Delhi govt, DTC bent upon treating differently abled as non-existent, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently chided the Delhi government and Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) for treating differently abled persons as “non-existent”. The High Court also stayed the procurement of two thousand standard-floor buses, which are not disabled friendly..This interim order was passed by a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar on June 1 in the matter of Nipun Malhotra vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi..This PIL was filed by Nipun Malhotra through Advocates Jai Dehadrai, Shivangini Gupta and Siddharth Arora challenging the Delhi Cabinet’s decision of September 2017 to procure a fleet of two thousand standard-floor buses..The Court observed that the standard-floor buses not only exclude differently abled from accessing public transport but are also not very suitable for senior citizens..The Court delved into the reasons for extending the prohibition imposed on the Delhi government from procuring the standard-floor buses and mentioned each of these reasons in great detail in the order..The Court noted that India being a signatory to the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and having ratified this convention in 2007, is bound to discharge its obligations towards ensuring that the persons with disabilities face no discrimination..The Bench also made the legal position on this in India amply clear and said,.“The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act 49 of 2016) was enacted to implement the principles for empowerment of persons with disabilities as laid down in the aforesaid United Nations Convention”.Further, the Court adverted to the ‘Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons’ (Harmonised Guidelines). The petitioner had submitted that these guidelines drafted by the Ministry of Urban Development in February 2016 specifically provided for public transport to have “facilities to accommodate people with disabilities.”.Additionally, the Court also placed reliance on various judicial precedents in similar matters and quoted heavily from the Supreme Court judgement in Rajive Raturi v Union of India..In the said case, a visually disabled individual had filed a writ petition on behalf of differently-abled people and sought proper and adequate access to public places for them. Citing this judgement, the Court said in its order,.“[T]he court noted that in international human rights law, equality is founded upon two complementary principles, nondiscrimination and reasonable differentiation. The principle of nondiscrimination seeks to ensure that all persons can equally enjoy and exercise all their rights and freedoms. Discrimination occurs due to arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation. For example, when public facilities and services are set on standards out of the reach of persons with disabilities, it leads to exclusion and denial of rights.”.Senior Counsel Dhruv Mehta appearing for the Delhi Transport Corporation submitted that the buses sought to be procured have to be in compliance with the ‘Standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system’ as notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways..The Court, pulling up the Delhi govt for seeking to avoid its responsibility towards differently-abled persons, said,.“It is astonishing that despite the mandate of the United Nations Convention for Rights of the Persons With Disabilities, 2006; and the binding provisions of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016, the DTC can actually seek to avoid its responsibility placing reliance upon the Code of Practice for Bus Body Design and Approval by the Automotive Standards Committee.” .Questioning the respondents as to how persons using crutches, canes and walkers will climb the steps of standard-floor buses, the Court said.“[T]here are several people with medical problems in their limbs, especially knees, who face mobility difficulties. The standard floor buses with steps, impede mobility and exclude all of these persons from access to public transport. A violation of their Constitutional right and assurance under the statute of 2016.”, the Court told the respondents..It concluded that as regards accessibility to public transport, provisions of a special enactment like the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 would prevail over the provisions of a general law like the Motor Vehicles Act..However, the respondents also submitted that according to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajive Raturi, only 10 per cent of the public transport buses need to be low-floor buses (disabled friendly) and the current fleet of low-floor buses exceeds this 10 per cent requirement..Addressing this submission, the court said that it was a “grave misreading of the judgment” since the respondents were referring to the submissions of the government of India in Rajive Raturi and not the directions of the Supreme Court in the judgment..“We have extracted above, the clear mandate of the pronunciation of the Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. It is to be noted that this position is a grave misreading of the judgment. Para 26 of Rajive Raturi only extracts the submissions of the Government of India in its affidavit. The directions of the court are contained in para 34 of the judgment.”.The Court highlighted that this submission was in violation of the provisions of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and said,.“[I]f the court was to accept the submission that the respondents were only required to make 10% of the bus fleet accessible to the disabled and they were permitted to do so, how such 10% would be operated and how the disabled would know when a bus which was accessible to them was available? There was, of course, no answer forthcoming, as there can be none.”.It noted that this submission that only 10 per cent of the buses are required to be disabled-friendly, in fact, goes to show the reluctance of the respondents to acquire disabled-friendly buses..The Bench also stated that permitting the respondents to buy such buses would be in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court, and the High Court would thereby, be committing contempt of orders of the Supreme Court..Setting the next date of hearing for July 16, the Court precluded the respondents from procuring any standard-floor buses for now..Read Order: