Supreme Court of India Affirms Accessibility as a Fundamental Right, Mandates Full Compliance under RPWD Act: “Accessibility is a Binding Obligation, Not an Option”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India emphasized accessibility as an integral part of the right to life and dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, affirming it as a fundamental right for persons with disabilities (PWDs). The Court directed mandatory compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), particularly Section 40, which mandates accessibility standards across physical spaces, information technology, and public transport. The judgment reiterates that failure to meet accessibility standards will result in penalties, reinforcing the RPWD Act’s non-negotiable nature.

Facts

The case originated from a 2005 petition filed by a visually impaired petitioner seeking directions for accessible public spaces for PWDs, with an emphasis on roads, transport, and public buildings. After slow compliance with a 2017 judgment, the Court appointed NALSAR University’s Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) to assess the status of accessibility compliance and recommend improvements. The report submitted by NALSAR-CDS highlighted severe gaps in accessibility compliance across states and sectors, urging a reevaluation of implementation strategies.

Issues

1. Whether the RPWD Act’s accessibility standards are mandatory for all public and private establishments.
2. Whether the accessibility rules under Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules 2017 are binding, despite being titled as guidelines.
3. The role of accessibility in ensuring the fundamental rights of PWDs under the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the RPWD Act mandates compliance with accessibility standards for all establishments and sought a declarative order making Rule 15 mandatory. The petitioner emphasized that the Court should issue directives that only permit construction of compliant buildings and enforce retrofitting of existing structures to meet accessibility standards. It was also contended that delays in accessibility measures result in systematic discrimination, violating the fundamental rights of PWDs.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India contended that accessibility standards should be progressively implemented, balancing current infrastructure and budgetary limitations. The respondents acknowledged the mandatory language in Rule 15, agreeing that compliance is essential but argued for realistic timelines for phased implementation.

Analysis of the Law

The RPWD Act mandates accessibility as a statutory requirement, with specific provisions for new and existing structures. Section 44 requires all new constructions to follow accessibility standards, while Sections 45 and 46 mandate retrofitting and timelines for compliance. Rule 15, which lists accessibility standards, was scrutinized for its non-mandatory language. The Court noted that accessibility guidelines must have a mandatory character to align with the Act’s intent, despite being termed as “guidelines.”

Precedent Analysis

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, the Supreme Court recognized accessibility as an aspect of the right to life. Additionally, Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India reinforced accessibility in educational settings, and Vikash Kumar v. UPSC underscored reasonable accommodations as essential to ensure equality for PWDs. These precedents supported the interpretation of accessibility as a legally enforceable standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court concluded that accessibility provisions in the RPWD Act must be interpreted as binding obligations, not optional guidelines. It underscored that accessibility is foundational for PWDs to exercise other constitutional rights. The judgment emphasized a proactive duty on the State to ensure accessibility standards are embedded from inception in all public services and facilities. The Court held that the RPWD Act’s provisions are ex-ante duties, obligating the government to eliminate barriers proactively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court directed full compliance with accessibility standards, affirming the RPWD Act’s mandatory nature. It mandated retrofitting of existing structures and refused completion certificates for new constructions not meeting accessibility norms. The Court reiterated the government’s duty to uphold PWDs’ rights to dignity and autonomy.

Implications

This landmark judgment solidifies accessibility as a non-negotiable right and imposes stringent obligations on public and private sectors to comply with accessibility standards. The ruling is anticipated to drive substantial reforms in the design of public spaces, digital accessibility, and service delivery, ensuring that PWDs have equal opportunities and access across India.

Also Read – Supreme Court Remands Partnership Dissolution Case, Citing Lack of Procedural Fairness and Need for Cross-Examination on Profit Sharing Post-Dissolution Under Section 37 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932