Plea before Supreme Court flags lack of accessible homes for disabled persons

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Central government, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MOHUA) and the Ministry of Rural Development on a plea seeking mandatory accessibility standards in residential buildings and housing complexes for persons with disabilities [Prakash Narayan Andhare v Union of India & Ors.].

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by accessibility activist Prakash Narayan Andhare, an 82-year-old wheelchair user.

Andhare has sought the enforcement of the accessibility requirements under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The plea argues that Sections 40 and 44 of the Act make accessibility a mandatory requirement and prohibit the grant of building permissions, completion certificates and occupation certificates unless the prescribed accessibility standards are met.

"The Act is very clear that no establishment is to be given a building certificate or completion certificate unless it conforms to accessibility norms," the petitioner's counsel told the Court today.

The Court proceeded to issue notice in the matter, returnable in four weeks.

The PIL seeks directions to incorporate accessibility requirements into building rules and approval processes for residential construction across the country.

It also seeks a direction that no building or completion certificate, or permission to occupy a residential building, be granted unless the accessibility requirements are met.

The petition contends that residential buildings, apartment complexes and group housing developments across the country continue to be constructed and occupied without adequate accessibility features. This, it argues, leaves persons with disabilities (PwDs) unable to independently use their homes.

It points to architectural barriers such as narrow doorways, inaccessible bathrooms and toilets, internal level differences and inadequate circulation spaces, which can prevent wheelchair users from moving around their homes.

"Such barriers deny PwDs the ability to bathe, cook, move between rooms, or access different parts of their own homes. These are not minor inconveniences; they are the difference between living in one's own home and being locked out of it," states the petition.

It further argues that Section 2(x) of the RPwD Act expressly includes housing within the definition of public facilities and services.

The plea also highlights differences in the building regulations of various States. It argues that accessibility requirements for residential buildings remain inconsistent across the country.

While Kerala has extended accessibility requirements to apartment buildings and residential flats, Maharashtra's Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 expressly exclude private and public residences from the accessibility framework, the petition points out.

"The accessibility of residential housing for persons with disabilities is made dependent upon the State in which they reside, resulting in arbitrary and inconsistent implementation of a Central legislation enacted by Parliament," submits the petition.

The petition also draws attention to Section 37 of the RPwD Act, which provides for a five per cent reservation in the allotment of housing under relevant schemes and development programmes for persons with benchmark disabilities, with priority to women with benchmark disabilities.

It relies on the operational guidelines of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U) 2.0, which require States and Union Territories to make suitable provisions for ramps and other facilities to ensure barrier-free access in housing projects.

The plea argues that the reservation of housing for persons with disabilities would serve little purpose if the allotted houses themselves were inaccessible.

"Today, in India, a wheelchair user may be allotted a house that he or she cannot independently enter, navigate or use. Such a consequence defeats the very object of reserving five per cent of housing for persons with benchmark disabilities under Government housing schemes," said the petition.

The plea also relies on the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, in which the Court emphasised the need for mandatory and non-negotiable accessibility standards under the RPwD Act.

Advocates Ashutosh Senger, Rahul Bajaj and Sarah appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Live Coverage]