Good afternoon. In the fortnight between 2nd and 14th February, Mission Accessibility appeared in a total of 10 hearings. The high points were our intervention to strengthen the accessibility and grievance redressal regime in the country, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting releasing OTT guidelines, albeit significantly diluted ones, through our sustained advocacy, and courts from the Supreme Court to the CAT committing to according priority hearings to cases of litigants with disabilities. The detailed report is below. Thank you.
Monday, 2nd February: · In the Supreme Court, in the Rajive Raturi group of matters, we appeared in one of connected matters in an intervention application filed by our Co-Founder Amar Jain. On this date, the matter was very low on the board and was not properly slotted in the pwd category. We therefore mentioned the matter and requested that it be taken up high on the board. It was accordingly renotified to 11th February. On the 11th, we made our submissions. We submitted that in the judgement in the Raturi matter, the Supreme Court had directed that once the non-negotiable Accessibility rules are notified, completion certificates must be withheld if these are not complied with and in suitable cases when these norms are breached, fines must be imposed. it was our say that completion certificates are only issued in the context of the built environment and for other sectors, compliance with non-negotiable Accessibility norms must be insisted upon either in the licensing conditions in that sector, for instance, in telecom and for some BIS products. Or it must be insisted on separately by the concerned ministry or department, by way of taking an accessibility undertaking from the establishment concerned that their offering is in line with the non-negotiable Accessibility norms. It was our submission that the perception in the union government is that disability is the sole responsibility of the disability affairs department, and other ministries and departments must also play their role. And we prayed that such directions maybe issued to the union of India. Our second set of submissions was with respect to the direction on the imposition of fine. We argued that at present, there is no mechanism under the act or the rules for the recovery of fines. once they are imposed by the chief or state Commissioner for persons with disabilities and therefore establishments can simply get away without having to pay these fines. We also submitted that the offices of many state commissioners for persons with disabilities remain vacant for long periods of time and that many of them are occupying this role as an additional charge, thereby preventing the office holder from having the requisite independence and focus to discharge this function effectively. On this aspect also, we prayed that directions be issued for prescribing a mechanism for the recovery of fines, for the filling up of the vacancies of Disability commissioners in a prompt manner and to ensure that this office is only held as a separate and independent charge. On all these aspects, the court recorded our submissions and directed the union of India to consider them when finalising the rules pursuant to the judgement. It gave them 4 months for this exercise and renotified the matter to 16th July. · We appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of a candidate with SLD whose candidature was rejected by the CAG and SSC after allocation of a post and office to him, on the ground that the post in question had not been identified as being suitable for those with SLD. In January, the court had heard the matter at length and directed the Union to come back with what alternative posts can be given to the Petitioner. The Union argued that they can only do this exercise if the Court directs them to accommodate these candidates as the recruitment cycle has now ended and cannot be reopened. The Court renotified the matter for further consideration on 17th February. · In the Bombay High Court, we appeared on behalf of a candidate with locomotor disability, complaining of non-grant of stipend during his medical leave and absence of an accessible environment/living quarters to him. The matter did not reach. We then mentioned it the following morning, and the Court listed it on 13th February. When the matter came up on the 13 th, the other side filed their counter affidavit which we are now evaluating and planning next steps. Tuesday, 3rd February: · A case on behalf of a person with hearing impairment, complaining that the Ram Manohar Lohiya Avadh University does not have adequate facilities for hearing impaired students was listed in the Supreme Court. However, it could not reach. It was also not placed in the PwD category, as requested. Wednesday, 4th February: · We appeared in the Delhi High Court in a PIL that challenges the exclusion of those with blindness and low vision from the combined medical service exams. The matter has been getting delayed in the last few months as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has not been filing its replies. This trend continued on the 4th as well, when they asked for 2 more weeks. We pointed out that the next exam cycle will be notified on 11th March and therefore the matter may be decided before then. It was renotified to 25th February. · There was another significant development. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in a meticulously reasoned judgment in September 2025, had set aside the decision not to grant reservation to those with Category D disability in the Civil Service Exams. They had directed the Union of India to take steps to come out with a more balanced and proportionate regime and keep the exemptions as narrow as possible. Rather than complying with this judgment, the Union of India went ahead and challenged it 5 months later, on the day of releasing the notification for CSE 2026. We are still awaiting the listing of the matter in the High Court. Monday, 9th February: · We appeared in a contempt petition that we had filed against the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, for their failure to notify the OTT accessibility guidelines in 3 months, as they had undertaken in October 2025 to the court that they would do. One day before the contempt petition was listed, the Ministry issued the guidelines. On this basis, the contempt petition was closed. However, we told the Court that the guidelines have gotten significantly diluted compared to the draft version and are not at all in line with the RPwD Act. They are completely toothless and vague. The Court gave us liberty to take out fresh proceedings to challenge the guidelines which we are currently doing. · A review petition by us was listed in the Delhi High Court, challenging the ONGC identifying a post for persons with both legs affected locomotor disability but not reserving the said post for those with locomotor disability, to the detriment of our client. The Court could not take up the matter for hearing on the 9th and renotified it to 20th February. Tuesday, 10th February: · In the Supreme Court, we had a matter listed to streamline scribe and screen reader norms in law entrance exams. This matter, despite our request, was not listed in the PwD category, thereby preventing prioritized hearing. We mentioned it to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and pointed out that, despite our requests, matters are not getting placed in this category. The Court directed its registry to immediately sort out the problem. And we accordingly submitted a list of all our Supreme Court cases to the registry for PwD categorization and prioritized hearing. In the case itself, we handed over a note containing our suggestions. The Court accepted all of them and accordingly directed the CLAT Consortium and Bar Council of India to file compliance affidavits. The suggestions include ensuring that undergraduate scribes can be used, taking details of candidates in terms of how they wish to give the exam at the time of applying and strengthening sensitization of invigilators and other stakeholders. · In CAT, we appeared on behalf of a doctor with locomotor disability. He has been excluded from taking up a post after clearing the Combined Medical Service Exams. This is on the possibility of relapse of his cancer and his supposed inability to sit, bend or stand. We have challenged this rejection. The Court issued notice in the matter and renotified it to 16th March. Friday, 13th February: · We appeared in CAT on behalf of 2 persons with locomotor disability. Both work for BSNL and are aggrieved because they have been illegally overlooked for grant of reservation in promotion to a higher post. Notice was issued in the matter and it was renotified to 2nd March. · We also made a representation to the CAT chairperson for grant of priority hearing to cases of litigants with disabilities. The registry responded positively to the request and agreed to look into it. Saturday 14th February: · We appeared in a conference by the Visually Impaired Bank Employees’ Welfare Association. We spoke about the approach to advocacy that can be adopted, whether concessions/welfare measures can be insisted upon as a matter of right and reservation and accessibility related issues. -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9AhcW5nKZ0KMgZjYwRgwd18W1J-eTnzHyhSVx4S36Hz9BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
