Context

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) marked a pivotal moment in the interpretation and implementation of accessibility laws in India.
• By striking down Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, as violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court emphasised the incompatibility between discretionary rulemaking and the mandatory obligations imposed by the Act.
• Therefore, it is important to examine the SC judgment, the evolving concept of accessibility, and the structural and procedural reforms required to create a truly inclusive framework.

Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules, 2017

• It emphasises the need for awareness campaigns to promote the rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities.
• It directed the government and local authorities to conduct campaigns through various mediums such as television, radio, print, and digital platforms, while also leveraging educational institutions, workplaces, and other public spaces.

SC’s Observations on Incompatibility of Rule 15 with the RPwD Act, 2016

• Contrast Between the Discretionary tone of Rule 15 and the mandatory Language of Key Sections of the RPwD Act
  • The Court’s reasoning was on the contrast between the discretionary tone of Rule 15 and the mandatory language of key sections of the RPwD Act (Sections 40, 44, 45, 46, and 89).
  • Rule 15 served as the statutory basis for accessibility guidelines issued by various ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs' barrier-free environment guidelines and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways' bus body code.
  • However, the discretionary implementation of these guidelines undermined the mandatory nature of the Act.
  • By invalidating Rule 15, the Court rendered the existing guidelines statutorily ineffective, compelling the government to create minimum mandatory accessibility standards within three months.
• Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation: Complementary Concepts
  • The Court delved into the nuanced distinction between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, concepts rooted in the principles of substantive equality enshrined in the Constitution and international law.
  • Accessibility, as a right, focuses on establishing standardised environments from the outset, ensuring equal participation for all.
  • Conversely, reasonable accommodation addresses specific challenges faced by individuals in specific contexts, offering tailored solutions. These concepts are interdependent.
  • While accessibility lays the groundwork for inclusivity through universal design, reasonable accommodation bridges the gaps for those who encounter barriers despite these standards.

A Detailed Perspective of SC Observations on Evolving Thresholds for Accessibility

• Phased Realization of Accessibility
  • Accessibility is a goal that can rarely be achieved instantaneously.
  • Many jurisdictions around the world, including India, adopt a phased approach to implementing accessibility standards, balancing the immediacy of need with practical limitations such as resources and infrastructure.
  • The Court noted that while the current guidelines aspire to establish comprehensive accessibility over time, they fail to define enforceable baselines for immediate implementation.
  • This oversight often leaves persons with disabilities without essential accommodations in the present while waiting for distant reforms.
  • Canada’s model of phased accessibility was highlighted as an example.
  • Canada aims to achieve full accessibility by 2040, with periodic reviews every five years to assess progress and adapt to emerging challenges.
• Sliding Scale for Minimum Standards
  • The sliding-scale model suggested by the Court involves establishing a baseline of minimum accessibility standards and gradually raising this threshold at periodic intervals.
  • This model ensures that initial efforts focus on addressing the most pressing needs, such as physical access to public buildings, reliable transportation for persons with disabilities, and essential digital accessibility tools.
  • Over time, these minimum standards can be expanded to include more nuanced and advanced accessibility measures, such as integrating AI and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies into accessibility solutions.
• Harmonising Long-Term Goals with Immediate Needs
  • The Court’s emphasis on setting enforceable minimum standards does not undermine the importance of long-term goals.
  • Instead, it underscores the need to harmonise these objectives. While striving for universal accessibility, immediate interventions must prioritise sectors and spaces where the absence of accessibility has the most significant impact on daily life.
  • For instance, ensuring barrier-free access to healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and public transportation can provide immediate relief while laying the groundwork for broader accessibility reforms.

Structural and Procedural Reforms Towards a Truly Inclusive Framework

• Social Audits and Accountability
  • Section 48 of the RPwD Act mandates regular social audits to assess the impact of general schemes and programs on persons with disabilities.
  • Social audits play a crucial role in identifying bottlenecks, adapting to changing needs, and enhancing service delivery.
  • However, the lack of standardized guidelines for conducting such audits has led to inconsistencies, insufficient training for auditors, and limited awareness.
  • Clear, comprehensive guidelines are essential to operationalise social audits effectively and ensure targeted interventions.
• Simplifying Accessibility Rules
  • The bureaucratic complexity of earlier accessibility guidelines hindered effective implementation.
  • Conflicting mandates from various ministries, such as those governing sporting complexes, not only increased compliance costs but also delayed redressal for persons with disabilities.
  • The new guidelines must be clear, direct, and practical to address these issues.
  • A nodal authority, such as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, should oversee the coordination and adjudication of accessibility rules, streamlining the process across sectors.
• Broadening the Scope of Accessibility
  • The RPwD Act’s definition of barriers extends beyond physical infrastructure to include intangible challenges such as societal attitudes and prejudices.
  • This broad definition has reshaped the understanding of accessibility, emphasising the need for both tangible changes, like ramps and accessible transport, and intangible ones, such as attitudinal shifts through awareness campaigns and education.
  • The evolving nature of disability itself further complicates accessibility thresholds.
  • Disability is increasingly understood not as an inherent limitation of an individual but as a mismatch between the individual’s abilities and their environment.
• Digital Accessibility in a Changing World
  • The rapid development of digital technologies presents new opportunities and challenges for accessibility.
  • Tools like AI, IoT, and assistive technologies have the potential to revolutionise how persons with disabilities interact with their environment.
  • However, these advancements also require constant updates to accessibility standards.
  • For example, websites and mobile applications must be designed to meet evolving Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to ensure usability for persons with visual or cognitive impairments.
  • India’s approach to digital accessibility must align with global best practices while considering the unique challenges faced by its diverse population.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s directive to draft new accessibility guidelines by February underscores the urgency of reform.
• The participation of diverse sectors, including finance, technology, and transport, is critical to developing inclusive standards that go beyond social services.
• This aligns with both the legislative mandate of the RPwD Act and the market incentive to cater to a broader population base.
• A principle-based framework, periodic reviews, and effective social audits will ensure the accessibility ecosystem remains dynamic and inclusive.