
Boards. In order to effectively implement the provisions
of the said Act, it becomes the duty of the States and
Union Territories to constitute such Advisory Boards.
Therefore, we direct these Advisory Boards to be
D constituted by all States and Union Territories within a
period of three months from today.
29. Matter be listed for directions after three months on receiving
reports in terms of the aforesaid order. In the reports to be filed, the
respondents shall also state the follow-up action taken during _the
E intervening period in the meantime.

Nidhi Jain Petition disposed of.