Thank you very much

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf 
of Sandesh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:52:25 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AI] Mission Accessibility Fortnightly Report - 02.02.2026 to 
14.02.2026

Wonderful effort, brilliantly compiled.
Great going, specially making us aware of day-to-day happenings. With all 
challenges, doing such work with all sincere attempts really deserve 
appreciations, and we all commend this and are there with you.

Regards

Vande Mataram

Sandesh

----- Original Message -----
From: 'Rahul Bajaj' via AccessIndia<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 1:41 PM
Subject: [AI] Mission Accessibility Fortnightly Report - 02.02.2026 to 
14.02.2026


 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 13th, 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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9AhcW5nKZ0KMgZjYwRgwd18W1J-eTnzHyhSVx4S36Hz9BQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9AhcW5nKZ0KMgZjYwRgwd18W1J-eTnzHyhSVx4S36Hz9BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/003701dc9f2e%24271fcde0%240b01a8c0%40Sandesh<https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/003701dc9f2e%24271fcde0%240b01a8c0%40Sandesh?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
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/TYZPR06MB5808C6F3DB7BFD93F7338B24F66DA%40TYZPR06MB5808.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

Reply via email to