Holding

Rule 15(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the RPWD Act because it prescribes recommendatory guidelines instead of the mandatory, non‑negotiable accessibility standards mandated by the Act.

Summary

The petition was filed by Rajive Raturi, a visually‑challenged activist, seeking directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities under the RPWD Act. The Supreme Court had earlier issued eleven action points in 2017, but States and Union Territories showed slow compliance, leading the Court to appoint the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law (NALSAR‑CDS) to assess the ground situation. The Court examined the NALSAR‑CDS report, international conventions, and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, focusing on the status of Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules. It held that Rule 15, as currently framed, contains recommendatory guidelines rather than mandatory rules and is therefore ultra vires the RPWD Act, which mandates a non‑negotiable floor of accessibility standards. Consequently, the Court directed the Union Government to segregate and prescribe mandatory rules within three months, in consultation with stakeholders and NALSAR‑CDS, while existing standards must continue to be implemented and penalties under Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 applied for non‑compliance. The Court also ordered compensation to NALSAR‑CDS and set a compliance reporting date.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 15(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 is mandatory or merely recommendatory
Whether Rule 15(1) is ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
What constitutes the non‑negotiable floor of accessibility standards required under Section 40 of the RPWD Act
Whether the Union and State governments must be directed to enforce penalties for non‑compliance with accessibility standards
The appropriate procedure for revising Rule 15 to separate mandatory rules from guidelines

Legislation cited

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017s. Rule 15
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016s. 100, s. 2(b), s. 39, s. 40, s. 41, s. 42, s. 43, s. 44, s. 45, s. 46, s. 89

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however, in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for University of Law was appointed to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40

Subjects

DisabilityPersons with disabilities (PWDs)Access to public spaces for persons with disabilitiesAccessibilityRight to AccessibilityUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInadequate accessibility measuresCentre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of LawHuman rightsDisable peopleReasonable AccommodationUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesInternational Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with DisabilitiesVisually challenged personsWorld Health OrganizationWorld BankEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeAccessibility JurisprudenceInternational JurisprudenceIndian JurisprudenceEuropean Court of Human RightsInclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights frameworkInclusion and equality for PWDsUniversal or inclusive designAccessibility guidelinesVisual impairmentsHearing and speech impairmentsLocomotor disabilitiesNeuro developmental disorders and learning disabilitiesAcid attack survivorsRight to HealthGuidelines recommendatoryMandatory rulesNon-negotiable rules

Judgment

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 970 : 2024 INSC 858

Rajive Raturi
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 243 of 2005)
08 November 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to
public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were
issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however,
in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for Disability
Studies, NALSAR University of Law was appointed to assess the
situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance
with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the
petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS.

Headnotes†
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40 – Right
of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 – r.15(1) – r.15(1),
if ultra vires the 2016 Act:
Held: Yes – Guidelines prescribed in Rule 15 are recommendatory
under the garb of mandatory rules – Rule 15(1) is ultra vires the
scheme and legislative intent of the RPWD Act which creates a
mechanism for mandatory compliance – Union Government to
delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within three
months from the date of this Judgment – This exercise may involve
segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines
already prescribed in Rule 15 – Union Government must conduct
this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders – NALSAR-
CDS to be involved in the process – Progressive compliance with
the standards listed in the existing Rule 15(1) and the progress
towards the targets of the Accessible India Campaign must continue
unabated – However, in addition, a baseline of non-negotiable rules
must be prescribed in Rule 15 – Once these mandatory rules are
prescribed, the Union of India, States and Union Territories are
directed to ensure that the consequences prescribed in Sections 44,
45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including the holding back of
*Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 971

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

completion certificates and imposition of fines are implemented
in cases of non-compliance with Rule 15 – Various principles of
accessibility to be considered while carrying out the aforesaid
exercise, enumerated – Union Government to meaningfully consider
the recommendations proposed by the petitioner and NALSAR-
CDS with regard to the existing legal framework, while reworking
the content of Rule 15. [Paras 76, 77]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Disability as
a Social Model– United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities – Universal and Inclusive Model
of Design – Goal, stated – Accessibility – Reasonable
Accommodation and Accessibility – Two-Pronged Approach
to accessibility:
Held: State cannot negate its duty to accessibility by relying
solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests –
Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for PWDs
to exercise other rights meaningfully – Accessibility requires a
two-pronged approach (i) that focuses on ensuring accessibility in
existing institutions/activities and (ii) that focuses on transforming
new infrastructure and future initiatives – Both are essential to
achieving true inclusivity in society – Explained. [Para 34-36]

Accessibility – International Framework – Evolution,
Recognition – Accessibility as a Human Right – International
human rights treaties/conventions – United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – r.9 – International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons
with Disabilities – Principle 2 – Universal Declaration of
Human Rights – International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights – Discussed.
Right to Accessibility – Accessibility Jurisprudence –
Foreign Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Indian Jurisprudence, stated –
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, 21.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – ss.2(b), 39, 40-46,
89, 100 – Chapter VI – Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2017 – r.15 – Rules for Accessibility – Scheme of the Act –
Inconsistencies between r.15 and the RPWD Act, highlighted.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40 – Right
of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 – r.15 – NALSAR
Report – Methodology in preparing its report, findings
972 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

summarized – Inadequate accessibility measures in various
sectors like Courts, Prisons, Educational institutions, Buildings
and Transport, employment etc., discussed.

Case Law Cited
Disabled Right Group v Union of India [2017] 12 SCR 988 :
(2018) 2 SCC 397; Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India [2016] 4 SCR
638 : 2016 INSC 412; Rajive Raturi v Union of India [2017] 12
SCR 827 : 2017 INSC 1243; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union
of India [2021] 13 SCR 823 : 2021 INSC 916; Vikash Kumar v
Union Public Service Commission [2021] 12 SCR 311 : 2021 INSC
78; Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 10 SCR
536 : (2014) 10 SCC 673; Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
[2024] 7 SCR 1489 : 2024 INSC 558 – referred to.
Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács (represented by Tamás Fazekas,
Hungarian Helsinki Committee) v. Hungary; Molka v. Poland,
application no. 56550/00; Zehnalová and Zehnal v. Czech Republic;
Botta v. Italy; Lárusson v. Iceland, [43] – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Finding Sizes for All: A Report on the Status of the Right to
Accessibility in India; World Health Organization and World
Bank, World Report on Disability (2011); 6 Fréderic Mégrét,
‘The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with
Disabilities or Disability Rights?’, Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2
(2008) : 507; World Programme of Action (WPA), titled ‘Equalization
of Opportunities,’ as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution
37/52, adopted on 3 December 1982; UN Standard Rules on the
Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities; Referred
to Francesco Seatzu, ‘Article 9 [Accessibility]’, in The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and
Giuseppe Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229; International
Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with
Disabilities (2019). Issued by Special Rapporteur on the rights of
persons with disabilities; Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment No. 14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard
of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000; European
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 973

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as
a human right for persons with disabilities; Michael Oliver, ‘If I had a
Hammer’, in Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and
Research, ed. Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer (Leeds: The Disability
Press 2004), 18–31; Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation
in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and
Non-Discrimination in Employment: Rising to the Challenges?’,
in Disability Law and Policy: An Analysis of the UN Convention,
ed. Charles O’Mahony and Gerard Quinn (Dublin: Clarus Press,
2017), 366; Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation and
Accessibility Obligations: Towards a More Unified European
Approach?’, European Anti-Discrimination Law Review 11 (2011):
11–21; Roma Bhagat and Associates-Accessibility of Courts in
India; Rajesh Deoli - The Court System Accessibility and Echoes
from the Mountains Districts of Uttarakhand; Mission Accessibility -
Addressing the need for Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
along with Access to Justice Checklist; Murali Karnam- Access to
Prisons; ASTHA -Present but Forgotten: CDS Report on Access to
Education of Children with Disabilities in Government Schools in
India; Enable India-Accessibility of Employment and Allied Areas of
Persons with Disabilities; Dr.Suman Kalani, SVKM's Pravin Gandhi
College of Law-A study of Lego/ Framework and its Implementation
About Accessibility of Public Buildings in Mumbai; Abhishek
Annica -Accessibility and sexual rights; Doctors With Disabilities:
Agents of Change (DwDAoC)- Focussed group Discussion Access
to health:Stories from Health Professionals with Disabilities; Vidya
Sagar -1)Accessibility Audit Survey for sports facilities in India 2)
Accessibility of sports facilities in Chennai; Right of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Amendment) Rules, 2023; Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(Amendment) Rules, 2024; Disability Rights Alliance -Accessibility
in Elections-2024.

List of Websites
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=
CELEX:52013IE3000

List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; Right of Persons
with Disabilities Rules, 2017; Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
974 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Disability; Persons with disabilities (PWDs); Access to public spaces
for persons with disabilities;Accessibility; Right to Accessibility;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Inadequate accessibility
measures; Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of
Law; Human rights; Disable people; Reasonable Accommodation;
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities; International Principles and Guidelines on Access to
Justice for Persons with Disabilities; Visually challenged persons;
World Health Organization; World Bank; European Economic
and Social Committee; Accessibility Jurisprudence; International
Jurisprudence; Indian Jurisprudence; European Court of Human
Rights; Inclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights
framework; Inclusion and equality for PWDs; Universal or inclusive
design; Accessibility guidelines; Visual impairments; Hearing and
speech impairments; Locomotor disabilities; Neuro developmental
disorders and learning disabilities; Acid attack survivors; Right
to Health; Guidelines recommendatory; Mandatory rules;
Non-negotiable rules.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of
2005
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 228 of 2006

Appearances for Parties
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Rajanmani, Ali Qambar Zaidi, Satya
Mitra, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Vikramjit Banerjee, K.M. Natraj, A.S.Gs., Shiv Mangal Sharma,
Gaurav Dhama, A.A.Gs., Lenin Singh Hijam, Adv. Gen/Sr. Adv.,
Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Nachiketa Joshi, Wasim Quadri, Sr.
Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gopal Prasad, T. Mahipal, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Susmita Lal, M.T. George,
V.K. Verma, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Raj Singh Rana, Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, V.N. Raghupathy, Amrish Kumar,
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 975

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat
Wali, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh,
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Siddharth Sinha, Mrs. Sunita
Sharma, Abhishek Atrey, Nachiketa Joshi, R.R. Rajesh, Wasim
Qadri, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,
Omkar Deshpande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Anil Nag, Shibashish Misra, Milind Kumar, Jatinder Kumar
Bhatia, Sandeep Jindal, Vishwanathan Iyer, Arman Sharma,
Ms. Shimpy Sharma, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Ms. Yeshasvi Srivastava,
Akshat Kumar, Advitiya Awasthi, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Ms.
Pragati Neekhra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sameer Abhyankar,
Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Sarthak Dora, Aryan Srivastava,
Anil Shrivastav, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Vikas Bansal, T.K. Nayak,
Daniel Lyngdoh, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Pooja
Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Amit Kumar, Abhishek Verma, Mrs. B.
Sunita Rao, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Sumeer Sodhi,
Rushab Aggarwal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Sunny Choudhary,
Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, C.K. Sasi, Ms. Meena K Poulose,
Gopal Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi,
Jogy Scaria, M. Yogesh Kanna, M/s. Plr Chambers & Co., Sahil
Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam
Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Anando Mukherjee, Akshay Amritanshu,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Swati Mishra, Mrs. Anil
Katiyar, Chirag M. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rajeeva Ranjan
Rajesh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. G. Indira, Gandepan, Sudarshan
Singh Rawat, Aravindh S., Abbas B, Ms. Tharanisre, Kanu Agrawal,
Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Bhuvan Kapoor, Piyush
Beriwal, Shashwat Parihar, Harish Pandey, Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
Krishan Kant Dubey, Apoorv Kurup, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar
Mihir, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Naman Jain, Ramesh
Babu M.R., T.G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Pai Amit,
Mahesh Thakur, Naresh K. Sharma, Shovan Mishra, Kunal Chatterji,
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay
Siddhanta, Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Govindarajan J., Arjun Garg,
Kriti Gupta, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Sahil Tagotra, Sujay Jain, Zoheb
Hossain, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh
Anand, Punishk Handa, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ashok Mathur,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Vishakha, Pramod
976 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Dayal, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Arvind Kumar
Tripathi, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Aniket Singh, Ms. Manisha
Ambwani, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Uday B. Dube, Naresh Kumar,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Prashant Shrikant
Kenjale, Ms. Sindoora Vnl, Ms. Thithikash Padmam, Advs. for
the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Table of Contents*

A. Background ........................................................................ 3
i. Genesis of the proceedings ....................................... 3
ii. Assignment to NALSAR-CDS .................................... 6
B. Understanding Accessibility ........................................... 8
i. International Framework on Accessibility ................ 9
ii. Accessibility as a Human Right ................................. 12
iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence ........................................ 14
C. Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged
Approach ........................................................................... 16
i. Integrating a Universal and Inclusive Model of
Design ............................................................................ 17
ii. A two-pronged approach to accessibility ................. 18
iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility ........ 20
D. NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise ............... 23
E. Inconsistencies in the Existing Legal Framework ......... 31
i. Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and
Rules .............................................................................. 32
ii. Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD
Act .................................................................................. 42
F. Conclusion ....................................................................... 48

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 977

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

“Disability only becomes a tragedy when society fails
to provide the things we need to lead our lives – job
opportunities or barrier-free buildings. It is not a tragedy
to me that I’m living in a wheelchair.”
– Judith Heumann

1. This judgment arises from a Writ Petition instituted in 2005 seeking
directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons
with disabilities.1 On 15 December 2017, this Court rendered a
judgement containing directions to all the States and Union Territories
with eleven action points. In view of the slow progress in complying
with the judgement, this Court appointed the Centre for Disability
Studies, NALSAR University of Law2 to assess the situation on the
ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility
standards for PWDs. We write this judgment in view of the report
submitted by NALSAR-CDS to this Court and the submissions filed
by the petitioner on the next steps to be taken. Submissions have
also been filed by the Union of India.

A. Background

i. Genesis of the proceedings
2. The Petitioner, Rajive Raturi, is a visually challenged person who
works with a human rights organisation. He instituted a Writ Petition
before this Court in 2005 seeking directions to the respondents to
take certain measures towards ensuring safety and accessibility in
public spaces, such as roads, public transport and other facilities
for visually challenged persons. At the time of filing the petition, the
legislation governing the rights of persons with disabilities was the
erstwhile Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The current framework
is governed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.3
3. By a judgment dated 15th December 2017,4 this Court, speaking
through Justice AK Sikri, identified eleven action points pursuant to

1 “PWDs”
2 “NALSAR-CDS”
3 “RPWD Act”
4 “2017 Judgement”
978 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the RPWD Act and the Accessible India Campaign for compliance.
These action points pertained to the accessibility of a range of
infrastructure, including government buildings, railways, airports, ICT
ecosystem and transport carriers. The Union of India, all States and
Union Territories were directed to file their compliance affidavits, and
the case was re-listed after three months. Most of the States and
Union Territories did not provide the required information and failed
to file their compliance affidavits within the period of three months.
4. This Court issued several orders directing the States and Union
Territories to provide the requisite information with details of the
status of completion and compliance reports. On 25 July 2018, this
Court noted that while the Union of India had filed its affidavit, the
response was not in accord with the directions in the 2017 judgement
and “lacked material particulars”. This Court stipulated a format in
which affidavits were to be filed by the Union of India, the States
and the Union Territories.
5. On 15 January 2019, when the case was placed before a bench
comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Abdul Nazeer, all the States
and Union Territories had filed their affidavits. However, this Court
noted that many States and Union Territories had not filed their
affidavits in the stipulated format or provided incomplete information
about all the targets; and in cases where information was provided,
it was not complete as target dates were not mentioned. The Court
took strong exception to this and opined:
“More than a year has passed since the judgment was
delivered The indifferent attitude of the States and the
Union Territories shows that they are not serious in
complying with the directions contained in the judgment.
It may be recapitulated that the directions which were
given in the judgment dated 25.07.2018 are simply to the
effect that provisions contained in the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the
said Act”) by providing necessary facilities to the persons
suffering from different disabilities, should be provided with.
The said Act specifically makes provisions for these
facilities. The said Act also sets down the timelines within
which these are to be provided. It is in the consonance
with the aforesaid provisions that directions were given
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 979

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

in the judgment and order dated 15.12.2017 whereas the
Parliament has passed an enactment which entitles the
persons suffering from different disabilities to get the said
facilities as a matter of right and the States and the Union
Territories cannot shy away from giving these facilities to
such persons.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Accordingly, the States and Union Territories were granted a final
opportunity to submit the complete information in the stipulated
format within three weeks. This Court directed that the Chief
Secretaries of States and Union Territories which do not comply
with these instructions to be personally present on the next date of
hearing. This Court also noted that the Union of India had failed to
submit a proper affidavit and granted an additional three weeks to
comply, failing which the Secretary of the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disability) was directed to be personally present.
7. This Court also recorded the prayers in an interlocutory application
seeking certain facilities for visually handicapped lawyers in the High
Courts and this Court. All the High Courts and the Secretary General
of this Court were directed to submit their response to the reliefs
sought in the application before the next date of hearing.

ii. Assignment to NALSAR-CDS
8. On 29 November 2023, when the case was placed before this Court,
it was noted that several orders had already been passed regarding
the poor progress made by the Union, States and Union Territories in
implementing the provisions of the RPWD Act. Therefore, this Court
was of the view that a comprehensive exercise was necessary to
assess the situation on the ground. Accordingly, the NALSAR-CDS
was directed to submit a report on the steps required to be taken in
accordance with the guidelines and the Accessible India Campaign to,
inter alia, make all State and Central Government buildings, airports,
railway stations, public transport carriers, all Government websites, all
public documents and the ICT ecosystem fully accessible to PWDs.
It was directed that the report be completed within six months and
the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Union
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment cooperate with the
NALSAR-CDS by providing necessary logistical assistance.
980 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9. On 12 January 2024, pursuant to an email sent by Professor Amita
Dhanda, Head of the NALSAR-CDS, this Court noted that NALSAR-
CDS had accepted the assignment. It was further directed that
the expenses which are incurred by the NALSAR-CDS shall be
borne by the Union Ministry of Justice and Empowerment, and all
reimbursements shall be made within a fortnight of the submission
of invoices. The head of the NALSAR-CDS was granted liberty to
chalk out the modalities for implementing the work, including engaging
requisite experts and field workers to carry out the exercise in the
States and Union Territories.
10. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the NALSAR-CDS submitted
its report, which is aptly titled “Finding Sizes for All: A Report on
the Status of the Right to Accessibility in India” to this Court. The
NALSAR-CDS conducted surveys, expert interviews and first-person
accounts to prepare its report and document accessibility barriers
across various spheres.
11. Before discussing the NALSAR-CDS report, we will briefly discuss the
underlying theoretical framework that governs the right to accessibility
and gives it meaning.

B. Understanding Accessibility
12. Accessibility refers to the design of products, services, environments,
and systems to ensure that all individuals, including those with
disabilities, can access, use, and benefit from them fully and
independently. This encompasses physical access, such as entry
to buildings and transport, as well as access to information,
communication, and digital platforms. It is essential for promoting
inclusion and enabling participation in all aspects of public life.
13. The World Report on Disability published by the World Health
Organization and World Bank stresses that inaccessibility within the
built environment, transport systems, and communication channels
severely limits the opportunities for PWDs to live fully in society.5
This inaccessibility leads to exclusion from education, employment,
healthcare, and public services, effectively reinforcing the social and

5 World Health Organization and World Bank, World Report on Disability (2011). See Summary, pp. 10.
The report provides the best available evidence about what works to overcome barriers to health care,
rehabilitation, education, employment, and support services, and to create the environments which will
enable people with disabilities to flourish.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 981

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

economic marginalisation of PWDs. Moreover, the lack of accessibility
exacerbates inequalities, as it limits the ability of PWDs to engage in
community life, and often results in dependence on others, restricting
their autonomy and opportunities for self-determination. This, in turn,
results in broader societal costs, as PWDs are often prevented from
contributing to the workforce and society, thus perpetuating a cycle
of poverty and isolation.

i. International Framework on Accessibility
14. The evolution of accessibility as a right has been influenced by
progressive international legal standards, which recognise it as
integral to the dignity, equality, and autonomy of PWDs. 6 The
recognition of accessibility within the international human rights
context highlights its importance as a prerequisite for the enjoyment
of a range of rights, fostering a shift from charity-based approaches
to rights-based ones.7
15. Accessibility is woven throughout the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 8 as a cross-cutting right,
reinforcing its critical role in achieving social inclusion. It is highlighted
in paragraph (e) of the Preamble, which calls for an environment
that supports full personal development and societal participation.9
Article 3 sets out accessibility as a general principle, which highlights
the necessity of removing both tangible and intangible barriers to
ensure that PWDs can fully exercise their rights.10 These barriers
can be physical, such as inaccessible buildings and transportation
systems, or intangible, such as discriminatory attitudes or inaccessible
digital content.

6 Fréderic Mégrét, ‘The Disabilities Convention: Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities or Disability
Rights?’, Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2008): 507.
7 Accessibility was a key element of the third goal of the World Programme of Action (WPA), titled
‘Equalization of Opportunities,’ as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 37/52, adopted on 3
December 1982. Another crucial document addressing the principle of accessibility is the UN Standard
Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1993 under Resolution 48/96, passed on 20 December 1993.
8 “CRPD”
9 CRPD, Preamble para. (e) states as follows: ‘Recognizing the importance of accessibility to the
physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and
communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental
freedoms’.
10 CRPD, Article 3.
982 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16. Article 9 of the CRPD11 is particularly significant as it sets out explicit
obligations for States Parties to promote accessibility as an essential
right.12 Article 9(1) mandates that States take proactive steps to
ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to public spaces,
transportation, information, communication systems, and services.13
This directive encompasses the development, implementation,
and monitoring of standards and guidelines that promote access.
Article 9(2)(a) elaborates on these obligations by detailing the areas
that require targeted action, such as ensuring that the design and
construction of buildings and public facilities adhere to universal
design principles.14 This commitment extends to digital spaces and
information technologies, reflecting the need for inclusive approaches
in an increasingly digital world. Accessibility under this article is meant
to influence both public and private sectors, encouraging a society
where all members can participate without barriers.15

11 Article 9 reads:
(1) To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life,
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal
basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications,
including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services
open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the
identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:
a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing,
medical facilities and workplaces;
b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency
services.
12 Referred to Francesco Seatzu, ‘Article 9 [Accessibility]’, in The United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, ed. Valentina Della Fina, Rachele Cera and Giuseppe
Palmisano (Cham: Springer, 2017), 229.
13 CRPD, Article 9(1).
14 CRPD, Article 9(2); States Parties shall also take appropriate measures:
a) To develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the
accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the public;
b) To ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public
take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
c) To provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;
d) To provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy-to-read
and understand forms;
e) To provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional
sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;
f) To promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure
their access to information; g) To promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and
communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
h) To promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and
communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems
become accessible at minimum cost.
15 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 4.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 983

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

17. Article 9 emphasises that accessibility requirements for urban and
rural areas must be all-encompassing, ensuring that measures
address the needs of diverse environments.16 While urban areas
may exhibit more advanced infrastructure due to better resources
and policy implementation, they can still present challenges such
as intricate layouts, insufficiently accessible public transit, and
overcrowded spaces that hinder movement. On the other hand, rural
areas frequently face a scarcity of basic facilities, transport options,
and services, creating substantial barriers for PWDs. Recognising
these disparities, Article 9 requires States to tailor their accessibility
strategies to suit the specific conditions of both urban and rural
regions.
18. International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for
Persons with Disabilities reinforce the critical role of accessibility within
legal systems, embedding it as a non-negotiable aspect of justice.17
Principle 2 emphasizes that justice facilities and related services
must be universally accessible, thus preventing discrimination and
ensuring that all individuals, regardless of disability, can fully engage
in legal processes.18 This includes adapting all modes of transportation
within the justice framework to be accessible, allocating financial
resources for necessary infrastructure changes, and embedding
accessibility in both physical and digital environments. Furthermore,
these guidelines call for procedural accommodations such as the use
of assistive technologies, sign language interpreters, and simplified
formats for legal documentation to remove communication barriers.

ii. Accessibility as a Human Right
19. The right to accessibility is not a new or separate human right,
but rather an integral part of existing human rights frameworks.
Accessibility is embedded within several international human
rights treaties, reinforcing its foundational role in ensuring equality
and dignity for all individuals, including those with disabilities. For
example, access to the physical environment and public transportation

16 Ibid.
17 International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities (2019). Issued
by Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities.
18 Ibid, Principle 2. Principle 2 lays down that facilities and services must be universally accessible to
ensure equal access to justice without discrimination of persons with disabilities.
984 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

is essential for the realisation of freedom of movement, which is
guaranteed under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights19 and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.20 Similarly, access to information and communication
is crucial for exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
as articulated in Article 19 of the UDHR. These rights are foundational
for enabling PWDs to live independently, participate in society, and
enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others.21
20. The European Economic and Social Committee,22 in its 2014 Opinion
on Accessibility as a Human Right for Persons with Disabilities,
recognized that Article 9 of the CRPD represents a human right in
itself.23 The EESC stated that accessibility is a crucial prerequisite
for ensuring the full enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social,
and cultural rights for PWDs.24
21. The accessibility norm, as articulated in Article 9 of the CRPD,
mandates that all individuals with disabilities have equal access
to facilities, goods, and services, providing them with essential
entitlements to ensure they can fully engage with and contribute to
society.25 This framing situates accessibility as an essential human
right that is indispensable for the realisation of broader social,
economic, and political rights.
22. Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental
requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities,
to exercise their rights fully and equally. Without accessibility,
individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society,
whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation
in cultural and civic activities. Accessibility ensures that persons
with disabilities are not marginalised but are instead able to enjoy
the same opportunities as everyone else, making it an integral part

19 “UDHR”
20 “ICCPR”
21 See also United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14
on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 12, 2000.
22 “EESC”
23 European Economic and Social Committee. (2014). Opinion on accessibility as a human right for
persons with disabilities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013IE3000
24 Ibid.
25 See CRPD, Article 9.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 985

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

of ensuring equality, freedom, and human dignity. By embedding
accessibility as a human right within existing legal frameworks, it
becomes clear that it is an essential prerequisite for the exercise
of other rights.

iii. Accessibility Jurisprudence
23. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has
consistently highlighted accessibility as a key issue in its dialogues
with State parties reviewing their initial reports. Accessibility has also
been a focal point in jurisprudence. In the case of Szilvia Nyusti,
Péter Takács and Tamás Fazekas v. Hungary,26 the Committee
emphasized that all public services must be accessible in accordance
with Article 9 of the CRPD. The State party was specifically urged to
ensure that blind individuals could access automatic teller machines
(ATMs).
24. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights27 has recognized the
importance of accessibility in its judgments, ruling that public buildings
should be equipped with facilities for PWDs.28 In 2022, EtCHR in
Lárusson v. Iceland recognized that accessibility falls within the
scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
which protects the right to respect for private and family life.29 The
case involved the lack of accessibility to cultural event venues in the
applicant’s municipality, which hindered his participation in cultural
and social activities, including attending events with his children.30
The Court acknowledged that accessibility is essential for individuals
with disabilities to live independently and fully participate in society.31
The lack of accessibility affected the applicant’s personal development
and ability to form relationships.
25. In Indian jurisprudence, several significant decisions have addressed
accessibility within the built environment. This court in a catena

26 CRPD, Communication No. 1/2010, Views of 16 April 2013, Szilvia Nyusti and Péter Takács (represented
by Tamás Fazekas, Hungarian Helsinki Committee) v. Hungary.
27 “EtCHR”
28 See Molka v. Poland, application no. 56550/00, decision of 11 April 2006; Zehnalová and Zehnal v.
Czech Republic; Botta v. Italy. The complaint concerned the applicant’s inability to access the beach in a
town that was not his hometown.
29 Lárusson v. Iceland, [43].
30 Ibid, [43-46].
31 Ibid, [46].
986 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of decisions has reinforced the principle of accessibility in public
infrastructure. In Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India,32 this Court
directed all educational institutions run or aided by the Government to
comply with their obligation to reserve 5% seats for the disabled and
directed them to report their compliance with the same to authorities
set up under the Act.33 This court also directed the setting up of a
committee to suggest measures on how the physical infrastructure
and methods of pedagogy adopted by educational institutions can
be made accessible to the disabled within the stipulated time frame.
26. Similarly, Justice A K Sikri in the 2017 Judgment grounded the right
to accessibility in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution,
emphasizing that access to public spaces and services is an essential
aspect of the right to life and dignity. This Court observed:
“The vitality of the issue of accessibility vis-à-vis visually
disabled person’s right to life can be gauged clearly by the
Supreme Court’s judgement in State of Himachal Pradesh
v Umed Ram Sharma (1986) where the right to life under
Article 21 has been held broad enough to incorporate the
right to accessibility.”
27. The inclusion of accessibility within the fundamental rights framework
ensures that PWDs are entitled to full participation in society under
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 upholds equal
access to spaces, services, and information; Article 19 guarantees
the freedom to move and express oneself; and Article 21 ensures the
right to live with dignity. Together, these provisions guarantee not only
formal equality but also substantive equality, which requires the state
to take positive steps to ensure that individuals can enjoy their rights
fully, irrespective of disabilities. This Court in a plethora of judgments
has repeatedly recognized that the right to dignity and the right to a
meaningful life under Article 21 necessitate conditions that enable
PWDs to enjoy the same freedoms and choices as others.34 Thus,
the right to accessibility is foundational, enabling PWDs to exercise
and benefit from other rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

32 Disabled Right Group v Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 397.
33 Ibid.
34 See Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, 2016 INSC 412; Rajive Raturi v Union of India, 2017 INSC 1243;
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v Union of India, 2021 INSC 916; Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service
Commission, 2021 INSC 78.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 987

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

C. Reaffirming Disability as a Social Model: Two-Pronged
Approach
28. The Social Model of Disability challenges the traditional understanding
of disability, which often views it through the lens of the Medical Model.
In the Medical Model, disability is seen as an individual problem or
impairment that needs to be treated or fixed. However, the Social
Model, introduced by disabled academic Mike Oliver in 1983, shifts
the focus from the person’s condition to the barriers they face in
society.35 It argues that disability is not inherent in the person, but
is created by external factors such as physical, organizational, and
attitudinal barriers. These barriers prevent full participation in society
and can be removed through societal change, promoting inclusion
and equality for PWDs.
29. The Social Model directly relates to the concept of accessibility. By
focusing on removing societal barriers rather than “fixing” individuals,
it advocates for accessible environments, services, and opportunities.

i. Integrating a Universal and Inclusive Model of Design
30. The goal of universal design is to create products and environments
that are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without
the need for adaptation or specialised design.36 Universal design
emphasizes the importance of creating environments, services, and
products that can be accessed by everyone, regardless of their ability,
age, or status. This approach is rooted in the belief that inclusion
should be integrated into the design process from the very beginning,
rather than as an afterthought.
31. Universal or inclusive design goes beyond just making things
accessible; it encourages creative and imaginative engagement
with the diverse needs of all users. This means considering not only
physical accessibility but also addressing social, informational, and
technological barriers. The objective is to eliminate environments that
disable people and replace them with enabling ones for everyone.

35 On the social model generally, see Michael Oliver, ‘If I had a Hammer’, in Implementing the Social Model
of Disability: Theory and Research, ed. Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer (Leeds: The Disability Press
2004), 18–31.
36 The 7 Principles of Universal Design were developed in 1997 by a working group of architects, product
designers, engineers and environmental design researchers in North Carolina State University (NCSU).
988 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

32. The RPWD Act and the CRPD both define “universal design” in
similar terms. Under Section 2(ze) of the RPWD Act, universal design
refers to the creation of products, environments, and services that
are usable by everyone, to the greatest extent possible, without
the need for specialised adaptation.37 This also includes assistive
devices and advanced technologies for specific groups of PWDs.
The CRPD expands its scope to include the necessity of assistive
devices for those who need them.38
33. When considering the design of products and services, it is
crucial to account for environmental and structural factors that
impact accessibility. For example, transportation systems must be
designed with features that cater to various needs - whether through
accessible vehicles, infrastructure, or communication systems. These
factors play a critical role in ensuring that all individuals, including
those with disabilities, can engage fully with public services and
transportation.

ii. A two-pronged approach to accessibility
34. Addressing accessibility requires a balanced approach that focuses
on both adapting existing environments and proactively designing
new spaces with accessibility in mind. A two-pronged approach is
needed - one that focuses on ensuring accessibility in existing
institutions/activities and the other that focuses on transforming
new infrastructure and future initiatives. Both are essential to
achieving true inclusivity in society.
35. The first prong focuses on ensuring that existing institutions and
activities are made accessible and inclusive for all. This approach
emphasizes the importance of retrofitting existing systems and
structures to meet the needs of PWDs, women, older individuals,
children, and other vulnerable groups. While retrofitting is important,
it is often more complex and expensive than designing inclusive
spaces from the outset.

37 Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, 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 for particular group of persons with disabilities.
38 CRPD, Article 2. “Universal design” shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons
with disabilities where this is needed.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 989

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

36. The second prong is about transforming infrastructure - rethinking
and redesigning physical spaces to accommodate PWDs. This
transformation involves reimagining public spaces, transportation,
educational institutions, and other facilities to ensure that accessibility
is embedded from the very beginning, rather than retrofitted later.
When introducing any new service, product, or feature - whether
physical or functional - accessibility must be considered at the
inception stage. It is far more efficient to integrate accessibility from
the start than to make adjustments later. By embedding universal
design principles into the core of our systems, processes, and
infrastructure, we can ensure that they are usable by all, making
inclusivity a foundational element rather than an afterthought.

iii. Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility
37. At this stage, it is also crucial to understand the relationship between
reasonable accommodation and accessibility, as both are essential
for achieving equality for PWDs. While accessibility generally refers
to the removal of barriers in the environment or infrastructure to
ensure equal access for all, reasonable accommodation is more
individualised.39 It involves making specific adjustments to meet the
unique needs of a person with a disability. In other words, accessibility
ensures that environments are designed to be inclusive from the
outset, while reasonable accommodation ensures that individuals
who face specific challenges can enjoy their rights on an equal basis
in particular contexts.
38. As highlighted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities in General Comment 6, reasonable accommodation is
integral to the principle of inclusive equality, acting as a facilitator
for substantive equality.40 The General Comment articulated the
relationship between reasonable accommodation and accessibility
as follows:
“22. Accessibility is related to groups, whereas reasonable
accommodation is related to individuals. This means that

39 Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities and Non-Discrimination in Employment: Rising to the Challenges?’, in Disability Law and
Policy: An Analysis of the UN Convention, ed. Charles O’Mahony and Gerard Quinn (Dublin: Clarus
Press, 2017), 366.
40 General Comment on Accessibility, CRPD/C/GC/2, para. 25.
990 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the duty to provide accessibility is an ex ante duty. States
parties therefore have the duty to provide accessibility
before receiving an individual request to enter or use a
place or service. States parties need to set accessibility
standards, which must be negotiated with organizations of
persons with disabilities, and they need to be specified for
service-providers, builders and other relevant stakeholders.
Accessibility standards must be broad and standardized.
In the case of individuals who have rare impairments
that were not taken into account when the accessibility
standards were developed or do not use the modes,
methods or means offered to achieve accessibility (not
reading Braille print, for example), even the application
of disability standards may not be sufficient to ensure
them access. In such cases, reasonable accommodation
may apply.
23 The duty to provide reasonable accommodation is an
ex nunc duty, which means that it is enforceable from the
moment an individual with an impairment needs it in a
given situation (workplace, school, etc.) in order to enjoy
her or his rights on an equal basis in a particular context.
Here, accessibility standards can be an indicator, but may
not be taken as prescriptive. Reasonable accommodation
can be used as a means of ensuring accessibility for
an individual with a disability in a particular situation.
Reasonable accommodation seeks to achieve individual
justice in the sense that non-discrimination or equality
is assured, taking the dignity, autonomy and choices of
the individual into account. Thus, a person with a rare
impairment might ask for accommodation that falls outside
the scope of any accessibility standard. The decision to
provide it or not depends on whether it is reasonable and
whether it imposes a disproportionate or undue burden.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

39. It is crucial to reiterate that accessibility is an ex-ante duty, meaning
that the State is required to implement accessibility measures
proactively, before an individual even requests to enter or use a place
or service. This proactive responsibility ensures that accessibility is
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 991

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

embedded in the infrastructure and services from the outset. The
State must establish broad, standardised accessibility standards
in consultation with disability organizations, ensuring that these
standards are enforced by service providers, builders, and all relevant
stakeholders. The state cannot negate its duty to accessibility by
relying solely on existing standards or waiting for individual requests.
For example, inaccessible information for a person with intellectual
disabilities would require reasonable accommodation (such as a
verbal explanation), whereas accessible information (e.g., in an easy-
read format) would eliminate the need for such accommodation.41
40. In such cases, reasonable accommodation may be necessary
only as a complementary measure to ensure equal access. The
duty to accommodate plays an important role in enabling people
with disabilities to challenge accessibility barriers in particular,
individualised cases. Compliance with the reasonable accommodation
duty for one individual with a disability can, in turn, enhance the
overall accessibility of structures for all people.
41. In Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission,42 this
Court also highlighted that reasonable accommodation must consider
not only the benefit to the individual but also to others in similar
situations in the future. Accessibility and reasonable accommodation
require a departure from the status quo and that challenges in
implementing such measures should not be seen as barriers to
inclusion. Complications in implementation are inevitable, but they
should not be used as an excuse to deny accommodations.
42. The RPWD Act and international frameworks such as the CRPD
emphasize that accessibility should be built into systems and
infrastructure from the outset. However, where this is not enough,
reasonable accommodation comes into play to tailor solutions to
individual needs. This dual approach ensures that all individuals,
regardless of their impairments, have equal opportunities and access
to participate fully in society. Both accessibility and reasonable
accommodation must therefore be seen as interdependent and

41 There is a ‘close and mutually reinforcing relationship’ between reasonable accommodation and
accessibility measures; See further Anna Lawson, ‘Reasonable Accommodation and Accessibility
Obligations: Towards a More Unified European Approach?’, European Anti-Discrimination Law
Review 11 (2011): 11–21.
42 Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission, 2021 INSC 78.
992 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

complementary, each reinforcing the other in the pursuit of full
inclusion and equality.
43. From the above, the following guiding principles emerge:
a. Accessibility is not a standalone right; it is a prerequisite for
PWDs to exercise other rights meaningfully; and
b. Accessibility requires a two-pronged approach. One focuses
on ensuring accessibility in existing institutions/activities often
through retrofitting and the other focuses on transforming new
infrastructure and future initiatives.

D. NALSAR Report and its findings: Sector Wise
44. Having discussed the theoretical framework to understand
accessibility, we will now briefly summarise the NALSAR-CDS
Report. The NALSAR-CDS employed the following methodology in
preparing its report:
a. The NALSAR-CDS reached out to the Union and State
governments, Union Territories, court administrations, and prison
establishments to gather details on their accessibility initiatives.
Responses were received from only fourteen States, three
Union Territories and the Union Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment. The remaining fourteen States and five Union
Territories did not respond;
b. NALSAR-CDS also gathered individual affidavits from PWDs,
including those whose impairments were not covered by the
RPWD Act Schedule. The studies and surveys conducted were
undertaken by individuals and organisations using their own
resources;
c. Expertise and lived experiences of PWDs were central to the
report. Various organizations conducted surveys on the right
to education, transportation, and sports to assess how access
impacts these rights. Law students contributed by auditing
accessibility in Mumbai;
d. To understand the impact of the existing accessibility guidelines,
NALSAR-CDS conducted interviews with accessibility experts
and organised focused group discussions with doctors with
disabilities. Additionally, expert opinions were sought on how
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 993

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

access affects higher education, and personal testimonies were
included to reflect the lived experiences of PWDs;
e. A draft of the report was shared for feedback with all contributors,
ensuring accountability and recognition of their inputs; and
f. The report was prepared using personal resources, and no
financial claims have been made to the Union Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment.
45. It is now necessary to look at the findings of the report. The report
mentions that the 2021 Harmonising Guidelines marked a significant
shift by including a chapter on “Accessibility, Diversity and Universal
Design,” broadening the focus to address all impairments and
recognizing accessibility needs for groups beyond individuals with
disabilities, such as children, the elderly, and those temporarily
disabled. However, the guidelines only briefly covered less-discussed
disabilities. The NALSAR-CDS documented these gaps through
affidavits from individuals with conditions like autism, cerebral palsy,
and ichthyosis.43 For example, individuals with autism emphasized
the benefit of subsidized communication devices, while those with
cerebral palsy highlighted the need for a register of scribes.
46. The report explored the intersectional nature of the right to
accessibility, aiming to demonstrate its impact on the enjoyment of
other rights. It emphasised that the right to accessibility cannot be
viewed in isolation but must be considered alongside other forms of
disadvantage, such as caste, sex, region, and religion. The report also
stressed the importance of addressing the compounded discrimination
that arises when disability intersects with these other factors. It called
for a more inclusive approach that takes into account the multiple
dimensions of vulnerability and disadvantage, ensuring that policies
and practices do not overlook these intersections.
47. The report pointed out that inaccessibility often leads to compounded
discrimination, creating additional layers of disadvantage for
PWDs, particularly when these individuals are also subject to other
forms of marginalisation. The findings emphasised the need for a

43 Ability Development and Inclusion (AADI), Muskaan, Action for Autism, National Platform for the Rights
of the Disabled, and Surbhi Meshram facilitated the filing of affidavits by individuals with cerebral palsy,
intellectual disabilities, autism, and sickle cell disease.
994 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

comprehensive and intersectional approach to accessibility that
recognizes and addresses these overlapping challenges.
48. The report found the following with regard to compliance in various
sectors:
a. Accessibility in Courts – NALSAR- CDS engaged Ms. Roma
Bhagat and Associates for a pilot survey assessing accessibility
in all High Courts. No responses were received from the High
Courts of Allahabad (both at Allahabad and Lucknow), Madhya
Pradesh (all benches), and Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
(Srinagar). The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) replied
after the data analysis, and Delhi High Court data remained
unvalidated. Out of thirty High Court benches analysed,
findings showed that accessibility for locomotor disabilities was
relatively better.44 However, only two courts had tactile guiding
strips and interpreters for the hearing impaired. Awareness for
intellectual and developmental disabilities stood at just 6.6%.
The report also referenced a separate study by Mr Rajesh Deoli
on accessibility within the courts of Uttarakhand, highlighting
additional challenges and needs. Moreover, suggestions
provided by Mission Accessibility were also noted, offering
recommendations on how courts could be made more accessible
for all individuals, including those with disabilities.45
b. Accessibility in Prisons – The report found that most states
claimed to provide wheelchairs, crutches, Western toilets,
prosthetics, and medical referrals to civil hospitals, with some
offering special diets and counselling. However, these facilities
were mainly available in central and women’s prisons, while
district and sub-jails were less equipped. Key systemic issues
identified include several shortcomings. First, many states do not
officially recognize all categories of disabilities as defined in the
RPWD Act, leading to underreporting and insufficient provision
of services. Second, District and Sub Jails are significantly
underserved. Third, there is a severe shortage of mental health

44 Roma Bhagat and Associates-Accessibility of Courts in India.
45 Rajesh Deoli - The Court System Accessibility and Echoes from the Mountains Districts of Uttarakhand;
Mission Accessibility - Addressing the need for Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities along with
Access to Justice Checklist.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 995

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

professionals in prisons. While at least 1,146 psychologists/
psychiatrists should be employed, only 69 positions have been
sanctioned, and just 25 are filled.46
c. Accessibility in Educational institutions – A survey involving
947 parents of children with disabilities across twenty three states
highlighted significant educational access challenges.47 While
56% of children were enrolled in primary classes, enrolment
dropped sharply in higher grades. Notably, 4% never attended
school despite being enrolled, due to reasons like schools
asking them not to come or inaccessible transport. Only 2%
of students could access school toilets, and many could not
participate in assemblies or receive mid-day meals. Just 17%
were provided with learning materials and 64% faced barriers
due to inaccessible formats. These issues contribute to children
with disabilities feeling marginalized and overlooked, even when
physically present in schools.
d. Accessibility in Employment – NALSAR-CDS relied upon a
report from Enable India which highlights barriers to employment
for PWDs, including those with benchmark disabilities and
high support needs.48 These barriers occur both pre- and post-
employment and vary based on geographic location and the
nature of impairments. Key barriers include inaccessible job
portals, lack of accessible educational facilities, and inconsistent
implementation of accessibility standards. Specific issues for
various impairments include:
1) Visual impairments: Inaccessible job portals and complex
application processes;
2) Hearing and speech impairments: Lack of sign language
recognition and inaccessible application methods;
3) Locomotor disabilities: Physical infrastructure barriers
and non-compliance with accessibility standards;

46 Murali Karnam- Access to Prisons.
47 ASTHA -Present but Forgotten: CDS Report on Access to Education of Children with Disabilities in
Government Schools in India, In Coodination with 40 Organizations.
48 Enable India-Accessibility of Employment and Allied Areas of Persons with Disabilities.
996 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4) Neurodevelopmental disorders and learning disabilities:
Rigid selection criteria and inaccessible assessment
methods;
5) Multiple disabilities: Need for inclusive recruitment
processes and practical assessments;
6) Acid attack survivors: Attitudinal barriers and lack of
sensitization.
e. Accessibility in Buildings and Transport – The report
emphasizes that freedom of movement, a fundamental right,
relies on both accessible transport and buildings. Accessibility
in transport is essential for disabled individuals to access
education, employment, healthcare, and social participation.
For example, in Delhi, 3,775 low-floor CNG buses make
transport accessible to wheelchair users, whereas Tamil Nadu
has only 1,917 accessible buses out of 21,669.49 Accessible
transport, such as buses with audio systems, enhances daily
activities like healthcare appointments for visually impaired
individuals. In contrast, inaccessible infrastructure, such as
pothole-filled footpaths, hinders mobility and safety. In terms of
building accessibility, a study by Dr Suman Kalani on Mumbai’s
infrastructure found mixed results.50 Newer facilities, like
Andheri Metro Station, meet accessibility standards, but older
buildings, such as the Bombay Art Gallery, lack basic features
like accessible restrooms. This disparity affects the ability of
disabled individuals to move freely and access opportunities.
For example, the Andheri Metro Station provides independent
commuting, while the inaccessible entrance of Krishna Curve
Shopping Mall in Santa Cruz limits business and employment
opportunities for PWDs.
f. Right to form relationships – The report highlights the
emotional and relational challenges faced by PWDs, particularly
regarding access to love, desire, and intimacy. Abhishek Annica,
a disability activist, emphasized that disabled life is often lonely
and alienating, with public discourse on accessibility ignoring

49 Yes to Access, The Association of People with Disability -Accessibility in Transportation Systems
50 Dr.Suman Kalani, SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law-A study of Lego/ Framework and its
Implementation About Accessibility of Public Buildings in Mumbai
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 997

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

private, intimate needs like access to sex and relationships.51
Emotional needs, such as privacy and self-pleasure, are often
overlooked, leaving disabled individuals, especially those living
with families, without private spaces to express these needs.
g. Right to Health – In the realm of health, significant barriers
persist for PWDs in accessing healthcare, primarily due to the
medical establishment’s pathologizing view of disabled bodies
and minds. A panel discussion highlighted the positive impact
of having doctors with disabilities in the healthcare system.52
However, disabled individuals still face significant obstacles in
becoming healthcare professionals and obtaining necessary
accommodations. Studies have revealed that many healthcare
services lack proper accessibility, and healthcare professionals
are often untrained in accommodating the needs of disabled
individuals. A Survey by National Centre for Promotion of
Employment for Disabled People found that healthcare
infrastructure is frequently not designed with accessibility in
mind, which hinders the ability of disabled people to receive
timely and appropriate care.
h. Participation in Sports – In sports, accessibility remains a
major issue. Only 21.4% of surveyed sports facilities had fully
accessible restrooms, with just 3.6% providing sensory rooms
for athletes with sensory processing disorders. 53 89.3% of
these venues lacked assistive listening systems. Additionally,
communication accessibility was limited, with only 7.1% of
locations offering captioning or sign language interpretation.
When it comes to digital access, only 25% of sports websites
were fully accessible, and merely 7.1% of apps met accessibility
standards.
i. Political Participation – while temporary accessibility measures
like ramps are erected during elections, these are removed
afterwards, leading to inconsistent access.54 The report stresses

51 Abhishek Annica -Accessibility and sexual rights.
52 Doctors With Disabilities: Agents of Change (DwDAoC)- Focussed group Discussion Access to
health:Stories from Health Professionals with Disabilities.
53 Vidya Sagar -1)Accessibility Audit Survey for sports facilities in India 2) Accessibility of sports facilities in
Chennai.
54 Disability Rights Alliance -Accessibility in Eiections-2024
998 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the importance of permanent solutions, such as permanent
ramps and facilities, to ensure reliable and ongoing accessibility
for PWDs, enabling them to fully exercise their right to vote.

E. Inconsistencies in the Existing Legal Framework
49. In addition to reporting on inadequate accessibility measures in
various spheres, as summarised above, NALSAR-CDS has reported
that there is an inconsistency in the legal framework, which lies
at the root of the slow progress. The report states that while the
RPWD Act creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a
set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, the Right of Persons with
Disabilities Rules, 201755 create a mechanism which only prescribes
self-regulatory guidelines. Therefore, the report states, that Rule 15
of the RPWD Rules, which contains the accessibility standards, is
ultra vires the RPWD Act. Further, it is contended that the situation
on the ground reveals that the absence of non-negotiable rules
and excessive reliance on guidelines, compromises the effective
realisation of accessibility rights.
50. With regard to this contention, Mr Colin Gonsalves, Senior Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules uses the
term “shall” and thus, all the standards prescribed under the RPWD
Rules are in fact mandatory. He seeks a declaration from this Court
to the effect that Rule 15 and the various standards prescribed in
the rule are mandatory. This entails, according to Mr Gonsalves,
that new establishments which do not comply with the standards
under Rule 15 cannot get clearances and old establishments
must be mandatorily retrofitted in accordance with these rules. Mr
Vikramajit Banerjee, the learned Additional Solicitor General, also
conceded that Rule 15 read with Sections 44 to 46 of the RPWD
Act prescribes a mandatory compliance framework. The Union has
also filed written submissions detailing the various steps taken to
comply with the standards prescribed in Rule 15 and towards the
targets in the Accessible India Campaign. These submissions have
been taken on record along with the compliance affidavits filed by
the States and Union Territories. In the following section, we analyse
the alleged inconsistency in the legal framework.

55 “RPWD Rules”
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 999

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

i. Accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act and Rules

a. RPWD Act
51. The RPWD Act came into force on 19 April 2017.56 The long title of
the Act states that it is “An Act to give effect to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto”.
52. Chapter VIII pertains to the ‘Duties and Responsibilities of Appropriate
Governments’. The term “appropriate government” has been defined
in Section 2(b).57 Section 39 imposes an obligation on the appropriate
government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner or State
Commissioner, to conduct, encourage, support or promote awareness
campaigns and sensitisation programmes in relation to the protection
of the rights of PWDs.
53. Section 40 pertains to “Accessibility” and states that the Central
Government, shall, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner,
formulate rules for “persons with disabilities laying down the standards
of accessibility for physical environment, transportation, information
and communication including appropriate technologies and systems,
and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and
rural areas.” The word “shall” indicates that the Central Government
is mandated to make rules laying down the standards of accessibility.
Section 40 must be read with Section 100 of the Act, which prescribes
the power of the Central Government to make rules.
54. Section 41 deals with one aspect of accessibility, namely, ‘access
to transport’. Sub-section (1) states that the appropriate government
shall take suitable measures to provide:
a. facilities for PWDs at bus stops, railway stations and airports
conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking
spaces, toilets, ticketing counters and ticketing machines;

56 Notification No. S.O. 1215(E)
57 Section 2(b) states: “(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
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.”
1000 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

b. access to all modes of transport that conform to the design
standards, including retrofitting old modes of transport,
wherever technically feasible and safe for PWDs, economically
viable and without entailing major structural changes in
design; and
c. accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons
with disabilities.
Sub-section (2) mandates that the appropriate government develop
schemes and programmes to promote the personal mobility of PWDs
at an affordable cost to provide for incentives and concessions,
retrofitting of vehicles, and personal mobility assistance.
55. Sections 42 and 43 pertain to “information and communication
technology” and “consumer goods”, respectively. Section 42 mandates
that the appropriate government take measures to ensure that:
a. all contents available in audio, print and electronic media are
in accessible format;
b. PWDs have access to electronic media by providing audio
description, sign language interpretation and close captioning;
c. electronic goods and equipment which are meant for everyday
use are available in universal design.
Section 43 stipulates that the appropriate government shall take
measures to promote the development, production, and distribution
of universally designed consumer products and accessories for
general use of PWDs.
56. Section 44 deals with the mandatory observance of the accessibility
rules framed by the Central Government under Section 40 and the
consequence of non-compliance. Sub-section (1) states that no
establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure
if the building plan does not adhere to the rules formulated by the
Central Government under Section 40. Sub-section (2) stipulates
that no establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion
or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered
to the rules formulated by the Central Government. Therefore, at
both stages – when the building plan is made and at the stage
of completion – mandatory adherence to the accessibility rules is
envisaged by the Act.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1001

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

57. While Section 44 deals with mandatory compliance with the
accessibility rules for all new buildings, Section 45 deals with the
“retrofitting” of existing public buildings to comply with the accessibility
rules within a prescribed time period, subject to extensions on a
case-by-case basis. Section 45 stipulates that all existing public
buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules
formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding
five years from the date of notification of such rules. The proviso to
sub-section (1) allows the Central Government to grant an extension
of time to the States on a case-to-case basis for adherence with this
provision depending on their state of preparedness and other related
parameters. Sub-section (2) states that the appropriate government
and the local authorities shall formulate and publish an action plan
based on prioritisation, for providing accessibility in all their buildings
and spaces providing essential services such as all primary health
centres, civil hospitals, schools, railway stations and bus stops.
58. Section 46 pertains to the time limit for compliance with the
accessibility rules by service providers. It stipulates that all service
providers – both Government and private – shall provide services
in accordance with the rules on accessibility within a period of two
years from the date of notification of such rules. The proviso to the
provision states that the Central Government, in consultation with
the Chief Commissioner may grant an extension of time for providing
certain categories of services in accordance with the accessibility
rules.
59. Section 89 prescribes punishment for contravention of provisions
of the RPWD Act or its allied rules. It states that any person who
contravenes any of the provisions of the RPWD Act or rules made
thereunder shall be liable to pay a fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees for the first contravention, and a fine which shall
not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five
lakh rupees, for subsequent contraventions.

b. Chapter VI the RPWD Rules
60. The RPWD Rules, issued by the Central Government, came into
force on 15 June 2017.58 At the heart of the issue before this Court

58 Notification No. G.S.R. 591 (E).
1002 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

lies Chapter VI of the RPWD Rules, which is titled “Accessibility”.
Rule 15, in its original form, read as follows:
“15. Rules for Accessibility. - (1) Every establishment
shall comply with the following standards relating to
physical environment, transport and information and
communication technology, namely:-
(a) standard for public buildings as specified in the
Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier
Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and
Elderly Persons as issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development in March, 2016;
(b) standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system
as specified in the notification of the Government of India
in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, vide
number G.S.R. 895(E), dated the 20th September, 2016;
(c) Information and Communication Technology-
(i) website standard as specified in the guidelines for
Indian Government websites, as adopted by Department
of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances,
Government of India;
(ii) documents to be placed on websites shall be in
Electronic Publication (ePUB) or Optical Character Reader
(OCR) based pdf format:
Provided that the standard of accessibility in respect of
other services and facilities shall be specified by the Central
Government within a period of six months from the date
of notification of these rules.
(2) The respective Ministries and Departments shall ensure
compliance of the standards of accessibility specified
under this rule through the concerned domain regulators
or otherwise.”
61. Rule 15(1) provides that every establishment shall comply with
the standards relating to the physical environment, transport and
information and communication technology, prescribed in the
subsequent clauses of the provision. Barring the requirement in
Rule 15(1)(c)(ii) which requires that the documents on websites be in
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1003

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

ePUB or OCR-based pdf format, all the other clauses in Rule 15(1)
refer to documents/guidelines issued by various Ministries of the
Union Government. Originally, these prescribed ‘standards’ were:
a. For public buildings – Harmonised Guidelines and Space
Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons With
Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Urban Development in March 2016; [Original
Clause (a) of Rule 15(1)]
b. For transportation – standard for Bus Body Code for
transportation system as specified in the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways dated 20 September 2016; [Item (i) of Clause (b)
of Rule 15(1)]
c. For Information and Communications Technology59 – website
standard as specified in the guidelines for Indian Government
websites adopted by the Department of Administrative Reforms
and Public Grievances, Government of India. [Clause (c) of
Rule 15(1)]
62. The proviso to Rule 15(1) provides that the standard of accessibility
with respect to other services and facilities shall be specified by
the Central Government within a period of six months from the
date of notification of the RPWD rules. Rule 15(2) stipulates that
the concerned Ministries and departments shall ensure compliance
with the standards of accessibility specified in the rule through the
concerned domain regulators or otherwise.
63. As required by the proviso to Rule 15(1), subsequent to the notification
of the RPWD Rules, additional standards have been specified by
various ministries of the Central Government. Amendments have
been made to Rule 15(1) and these standards have been included
as clauses to Rule 15(1). The standards that have been incorporated
by the amendments are as follows:
a. Standard for public buildings as specified in the Harmonised
Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India –
2021, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing

59 “ICT”
1004 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and Urban Affairs dated 27 December 202160 [amended clause
(a) of Rule 15(1)]
b. For ICT products and services – compliance with Indian
standards IS 17802 (Part 1), 2021 and IS 17802 (Part 2),
2022, published by the Bureau of Indian Standards. [item (iii)
in clause (c) of Rule 15(1)]61
c. Culture sector-specific harmonised accessibility standards/
guidelines, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry
of Culture dated 18 January 2023. [clause (d) of Rule 15(1)]62
d. Guidelines on accessible sports complex and residential facilities
for sports persons with disabilities, notified by the Government
of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Department
of Sports) dated 13 October 2022 [clause (e) of Rule 15(1)]63
e. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022,
notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Civil
Aviation dated 9 January 2023. [clause (f) of Rule 15(1)]64
f. Accessibility Standards for Healthcare, notified by the
Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
dated 4 May 2023 [clause (g) of Rule 15(1)]65
g. Rural sector-specific harmonized accessibility standards/
guidelines, as specified in the notification of the Ministry of
Rural Development, Government of India dated 26 June 2023
[clause (h) of Rule 15(1)]66
h. Guidelines on accessible and inclusive piped water supply
for persons with disabilities and for other population groups
with access challenges, as specified in the notification of the
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of
India, dated 2 August 2023. [clause (i) of Rule 15(1)]67

60 “HG 2021”
61 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 10.05.2023
62 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 13.07.2023
63 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 17.07.2023
64 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 21.07.2023.
65 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023 notified on 09.08.2023.
66 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023, notified on 16.11.2023.
67 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2023, notified on 02.04.2024.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1005

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

i. Accessibility standards for community toilets in Rural areas,
as specified in the notification of the Department of Drinking
Water and Sanitation, Government of India dated 4 August 2023
[clause (j) of Rule 15(1)]68
j. Guidelines for Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector, as
specified in the notification of the Ministry of Port Shipping
and Waterways, Government of India dated 8 November 2023
[clause (k) of Rule 15(1)]69
k. Guidelines on the accessibility of Indian Railway stations and
facilities at stations for differently-abled persons (Divyangjan)
and passengers with reduced mobility as specified, in the noti-
fication of the Ministry of Railways, Government of India dated
13 November 2023 [clause (l) of Rule 15(1)]70
l. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for MHA Specific Built
Infrastructures & Associated Services for Police Stations, Prisons
& Disaster Mitigation Centres, as specified in the notification
of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 2
January 2024 [clause (m) of Rule 15(1)]71
m. Accessibility Code for Educational Institutions as specified, in
the notification of the Department of School Education and
Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India dated 10
January 2024. [clause (n) of Rule 15(1)]72
n. Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education
Institutions and Universities as specified, in the notification of
the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education,
Government of India dated 19 January 2024. [clause (o) of
Rule 15(1)]73
o. Accessibility standards and Guidelines for the Banking Sector
specified in the notification in the Department of Financial

68 Ibid.
69 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on 15.02.2024.
70 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on 08.03.2024.
71 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 22.03.2024.
72 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 20.06.2024.
73 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 25.06.2024.
1006 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 2
February 2024 [clause (p) of Rule 15(1)]74
64. Therefore, at present there is a list of seventeen documents prescribed
in clauses (a) to (p) of Rule 15(1), which comprise the “accessibility
rules” that shall be complied with in accordance with the RPWD Act.
Further, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities
states on its website that more standards of accessibility are in the
pipeline, and are to be included in Rule 15 after necessary steps
are taken by the concerned ministries. These include (i) Accessibility
Guidelines for Bus Terminals and Bus Stops from the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways; (ii) Accessible Tourism Guidelines
for India from the Ministry of Tourism; (iii) Accessibility Standards for
TV programmes for hearing and visually impaired from the Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting; and (iv) Accessibility guidelines for
pension, other financial institutions and insurance sector from the
Department of Financial Service.
65. Rule 16 mandates a review of accessibility standards, and states that
the Central Government shall review from time to time the accessibility
standards based on the “latest scientific knowledge and technology”.

ii. Inconsistency between Rule 15 and the RPWD Act
66. The RPWD Act creates a mandatory compliance mechanism with
regard to accessibility rules. Section 40 states that the Central
Government “shall” frame rules which lay down the standards of
accessibility. Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 indicate that these rules
are mandatory, provide timelines for compliance, and prescribe
consequences for non-compliance. Section 44 stipulates mandatory
compliance of the accessibility rules by new establishments and
provides significant consequences for non-compliance with the
rules. At the stage prior to construction, it is stipulated that no
establishment will be granted permission to build the structure if
the building plan does not adhere to the accessibility rules. At the
stage after construction, it is stipulated that no establishment shall
be issued a certificate of completion or take occupation of a building
if it fails to comply with the accessibility rules. Therefore, Section 44

74 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024 notified on 02.07.2024.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1007

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

deals with the second prong of the right to accessibility identified
above – planning for the future and ensuring that new infrastructure
is accessible from its inception. Sections 45 and 46 deal with the
first prong, i.e. to retrofit existing inaccessible infrastructure to
ensure accessibility. They provide a timeline for compliance with the
accessibility rules. Section 45 lays down a timeline of five years from
the date of the notification of the RPWD Rules for making existing
public buildings accessible in accordance with the accessibility rules.
Similarly, Section 46 provides a timeline of two years for service
providers to comply with the accessibility rules. As noted above,
the RPWD rules came into force on 15 June 2017 and thus, the
timelines in these provisions have long passed.
67. The marginal note to Rule 15(1) states that it contains “Rules for
Accessibility”. Further, Rule 15(1) uses “shall” in its chapeau
indicating that the standards that follow in clauses (a) to (p) are
mandatory. Till this understanding of the framework, the counsel for
the petitioner, the Union of India and the NALSAR-CDS are all in
agreement. The next step, therefore, is to look at the content of the
various standards prescribed in Rule 15(1).
68. A perusal of the “standards” for accessibility laid down in clauses
(a) to (p) of Rule 15(1), in the form of the guidelines issued by the
concerned ministries, indicates that most of these documents do not
contain mandatory or non-negotiable prescriptions. The use of the
term ‘guidelines’ rather than ‘rules’ in most of these documents is not
a mere difference in nomenclature, but is evident in the content of
these documents as well.75 To better appreciate this, we may refer to
one of these standards, namely, HG 2021 which is prescribed under
Rule 15(1)(a). The stated objectives of this document are as follows:
“1.2 Objectives
[…] following are the key objectives of these guidelines:
1. Sensitize diverse stakeholders regarding the various
accessibility needs and provisions for diverse population
groups in the built environment.
2. Introduce and orient universal design perspectives to all
stakeholders for creating inclusive built environments for all.

75 Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 673 [15-16].
1008 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

3. Recommend specific built environment elements along
with their accessibility attributes and specifications.
4. Develop a holistic approach to accessibility through
integration of appropriate technologies.
5. Guide accessibility assessment and implementation in
built environments.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

69. The objectives extracted above indicate that the idea of the document
is not to lay down rules, which are non-negotiable and have tangible
consequences in case of non-compliance, but rather to merely
“sensitize”, “recommend” and “guide”. Over 400 pages long, the HG
2021 contains guidelines which are couched in the language of a
policy document. It uses discretionary terms, such as “recommend”,
“may”, “it is desirable for…” and so on while laying down the standards
of accessibility. It is impractical, as to how guidelines framed in such
terms, can be understood as “non-negotiable”, failing which certain
consequences follow under the RPWD Act, including no permission
to build, holding back of completion certificates or penal fines.
70. Similar objectives are found in the guidelines prescribed in other
clauses of Rule 15 as well. Illustratively, at random, we may refer
to the (i) Guidelines for Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector
issued by the Ministry of Port Shipping and Waterways; and
(ii) Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022.
The stated objectives of these documents are as follows:
“Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector
“The guidelines provided here are illustrative in nature
and not exhaustive. They intend to meet the immediate
requirements of Accessibility to ensure that the facilities
are made usable by the persons with disability and
reduced mobility. Besides these guidelines, the sector
specific detailed guidelines made by Experts such as
the guidelines on Accessibility Standards prepared by
Tourism and Travel Department, Transport Department,
Hotel Industry, Commercial and Industrial Department may
also be, to the extent relevant, relied upon and used at
different places in the Port, Harbours and Piers. To this
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1009

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

extent, these guidelines are not conclusive; but are open
to continual improvement.”
These guidelines can be used as broad guiding principles
for planning of Accessibility Standards at the time of
construction of Cruise and Passenger Terminals, Transport
Hubs in the Ports and harbours as also in retrofitting
the existing structures. To ensure that these guidelines
remain practical for implementation, salient features of the
guidelines have been discussed with the Nodal Officer for
Cruise Tourism and the other Stakeholders.”
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil
Aviation
This document is a foundation stone in achieving
accessible airports. It’s true success shall be seen in the
implementation at various airports resulting in more safe,
inclusive and convenient customer experience and we
believe that it will happen over time.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

71. The above extracts indicate that these two documents also do not
envisage mandatory rules and instead appear to be recommendatory
guidelines. The Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector are
conceived as “illustrative”, and “non-conclusive” and only as “broad
guidelines” for both new construction and retrofitting. It is difficult to
fathom how a document which is only illustrative and contains broad
guidelines, can be mandatorily enforced, with consequences such
as fines and withholding of completion certificates. Similarly, the
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation also indicate
that they seek to be achieved “over time”. As noted above, Section
44, which deals with new buildings, requires immediate compliance
and Sections 45 and 46, which deal with existing infrastructure
prescribe fixed timelines. Guidelines which are aspirational and require
compliance “over time” run contrary to this legislative intent. Some
other guidelines and documents prescribed in Rule 15(1), do state
that they are “mandatory codes”, however, this segregation between
mandatory and discretionary guidelines has not been carried out.
72. Further, not only do several of these documents themselves state
that they are guidelines or aspirational principles, but the NALSAR-
1010 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

CDS report indicates that even if this nomenclature is ignored, they
cannot be practically enforced as mandatory rules. This is because
inter alia several of these guidelines contain different standards
for the same or similar accessibility requirements and allegedly
contain technical errors. For instance, with regard to “accessible
toilets”, almost all the guidelines contain different requirements –
both in terms of requirements and measurements. For instance,
there is a difference in the requirements stipulated in HG 2021 and
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation with regard
to accessible toilets.76 It is difficult to fathom, therefore, which of the
two requirements is “mandatory” to follow.
73. It is trite law that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative
functions to the delegated authority. The legislature can entrust
subsidiary or ancillary legislation to the delegate. However, before
such delegation, the legislature should enunciate the policy and the
principles for the guidance of the delegated authority. As a corollary,
the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions
within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be
consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond
the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.77
74. Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable
compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. While the
intention of the RPWD Act to use compulsion is clear, the RPWD Rules
have transformed into self-regulation by way of delegated legislation.
The absence of compulsion in the Rules is contrary to the intent of
the RPWD Act. While Rule 15 creates an aspirational ceiling, through
the guidelines prescribed by it, it is unable to perform the function
entrusted to it by the RPWD Act, i.e., to create a non-negotiable floor.
A ceiling without a floor is hardly a sturdy structure. While it is true
that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this
cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that
must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by
the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be
done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of
it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative
intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act.

76 See Table 4.1, HG 2021.
77 Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 558 [27-29].
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1011

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.

F. Conclusion
75. In view of the above, we hold that several of the guidelines prescribed
in Rule 15, appear to be recommendatory guidelines, under the garb
of mandatory rules. Rule 15(1) is thus ultra vires the scheme and
legislative intent of the RPWD Act which creates a mechanism for
mandatory compliance. Creating a minimum floor of accessibility
cannot be left to the altar of “progressive realization”.
76. The Union Government is, accordingly, directed to delineate
mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three
months from the date of this Judgment. This exercise may involve
segregating the non-negotiable rules from the expansive guidelines
already prescribed in Rule 15. The Union Government must conduct
this exercise in consultation with all stakeholders, and NALSAR-
CDS is directed to be involved in the process. It is clarified that
progressive compliance with the standards listed in the existing Rule
15(1) and the progress towards the targets of the Accessible India
Campaign must continue unabated. However, in addition, a baseline of
non-negotiable rules must be prescribed in Rule 15.
77. Once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the Union of India, States
and Union Territories are directed to ensure that the consequences
prescribed in Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPWD Act, including
the holding back of completion certificates and imposition of fines
are implemented in cases of non-compliance with Rule 15.
78. The following principles of accessibility should be considered while
carrying out the above exercise:
a. Universal Design: The rules should prioritize universal design
principles, making spaces and services usable by all individuals
to the greatest extent possible, without requiring adaptations
or specialized design;
b. Comprehensive Inclusion Across Disabilities: Rules should
cover a wide range of disabilities including physical, sensory,
intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities. This includes
provisions for specific conditions such as autism, cerebral
palsy, intellectual disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, sickle
cell disease, and ichthyosis;
1012 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

c. Assistive Technology Integration: Mandating the integration
of assistive and adaptive technologies, such as screen readers,
audio descriptions, and accessible digital interfaces, to ensure
digital and informational accessibility across public and private
platforms; and
d. Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation: This process should
involve continuous consultation with persons with disabilities
and advocacy organizations to incorporate lived experiences
and practical insights.
79. The Petitioner and NALSAR CDS have proposed a series of
recommendations with regard to the existing legal framework.
The Union Government is directed to meaningfully consider these
recommendations while reworking the content of Rule 15.
80. NALSAR-CDS states that the report has been prepared using their
own resources, and no financial claims have been made to the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment. Annexure II of the NALSAR-
CDS Report indicates that it has been prepared over a period of
six months, after consulting fifty-two experts, receiving reports from
fourteen states and three Union Territories, and with over hundred
reports from organizations and individual testimonies. As the report
states, it is “a present-day example of creating a knowledge commons.”
This Court records its appreciation for and is cognizant of the labour
of time, effort, and resources expended by the NALSAR-CDS in
preparing this report. Accordingly, the Union of India in the Ministry
of Social Justice and Empowerment is directed to pay NALSAR-CDS
an amount of INR 50,00,000 as compensation for the work, which
was carried out in a timely and comprehensive manner. The amount
shall be disbursed to NALSAR-CDS no later than 15 December 2024.
81. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are adjourned to 7 March
2025 on which date, the Union Government must report compliance
to this Court.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey