JAYANT SINGH RAGHAV vs THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.02.2025
+ W.P.(C) 7642/2022, CM APPL. 12458/2024 (for Restoration) CM APPL. 59114/2024

JAYANT SINGH RAGHAV …..Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Mr T. Singhdev, Mr Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr Tanishq Srivastava, Mr Sourabh Kumar, Mr Bhanu Gulati, Mr Anum Hussain, Ms Yamini Singh and Ms Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates.
Mr Abhinav Singh and Mr Praveen Kumar Kaushik, Advocates for GNCTD.
Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC for UOI with Mr Sandeep Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
1. The above captioned petition was disposed of on 23.02.2024. Since the petition was disposed of in the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, we restore the same to the position as obtaining on 23.02.2024.
2. Accordingly, CM 12458/2024 stands allowed.
3. We have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The petitioner has filed the above captioned petition, inter alia, praying as under:
“(1) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to comply with the orders and directions passed by the Hon’ble State Commissioners of Persons with Disabilities via dated 8.9.2021.
(2) That the Respondents may be very kindly be directed i.e. Registrar Of Co-operative Group Housing Society to appoint an Administrator in case of non-compliance of said order and directions passed by the Hon’ble State Commissioners For Persons with Disabilities and dismiss the current sitting Managing Committee of the society.
(3) That the Respondents may be very kindly be directed i.e. for getting the third party Access Audit done as expeditious as possible in the interest of justice.
(4) That the Respondents may be very kindly be directed i.e., in case of repeated non-compliance to the said order passed by Hon’ble State Commissioners Court to charge the respondents ( DDA and RWA society ) and holding them culpable keeping in consideration the sections 89 read with 93 & 95 of the RPwD Act,2016.
*** *** ***
(5) That the Respondents may be directed to produce entire records pertaining to this case filed by the petitioner for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
(6) That the Respondents may be burdened with the cost of this Writ throughout and compensation may be granted to the petitioner for the hassle he has been into for so many months due to their lethargic and negligent behaviour.
(7) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other Order or Direction as it may deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.”
5. The petitioner, essentially, seeks that the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by respondent no. 4 (the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities – hereafter the PwD Commission) be implemented. Additionally, the petitioner prays that the third party access audit be conducted as according to the petitioner, the necessary modifications which are essential for making the said buildings compliant with the requirements for providing access to the Persons with Disabilities (hereafter also referred to as PwD in short), has not been carried out by the Chandanwari CGHS Ltd. (hereafter the Society). And, according to the petitioner, the same are mandatory. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner also seeks that punitive action as provided for under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereafter RPwD Act) be initiated.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
6. The petitioner is a person with 100% visual impairment and is a resident of a Flat No.323, Chandanwari Apartments, Dwarka (hereafter the apartment complex). He claims that he acquired the said residential flat sometime in the year 2014.
7. The petitioner filed a complaint before the PwD Commission alleging violation and contravention of Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (hereafter the RPwD Rules). On account of increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for building additional structure, the members of the Society had resolved to extend the space of the residential flats of the apartment complex. According to the petitioner, the said apartment complex is not compliant with Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules and the construction is not compliant with the “Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021” notified on 18.10.2022.
8. The email dated 06.03.2021 embodying the petitioner’s complaint to the PwD Commission is set out below:
“Respected Sir/Mam,

I resident of Flat no. 323, Chandanwari apartment, plot no. 8, sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 would like to make a complaint of violation of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the extension of flats in the apartment. Under the rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule, 2017 notified by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disability) vide notification dated 15.06.2017. The said rule provides that the standard of public buildings as specified in the “Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons” issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development in 2016 shall be complied by every establishment.

The above mentioned rules are being openly violated in the extension of the flats of the apartment and accessibility guidelines are being violated too
As per RPWD Act 2016, section 44:
(1) No establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules formulated by the Central Government under section 40.
(2) No establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to the rules formulated by the Central Government
But the above mentioned section is also being violated.
I would like to request you to look into the matter on priority bases and consider the recommendations given by me.
1. The construction work needs to be stopped with an immediate effect
2. A accessibility audit of the infrastructure needs to be conducted immediately.
3. As per the audit the recommended things/points/ services/any other alteration as required needs to be fulfilled with the extension work of the flats in the apartment
4 If, required/it deems fit to you, strick action or heavy penalty needs to be imposed.
I am attaching my certificate of Person with Disability with the e-mail
Contact details
Name: Jayant Singh Raghav
Address: 323, Chandanwari apartment, plot no. 8. sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
Mob. No.: 9968549003
E-mail ID: jsraghav323@gmail.com”

9. The said complaint was registered with the PwD Commission as Case No.2146/1101/2021/02/1493-96 captioned Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav v. The Vice Chairman, DDA.
10. The PwD Commission disposed of the said complaint after hearing all the parties including the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter the DDA) by an order dated 08.09.2021. The operative part of the said order is set out below:
“11. The matter was discussed at length with both the parties. After due deliberation and discussion held, it was recommended as under:
(i) DDA should conduct an Access Audit of Chandanwari Apartments and bring out the deficiencies, if any.
(ii) President and the Society Authorities of the Chandanwari CGHS Limited, Dwarka to ensure all the accessibility norms in the common area, lift area with proper signages, tactile etc., are fitted/retrofitted as per the RPwD Act, 2016 and Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier free built environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons, issued by Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India.
(iii) RWA/Society Authorities should adhere to the timings with respect to construction work, if any being carried out in the society premises as per the National Building Code of India (NBC) guidelines & norms i.e. 10:00 hours to 17:00 hours only.
(iv) DDA should also get the Standard norms enforcements checked in the Society premises & report compliance or deviations if any, to this court before 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12. This court be informed of the action taken on the above recommendations within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016.
13. The complaint is disposed of.”

11. The Society took the necessary steps for implementation of the said order and informed the DDA regarding the same.
12. The DDA submitted an action taken report (ATR) dated 06.01.2022 – as directed by the PwD Commission – inter alia, stating that an inspection of the apartment complex was conducted by the Field Staff of the Building Section (DDA) on 28.09.2021 and they found that the Society had made certain arrangements for providing access to the PwD in the common area, lift area, etc. but the same were inadequate. Accordingly, the Society was directed to comply with the Unified Building Byelaws, 2016 (hereafter UBBL-16) and provide certain facilities for the persons with disabilities.
13. The Society furnished a compliance report stating that the recommendations were implemented. However, the petitioner was dissatisfied with the said action taken report and continued to pursue the matter before the PwD Commission.
14. The Society sent a letter dated 16.02.2022 to the DDA informing that the residential units were constructed during late 1990s after getting approval from the DDA and the concerned agencies. The occupancy certificate was obtained during the year 2000 and thereafter, the flats were allotted by the DDA to members of the Society. The Society contended that the construction was raised in accordance with the Building Byelaws as were applicable at the material time and much prior to the UBBL-16 coming into force. Notwithstanding the above, the President of Society (respondent no.3) assured the DDA that wherever possible, further improvements would be done for accessibility of PwD. The Society also assured the DDA that it was sensitive to the issues relating to the welfare of PwD and elderly citizens and pursuant to the directions issued by the PwD Commission, it had undertaken the following steps:
“(i) Tactiles have been fitted in the approach road to Block No.3, where Sh. Jayant Singh Raghav has his resident.
(ii) Handrails have also been fixed in walls for support of elderly/ specially abled members/persons.
(iii) One Parking Space has been reserved for Specially abled persons near the Entrance Gate of the Society, which is quite in the close vicinity of the Block No.3.”

15. The PwD Commission was satisfied with the responses as submitted and accordingly, closed the petitioner’s complaint. The same was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 13.04.2022.
16. Aggrieved by the closure of his complaint, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
17. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner sought to rely on an access audit report prepared by a third party to indicate the necessary facilities that were lacking in the apartment complex. In view of the above, this court by an order dated 28.11.2022 directed the DDA to conduct an inspection and file an additional affidavit. The DDA was also directed to consider the audit report relied upon by the petitioner.
18. The DDA conducted an inspection and filed an additional affidavit enclosing therewith the report dated 30.12.2022. The DDA made certain observations in reference to the audit report as well as UBBL-2016.
19. Thereafter, this court passed an order on 07.03.2023 permitting the Society to file a response to the additional affidavit as well as to the status report filed by the DDA.
20. It is material to note that the observations made by the DDA were in respect of the apartment complex and not confined to the building in which the residential flat of the petitioner was located (Tower-III).
21. At a hearing held on 17.05.2023, the petitioner and the counsel for the Society agreed that the issues raised by the petitioner be confined to Tower-III of the apartment complex where the petitioner resides. The petitioner had also raised certain issues including the issue as to the inconvenient size of the lift; non-installation of talk back system in the lift; and installation of braille buttons to operate the lift. Additionally, the petitioner also made certain observations regarding the tiling on the ground floor and suggested the remedial measures.
22. On 26.05.2023, this court was informed that the Society had installed talk back system in both the lifts of Tower-III and had made enquiries for installation of braille buttons for convenience of the petitioner. The Society also installed button tactiles at the turning points.
23. However, the petitioner insisted that the facilities as provided in Tower-III be provided in other buildings of the apartment complex as well. This was contrary to the consent order dated 17.05.2023, whereby the petitioner had agreed that the issues be confined to Tower-III of the apartment complex – the building in which the petitioner’s residential flat is located.
24. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) [SLP (C) No. 025560/2023] before the Supreme Court assailing the order dated 26.05.2023. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP by an order dated 10.11.2023.
25. On 23.11.2023, the Society reiterated that all the grievances of the petitioner had been addressed by the Society in Tower-III. Accordingly, this court directed the DDA to carryout inspection of the block where the petitioner resides (Tower-III). The DDA conducted the said inspection and filed the status report dated 27.12.2023 alongwith additional affidavit dated 06.01.2024. Paragraph 4 of the additional affidavit dated 06.01.2024 indicating that the Society had carried out the required improvements is set out below:
“4. That pursuant to the said site inspection, a Status Report has been prepared by Respondent l/DDA with reference to the Audit Report filed by the Petitioner and provisions given in Building Bye Laws and approved plans, containing the following observations:
I. Tactiles installed at entrance of Block 3. Cleaning of Tactile is required.
II. Orientation of tactile near lift needs to be changed.
III. Tactile around manhole cover at ground floor in Block 3 needs to be installed.
IV. Ramp at entrance of Block 3 constructed. Finishing work is pending. Railing provided on one side only.
V. Braille Marking in lift installed.
VI. Floor announcement system installed in one of the lift.”
26. The present petition was listed on 23.02.2024. On the said date, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. However, this court referred to additional affidavit filed by the DDA on 06.01.2024 and disposed of the present petition.
27. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application being CM Appl. No.12458/2024 for restoration of the above-captioned petition. He also sought time to file an additional affidavit.
28. Thereafter on 02.08.2024, this court directed the petitioner and his father to meet the Secretary and the President of the Society in the presence of Mr. T. Singhdev, the counsel for the Society.
29. Pursuant to the said direction, a meeting was held on 04.08.2024. During the said meeting, the petitioner raised several issues and the concerned office bearers of the Society agreed to some of the issues. Paragraph no. 6 of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.08.2024 sets out the tabular statement regarding the issues discussed. The same is reproduced below:
“S.No.
Issues raised by
Mr. Jayant Singh Raghav
Solutions / responses by the Society
Tower-3 (Mr. Jayant Singh Raghav resides in this tower)
1.
Size of the lift is small and a bigger lift is required
The 7 Blocks of the Society were constructed in the late 1990’s under the Building Bye Laws of 1983 and the Provisional Completion Certificate was granted by DDA on 30.01.2022.

The Unified Building Bye Laws of 2016 cannot be implement after a gap of 33 years.

The shaft of the lift cannot be broken for making a larger shaft to accommodate a bigger lift since the same shall entail making extensive structural alterations to the existing building.
2.
Tactile is raised and level of the same has to be maintained alongwith alignment
Shall be rectified
3.
Braille Buttons to be provided in the lift alongwith talk back
system and adequate lights alongwith handrails
Shall be provided
4.
Larger display inside and outside the lifts
Can be provided when new lifts will be installed
5.
The slope / length / gradient of the ramp in Tower-3 at the entrance has to be maintained
Shall be provided
6.
Handrail to be provided on the ramp in Tower-3 at the entrance
There is already a handrail on one side of the slope and providing another handrail on the opposite side shall restrict the entry to the tower in case large goods i.e. sofa / fridge etc. have to be brought in. However, this shall be considered if feasible.
7.
Water gets accumulated at the
neck of the ramp
This is a maintenance issue and shall be rectified
8.
Handrails of the stairs
are rusted
This is a maintenance issue and shall be rectified
9.
Bushes on the side of the walk way / passage to the tower are creating a hindrance
This is a maintenance issue and shall be rectified
10.
Signages be provided in the corridors of the tower
Shall be provided
11.
Brighter Lights to be installed in the corridors
Shall be provided.
12.
Parking should not be permitted on the walk way / passage to the tower
A message / notice shall be
circulated in this regard to
the residents
13.
Lift to be provided upto the roof of the tower
Cannot be provided as it shall entail structural changes in the building including the shaft of the lift incurring huge expense.
14.
Pipes and wires on the roof of the tower to be removed
The water tanks are interconnected through such pipes. The pipes are also required for filling water in the tanks. Further, pipes are for adequate providing water firefighting equipment installed on the floors of the tower. After requisite inspections NOC has been granted by the Firefighting Department. Thus cannot be removed.

Wires are belonging to residents for telephone / internet / cable TV and cannot be dismantled / relocated.

Roof is being used by the residents for their daily activities and cannot be modified to cater to the needs of one resident.
Other Towers
15.
Reserved parking for disabled
Shall be provided
16.
Messages circulated on the WhatsApp group of the Society must be in OCR format
Shall be provided
17.
Tactiles / Ramps / Handrails
Shall be provided as per
feasibility in each tower
18.
Benches to be provided in the common areas and parks
Shall be provided as per feasibility of parallel parking on the internal & outer roads. Benches are already available in the parks.
19.
Entrance to Block-7 be mended
Shall be provided
20.
Ramp gradient in Block-4, 5 & 6 be maintained
Shall be provided
21.
Malba and garbage be removed from the Society
Shall be provided
22.
All entries to the various towers shall be disabled friendly and must accommodate wheelchairs
Shall be provided
23.
Corridors in Block-1 & 2 are narrow and be widened by removing house doors which open outside and replacing them by sliding doors
This is an issue specific to the residents and the Society cannot implement the same. The residents cannot be directed by the Society to use a specific type of door which is for the safety of their house.
24.
Residents be directed to remove potted plants, cycles etc. from the corridors of the towers
The Society shall send a message to the residents, however, this is also a matter specific to the residents on which cannot authoritatively enforced.
25.
Removal of wires hanging in the towers
The residents shall be informed for taking adequate measures in respect of wires coming to their houses
26.
Providing fire alarms
Fire alarms are already available and suitable upgradation shall be made after completion of the ongoing FAR increase construction in all the towers of the Society
27.
Fire Extinguishers to be provided
Already available
28.
Basement of the towers be made accessible
Basements are inaccessible inhabitable to the residents currently on account of poor maintenance, water accumulation and no lighting. The General Body Meetings shall be held in the parks alongwith other cultural functions.
29.
Temple to be made accessible since the same is made on a raised platform
The temple was made without sanctioned from DDA and hence, will be shortly demolished. The Temple shall be reconstructed after receiving appropriate sanctions from the authorities.
30.
Parks to be made accessible
Already accessible
31.
Speed breakers to be provided as per specifications
The speed breakers shall be re-laid
32.
Roads to be repaired
The roads shall be repaired shortly after completion of the ongoing FAR increase construction in the all the towers of the Society
33.
RWA office and guard rooms to be made accessible
Shall be provided
34.
Separate fire lifts to be provided in the each of the 7 towers
New shafts cannot be constructed in the old buildings as there is no space available for the same. In any case, there are 2 lifts available in 7 towers. All towers are connected through roofs by way of an emergency passage.
35.
Lifts and corridors are not aligned and there is step created once the lift stops on a
particulars floor in the towers
The lifts and corridors are all aligned, however, if require necessary repairs / alterations shall be carried out
36.
Stair risers are steep
Necessary repairs / alterations shall be carried out
37.
Manhole covers and the roads are not levelled in Block-1&2
Necessary repairs/alterations shall be carried out
38.
Disaster management preparedness and plan
Shall be implemented in the future.”

30. It is apparent from the above that efforts have been made by the Society to address some of the concerns raised by the petitioner. However, the petitioner states that he is not satisfied with the steps taken by the Society as according to him, the same are not compliant with the statutory requirements.
31. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an application praying that the DDA be restrained from issuing Provisional Completion Certificate to the Society unless the norms as stipulated under the RPwD Act are fully complied with.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
32. The petitioner, appeared in person, and submitted that the apartment complex is non-compliant of Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules inasmuch as the buildings in the apartment complex do not comply with “the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021”, notified by the Government of India. He also referred to Section 45 of the RPwD Act and contended that all buildings are required to be made accessible in accordance with the Rules formulated by the Central Government within a period of five years from the date of Notification of such rules. He submitted that provisions of UBBL-2016 are also required to be complied with for each building in the apartment complex and the measures taken by the Society cannot be confined to Tower-III alone.
33. The petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.: 2024 INSC 858 and drew the attention of this court to paragraph no.66 of the said decision where the Supreme Court had observed that the provisions of Sections 44 and 45 of the RPwD Act are mandatory.
34. Mr. Singhdev, the learned counsel appearing for the Society countered the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the apartment complex was built sometime in the year 1990s and has been occupied since the year 2000. He submitted that the modifications sought for by the petitioner are not feasible. He also contended that there is no obligation to modify the existing residential buildings to make them compliant with the accessibility rules (Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules).
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
35. It is material to note that the apartment complex was constructed in late 1990s and there is no dispute that it has been occupied by the residents for approximately the past twenty-five years. The petitioner also does not dispute that the building bye-laws, as applicable at the relevant time, did not contain provisions for accessibility as are now included in the relevant laws. However, it is his case that in terms of Section 45 of the RPwD Act, it is mandatory for the Society to retrofit all buildings in the apartment complex to ensure that it is compliant with Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules.
36. In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court had examined the importance of Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules and proceeded to note the standards of accessibility set out as under:
“61. Rule 15(1) provides that every establishment shall comply with the standards relating to the physical environment, transport and information and communication technology, prescribed in the subsequent clauses of the provision. Barring the requirement in Rule 15(1)(c)(ii) which requires that the documents on websites be in ePUB or OCR-based pdf format, all the other clauses in Rule 15(1) refer to documents/guidelines issued by various Ministries of the Union Government. Originally, these prescribed ‘standards’ were:
a. For public buildings – Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons With Disabilities and Elderly Persons issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development in March 2016; [Original Clause (a) of Rule 15(1)]
b. For transportation – standard for Bus Body Code for transportation system as specified in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 20 September 2016; [Item (i) of Clause (b) of Rule 15(1)]
c. For Information and Communications Technology – website standard as specified in the guidelines for Indian Government websites adopted by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Government of India. [Clause (c) of Rule 15(1)]
62. The proviso to Rule 15(1) provides that the standard of accessibility with respect to other services and facilities shall be specified by the Central Government within a period of six months from the date of notification of the RPWD rules. Rule 15(2) stipulates that the concerned Ministries and departments shall ensure compliance with the standards of accessibility specified in the rule through the concerned domain regulators or otherwise.
63. As required by the proviso to Rule 15(1), subsequent to the notification of the RPWD Rules, additional standards have been specified by various ministries of the Central Government. Amendments have been made to Rule 15(1) and these standards have been included as clauses to Rule 15(1). The standards that have been incorporated by the amendments are as follows:
a. Standard for public buildings as specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs dated 27 December 2021 [amended clause (a) of Rule 15(1)]
b. For ICT products and services – compliance with Indian standards IS 17802 (Part 1), 2021 and IS 17802 (Part 2), 2022, published by the Bureau of Indian Standards. [item (iii) in clause (c) of Rule 15(1)]
c. Culture sector-specific harmonised accessibility standards/ guidelines, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Culture dated 18 January 2023. [clause (d) of Rule 15(1)]
d. Guidelines on accessible sports complex and residential facilities for sports persons with disabilities, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (Department of Sports) dated 13 October 2022 [clause (e) of Rule 15(1)]
e. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation 2022, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 9 January 2023. [clause (f) of Rule 15(1)]
f. Accessibility Standards for Healthcare, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 4 May 2023 [clause (g) of Rule 15(1)]
g. Rural sector-specific harmonized accessibility standards/ guidelines, as specified in the notification of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India dated 26 June 2023 [clause (h) of Rule 15(1)]
h. Guidelines on accessible and inclusive piped water supply for persons with disabilities and for other population groups with access challenges, as specified in the notification of the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India, dated 2 August 2023. [clause (i) of Rule 15(1)]
i. Accessibility standards for community toilets in Rural areas, as specified in the notification of the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India dated 4 August 2023 [clause (j) of Rule 15(1)]
j. Guidelines for Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector, as specified in the notification of the Ministry of Port Shipping and Waterways, Government of India dated 8 November 2023 [clause (k) of Rule 15(1)]
k. Guidelines on the accessibility of Indian Railway stations and facilities at stations for differently-abled persons (Divyangjan) and passengers with reduced mobility as specified, in the notification of the Ministry of Railways, Government of India dated 13 November 2023 [clause (l) of Rule 15(1)]
l. Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for MHA Specific Built Infrastructures & Associated Services for Police Stations, Prisons & Disaster Mitigation Centres, as specified in the notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 2 January 2024 [clause (m) of Rule 15(1)]
m. Accessibility Code for Educational Institutions as specified, in the notification of the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India dated 10 January 2024. [clause (n) of Rule 15(1)]
n. Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities as specified, in the notification of the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India dated 19 January 2024. [clause (o) of Rule 15(1)]
o. Accessibility standards and Guidelines for the Banking Sector specified in the notification in the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 2 February 2024 [clause (p) of Rule 15(1)]
64. Therefore, at present there is a list of seventeen documents prescribed in clauses (a) to (p) of Rule 15(1), which comprise the “accessibility rules” that shall be complied with in accordance with the RPWD Act. Further, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities states on its website that more standards of accessibility are in the pipeline, and are to be included in Rule 15 after necessary steps are taken by the concerned ministries. These include (i) Accessibility Guidelines for Bus Terminals and Bus Stops from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; (ii) Accessible Tourism Guidelines for India from the Ministry of Tourism; (iii) Accessibility Standards for TV programmes for hearing and visually impaired from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; and (iv) Accessibility guidelines for pension, other financial institutions and insurance sector from the Department of Financial Service.”

37. The Supreme Court also observed that there was an inconsistency between Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules and the provisions of the RPwD Act. Section 40 of the RPwD Act posits that the Central Government shall frame rules regarding standards of accessibility and Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPwD Act indicate that the said rules are mandatory. But the standards as set out under Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules are in the form of guidelines rather than rules. We consider it apposite to set out the following observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard:
“71. The above extracts indicate that these two documents also do not envisage mandatory rules and instead appear to be recommendatory guidelines. The Accessibility Standards in the Port Sector are conceived as “illustrative”, and “non-conclusive” and only as “broad guidelines” for both new construction and retrofitting. It is difficult to fathom how a document which is only illustrative and contains broad guidelines, can be mandatorily enforced, with consequences such as fines and withholding of completion certificates. Similarly, the Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation also indicate that they seek to be achieved “over time”. As noted above, Section 44, which deals with new buildings, requires immediate compliance and Sections 45 and 46, which deal with existing infrastructure prescribe fixed timelines. 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.
72. Further, not only do several of these documents themselves state that they are guidelines or aspirational principles, but the NALSAR-CDS report indicates that even if this nomenclature is ignored, they cannot be practically enforced as mandatory rules. This is because inter alia several of these guidelines contain different standards for the same or similar accessibility requirements and allegedly contain technical errors. For instance, with regard to “accessible toilets”, almost all the guidelines contain different requirements – both in terms of requirements and measurements. For instance, there is a difference in the requirements stipulated in HG 2021 and Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil Aviation with regard to accessible toilets. It is difficult to fathom, therefore, which of the two requirements is “mandatory” to follow.
73. It is trite law that the legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative functions to the delegated authority. The legislature can entrust subsidiary or ancillary legislation to the delegate. However, before such delegation, the legislature should enunciate the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegated authority. As a corollary, the delegated authority must carry out its rule-making functions within the framework of the law. The delegated legislation must be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of policy and standards laid down in the law.
74. Rule 15, in its current form, does not provide for non-negotiable compulsory standards, but only persuasive guidelines. 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. 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. While it is true that accessibility is a right that requires “progressive realization”, this cannot mean that there is no base level of non-negotiable rules that must be adhered to. While the formulation of detailed guidelines by the various ministries is undoubtedly a laudable step, this must be done in addition to prescribing mandatory rules, and not in place of it. Therefore, Rule 15(1) contravenes the provisions and legislative intent of the RPWD Act and is thus ultra vires, the Act.
F. Conclusion
75. 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’…”

38. The petitioner’s contention that Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules is mandatory is required to be considered bearing the aforesaid decision in mind.
39. According to the petitioner, it is mandatory for the Society to implement the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021 as required under Clause (a) of Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules. It is, thus, necessary to refer to Clause (a) of Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules. The same is set out below:
“15. Rules for Accessibility.- (1) Every establishment shall comply with the following standards relating to physical environment, transport and information and communication technology, namely :-
(a) standard for public buildings as specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, vide notification number – O-17/4/2022-works-3-UD dated the 18th October, 2022, as amended from time to time;”
40. Rule 15(1)(a) of the RPwD Rules requires compliance of standards for “public buildings” as are specified in the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India – 2021, which were notified on 18.10.2022.
41. The term ‘public building’ is not defined under the RPwD Rules. However, Rule 2(2) of the RPwD Rules expressly provides that words and expressions which are not defined under the RPwD Rules but are defined under the RPwD Act would have the same meaning as assigned to them under the RPwD Act. This requires us to ascribe the meaning of the term ‘public building’ as defined under Section 2(w) of the RPwD Act to the said term used in Rule 15(1)(a) of the RPwD Rules. The said definition is set out below:
“2(w) “public building” means a Government or private building, used or accessed by the public at large, including a building used for educational or vocational purposes, workplace, commercial activities, public utilities, religious, cultural, leisure or recreational activities, medical or health services, law enforcement agencies, reformatories or judicial foras, railway stations or platforms, roadways bus stands or terminus, airports or waterways;”

42. It is apparent from the above that the term ‘public building’ does not include a building which is not accessible to ‘public at large’. The entry to residential building is restricted to bonafide residents and persons authorized by them (including guests, visitors, domestic help etc.). The residential buildings are not accessible by public at large. Thus, in our view, the buildings and the apartment complex do not fall within the classification of the public building as referred to in Clause (a) of Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules.
43. The petitioner had also contended that the Society has fallen foul of Section 45(1) of the RPwD Act. The said Section is set out below:
“45. Time limit for making existing infrastructure and premises accessible and action for that purpose.—(1) All existing public buildings shall be made accessible in accordance with the rules formulated by the Central Government within a period not exceeding five years from the date of notification of such rules:
Provided that the Central Government may grant extension of time to the States on a case to case basis for adherence to this provision depending on their state of preparedness and other related parameters.”

44. It is clear from the opening words of Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the RPwD Act that it is applicable to “existing public buildings”. It would, thus, not be applicable to residential and other buildings, which do not fall within the definition of ‘public building’ as defined under Section 2(w) of the RPwD Act.
45. It is important to note that the buildings and the apartment complex were constructed during the 1990s. The buildings have been occupied since the year 2000. Whilst it may be apposite for the residents of the apartment complex to make suitable improvements for accessibility of persons with disabilities; it is not mandatory to retrofit the buildings to carry out such improvements. We reject the petitioner’s contention that the same is mandatory by virtue of Section 45 of the RPwD Act because as noted above, the said provision is confined to “existing public buildings” and not to private buildings. The petitioner’s contention that the buildings and the apartment complex must necessarily be made compliant with the UBBL-2016 is also unpersuasive. The residential buildings that have been completed and occupied prior to issuance of UBBL-2016 are not required to be modified or re-built in compliance with the said Building Byelaws.
46. Notwithstanding the above, extensive efforts have been made by the Society to make modifications and improvements for the convenience of the petitioner. We are not persuaded to accept that any further directions are required to be issued to the Society in this regard. It is noted at the outset, that the petitioner had filed the present petition impugning an order passed by the PWD Commission closing the petitioner’s complaint.
47. We find no grounds to interfere with the said order. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2025
RK/GSR Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 7642/2022 Page 1 of 1