Facts of the Case

The matter before the Bombay High Court arose out of a suo moto petition initiated by the Court itself, along with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the accessibility issues faced by differently abled individuals, particularly at bus stops and public footpaths in Mumbai. The suo moto petition specifically addressed complaints about bollards—metal or concrete posts placed at the entrance of footpaths—which were obstructing access for persons with disabilities.

During an earlier hearing, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) informed the Court that it had removed all such obstructive bollards at the entrances of footpaths, thus clearing the way for improved mobility. Additionally, the PIL sought implementation of the “Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2021,” especially regarding public bus stops and terminals in the city. These guidelines, issued at the national level, require features like accessible routes from boarding/alighting points to walkways, along with standards for location, seating arrangements, shelters, and more.

The State Government had also submitted before the Court that it had formed a State Advisory Board on Disability and that meetings of the Board had taken place to discuss policies concerning accessibility and inclusion of persons with disabilities in public infrastructure.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioners, including public interest litigants and disability rights advocates, contended that Mumbai’s public infrastructure remained inaccessible to persons with disabilities, despite existing statutory obligations and national accessibility guidelines. They emphasized that bus stops and pedestrian walkways continued to pose serious challenges for the differently abled, thereby violating their fundamental right to accessibility, mobility, and dignity as guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

They sought the Court’s intervention to compel the authorities to implement the 2021 Harmonised Guidelines in full, particularly in relation to public transport infrastructure. They argued that non-compliance with these accessibility standards perpetuated systemic exclusion and that administrative assurances alone were insufficient without actual, enforceable action.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondents, including the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the State Government, claimed that corrective steps had already been taken. The BMC reiterated that all bollards at footpath entrances, which were obstructing access for the differently abled, had been completely removed. They further informed the Court that any individual grievances related to accessibility could be taken up with the Assistant Commissioner of the respective local ward office, and such grievances would be addressed accordingly.

The State Government placed on record the minutes of the State Advisory Board on Disability, stating that meetings had already taken place where policies aimed at improving accessibility for disabled individuals were discussed. The State maintained that there was a continuing effort to ensure compliance and inclusivity in public infrastructure and denied any neglect of the concerns raised by the petitioners.

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik acknowledged the submissions made by both the BMC and the State Government, especially the removal of bollards and the constitution of the State Advisory Board. However, the Court recognized that larger systemic issues of accessibility remained, particularly at bus stops and terminals, as highlighted in the PIL.

Taking a balanced view, the Court directed the State Advisory Board on Disability to expeditiously consider the grievances raised in the PIL, especially those regarding the lack of accessible infrastructure at bus stops. The Court stated that the Board must take appropriate action to ensure that the provisions of the Harmonised Guidelines are effectively implemented. Importantly, the Court also clarified that any person aggrieved by inaccessibility can approach the State Advisory Board for redressal, thus creating a formal pathway for addressing such complaints.

This direction serves both as a judicial reminder of the State’s responsibility under disability laws and a procedural route for persons with disabilities to seek institutional redress for accessibility-related issues.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai