Supreme Court orders RPWD Rules to be made mandatory to ensure accessibility for disabled

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Union government to address inconsistencies in the existing legal framework on accessibility rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act and Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 [Rajive Raturi v Union of India and Ors].A Bench of Justice Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the direction on the basis of a report submitted by the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR University of Law (NALSAR-CDS).While RPWD Act creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance with a set of non-negotiable accessibility rules, the 2017 RPWD Rules create a mechanism which only prescribes self-regulatory guidelines which are not mandatory, the report pointed out."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”," the Court said in the decision..The directions were passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by a human rights activist, Rajive Raturi, who is also visually challenged person.The petitioner sought proper and adequate access to public places, particularly full accessibility requirements to meet the needs of visually-disabled persons in public places, roads, and transport facilities.The Supreme Court had earlier issued 11 guidelines in this regard..In its judgment delivered on Friday, the Court noted that Section 40 of RPWD Act mandates the Centre to formulate rules on the standards of accessibility pertaining to physical environment, transportation, information and communication technologies and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas.The 2017 Rules provide that every establishment shall comply with the prescribed standards. Under the Rules, additional standards have been specified by various ministries of the Central government. .The Court found the various standards issued by the ministries under the 2017 Rules to be in the form of the guidelines. Most of the documents do not contain mandatory or non-negotiable prescriptions, it said."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," it added.The Court observed that 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, the Court held."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," the Court said..Accordingly, the Court directed the Union government to delineate mandatory rules, as required by Section 40, within a period of three months."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," ordered the Court..The Court further directed that once these mandatory rules are prescribed, the authorities across India shall ensure that the consequences prescribed for non-compliance, including the holding back of completion certificates of building and imposition of fines, are implemented..Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with advocate Satya Mitra appeared for the petitioner.Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union government..[Read Judgment]