Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajive Raturi vs Union Of India on 15 January, 2019
Bench: A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IA 89088/2018,96163/2018,96423/2018, in Writ Petition(s)(Civil)
No(s). 243/2005
RAJIVE RATURI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([FOR DIRECTION] )
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 228/2006 (PIL-W)
Date : 15-01-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
Counsel for Parties:
Mr. Rajan Mani, Adv.
Ms. Shankari Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
Mr. Leishangthem Roshmani., Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Maibam Babina, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Kalita, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2019.01.17 Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv.
16:30:14 IST
Reason: Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv.
Ms. Taya Chaudhary, Adv.
M/s. Parekh & Co.
2
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv
Mr. Mudit Makhijani, Adv
Mr. Eeshan Pandey, Adv
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG
Mr. Krishnand Pandey, AOR
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
Mr. T.G.N. Nair, Adv.
Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv.
Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Dua, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Mr. Amita Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. K.V. Khallyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Saurav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. A.D.No. Rao, Adv.
3
Mr. Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR
Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR
M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
Ms. Palak Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Aruptham, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
Ms. Geetanjali, Adv.
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR
Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Adv.
Ms. Isha Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Mr. Chirag Jain, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR
Mr. V. K. Verma, AOR
Mr. M. T. George, AOR
Mr. T.N. Rama Rao, Adv.
4
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. T. Veera Reddy, Adv.
Mr. T.V. George, Adv.
Mr. Jai Dehadrai, Adv.
Ms. Shinangini Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Arora, Adv.
Mr. Prashant, Adv.
Ms. Manisha A, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR(AAG)
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv.
Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Nandalia, Adv.
Mr. Manish Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Divansh Sharivastava, Adv.
Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Verma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv.
Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv.
Ms. Dimple Nagpal, Adv.
Ms. Leelawati, Adv.
M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR
Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.
5
Mr. Gautam Naryan, Adv.
Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
Mr. Mirnal Kanthi Mondal, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Salvadore Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Mahima C. Shroff, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prasanth Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. Sasmita Thripathy, Adv.
Mr. Navin Gupta, Adv.
Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR
Mr. Jayesh G., Adv.
Ms. Susmita Lal, AOR
Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR
Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR
6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This Court had passed the judgment and order dated 15.12.2017 this writ petition whereby the States as well as the Union Territories were, inter alia, directed to file plans for accessibility in built environment, transportation systems, and information and communication services. The plans were to be provided according to the Targets numbered as 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 corresponding to the Accessible India Campaign of the Government of India, within a time period of three months. Most of the States and Union Territories did not provide the aforesaid information within three months as specified in the judgment. This Court had to pass various orders directing the States and the Union Territories to provide the plans along with status of completion etc. according to the aforesaid targets. It was also directed that such compliance reports have to be in stipulated format which was provided.
All the States and the Union Territories have now filed their affidavits. We have requested the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) to collate information and give in tabular format. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed, on 14.01.2019, the target wise tabular format of all the States and the Union Territories. On going through the same it transpires in the first instance that most of the States and the Union Territories have not filed their affidavits and provided 7 information in the format specified. That apart, many States have given incomplete information inasmuch as information is not provided in respect of all the targets. Further even in respect of the targets where the information is provided, the same is not complete information as target dates are not mentioned. This is reflected by the petitioner in Annexure-A/2 of his compilation and for the sake of clarity we reproduce below the entire information:
TARGETS FOR WHETHER
SL. WHICH COMPLETE TARGET DATE AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED BY
STATE
NO. INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR (NAME AND
(2)
(1) PROVIDED IN TARGETS IN DESIGNATION)
PROPER FORMAT COLUMN NO. 3
(3)
Andaman & Kuldip Singh, The
1. Nicobar 7 7/YES Joint Resident
Islands Commissioner
Sarala Devi.
Andhra
2. 1, 10 1/NO, 10/YES Special Officer
Pradesh
Office of the AOR
Arunachal Nil Sangeet Dubey, Deputy
3. Nil
Pradesh Resident Commissioner
Joydeep Sukla,
Secretary to Govt. of
4. Assam 7 ,10 7/NO,10/ YES Assam, Social Welfare
Department, Dispur,
Guwahati
Prashant Mishra,
5. Bihar 2,7 2/NO, 7/NO, Asst. Director,
Social Welfare Dept.
Navjot Kaur,
Director, Department
6. Chandigarh 1,3 1/NO, 3/YES of Social Welfare,
Women and Child
Development
Pankaj Verma,
2/NO,
Chhattisga Deputy Director,
7. 2,3,7,10 3/NO,7/YES,
rh Department of Social
10/YES
Welfare
SL. STATE WHETHER AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED BY
NO. (2) TARGETS FOR TARGET DATE (NAME AND
(1) WHICH COMPLETE PROVIDED FOR DESIGNATION)
8
INFORMATION
PROVIDED IN TARGETS IN
PROPER FORMAT COLUMN NO. 3
(3)
Dadra & Nil Nil Nilesh Gaurav, Deputy
8. Nagar Secretary, Social
Haveli Welfare Department
3 3/YES Harminder Singh,
Daman &
9. Deputy Secretary
Diu
(Social Welfare)
A. Madhan,
Sr. Superintendent
10. Delhi 2,7 2/NO, 7/NO
(Disability) Dept. of
Social Welfare
S.V. Naik, Director,
11. Goa 2,3 2/YES, 3/YES
Social Welfare.
V.R. Parmar, Deputy
12. Gujarat Nil Nil Director of Social
Science Department
Gauri Parasher Joshi,
Special Secretary,
13. Haryana Nil Nil Social Justice and
Empowerment
Department.
Nisha Singh,
Addl. Chief
Himachal
14. Nil Nil Secretary, Social
Pradesh
Justice and
Empowerment
Babu Ram, Additional
Jammu & 2/NO, 3/NO, Secretary to
15. 2,3,8,10
Kashmir 8/NO, 10/NO Government, Civil
Secretariat
Kalanath, Nodal
Officer, Government
of Jharkhand,
16. Jharkhand 10 10/YES
Jharkhand Bhawan,
Vasanth Vihar, New
Delhi
TARGETS FOR WHETHER
SL. WHICH COMPLETE TARGET DATE AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED BY
STATE
NO. INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR (NAME AND
(2)
(1) PROVIDED IN TARGETS IN DESIGNATION)
PROPER FORMAT COLUMN NO. 3
(3)
17. Karnataka Nil Nil M. Rajanna,
Under Secretary to
Government,
Department of Women
and Child Development
and Empowerment of
9
Differently Abled and
Senior Citizens
Md. Kunhi K.,
Under Secretary to
18. Kerala Nil Nil
Govt./Law Officer (In
charge)
Lakshadwee Asar Pal, Resident
19. 8 8/YES
p Commissioner
NOT IN THE FORM OF
AFFIDAVIT
Swarupama Chaturvedi
Madhya
20. Nil Nil Advocate for
Pradesh
Respondent No.21
Supreme Court of
India, New Delhi
Ruchesh Jaivanshi,
Maharashtr Commissioner for
21. 7 7/NO
a Persons with
Disabilities
Gangmei Ganguilu,
22. Manipur Nil Nil Deputy Secretary,
Social Welfare
Tanington Dkhar ,
Commissioner and
Secretary to the
23. Meghalaya Nil Nil
Government of
Megahalaya, Social
Welfare Department
Praveen Kumar Gupta,
24. Mizoram Nil Nil Principal Resident
Commissioner
TARGETS FOR WHETHER
SL. WHICH COMPLETE TARGET DATE AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED BY
STATE
NO. INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR (NAME AND
(2)
(1) PROVIDED IN TARGETS IN DESIGNATION)
PROPER FORMAT COLUMN NO. 3
(3)
Kethoshita Sekhose,
25. Nagaland 2 2/YES Deputy Resident
Commissioner
Kailash Chandra
Sahoo, Joint Security
and Empowerment of
26. Odisha Nil Nil
Persons with
Disability
Department.
10
R. Alice Vaz, I.A.S,
27. Puduchery Nil Nil Secretary to
Government(Welfare)
Harpal Singh, Deputy
Director, Department
of Social Security
28. Punjab 7 7/YES
and Women & Child
Development Punjab,
Chandigarh
Suresh Babu, Lecturer
in Special Education,
29. Rajasthan 8 8/NO Directorate of
Specially Abled
Persons, Jaipur
Ashwani Kumar Chand,
30. Sikkim 10 10/YES IPS,Resident
Commissioner
C. Vijay Kumar,
Secretary for the
31. Tamil Nadu 1 1/NO Welfare of
Differently Abled
Persons Department
TARGETS FOR WHETHER
SL. WHICH COMPLETE TARGET DATE AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED BY
STATE
NO. INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR (NAME AND
(2)
(1) PROVIDED IN TARGETS IN DESIGNATION)
PROPER FORMAT COLUMN NO. 3
(3)
Jagadeeshwar,
32. Telangana Nil Nil Secretary to
Government
Pravin Srivastava,
33. Tripura Nil Nil Chief Resident
Commissioner
Nand Kishore Sharma,
Uttarakhan Assistant Director
34. 7, 10 7/YES, 10/NO
d Social Welfare
Department
Ashok kumar verma,
Joint Director ,
Uttar Department of
35. 1 1/NO
Pradesh Empowerment of
Persons with
Disabilities
Lalit Kumar Das,
West
36. Nil Nil Jt. Secretary, Dept.
Bengal
of Social Welfare
11
More than a year has passed since the judgment was delivered The indifferent attitude of the States and the Union Territories shows that they are not serious in complying with the directions contained in the judgment. It may be recapitulated that the directions which were given in the judgment dated 25.07.2018 are simply to the effect that provisions contained in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) by providing necessary facilities to the persons suffering from different disabilities, should be provided with.
The said Act specifically makes provisions for these facilities. The said Act also sets down the time lines within which these are to be provided. It is in the consonance with the aforesaid provisions that directions were given in the judgment and order dated 15.12.2017 whereas the Parliament has passed an enactment which entitles the persons suffering from different disabilities to get the said facilities as a matter of right and the States and the Union Territories cannot shy away from giving these facilities to such persons.
We, therefore, take strong exception to the lackluster attitude of the respondents. Last and final opportunity is given to all the States and the Union Territories to provide the information in the requisite tabular format in respect of all the targets and it should be complete in every respect which includes stipulation of targets dates as well. Needful be done within three weeks.
12
It is made clear that those States and the Union Territories which do not file the affidavits and/or provide the information in the aforesaid manner or give incomplete information, the Chief Secretaries of those States shall remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
Similarly, Union of India is also supposed to fulfill certain targets as per the said Act and as directed in the judgment. We find that it has also not filed any proper affidavit in this behalf. Three weeks' time is granted to Union of India as well, failing which the Chief Secretary of Ministry Of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities) shall personally remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
The applicant - Rahul Bajaj who has intervened in the matter by filing I.A. No. 96163/2018 has handed over the status report. It may be mentioned that the applicant is seeking certain facilities for visually handicapped lawyers practicing in the High Courts as well as in this Court. The specific prayers which have been sought for by the applicant are tabulated below:
TABLE 2: SPECIFIC PRAYERS SOUGHT UNDER EACH HEAD Head Enabling Fostering Formulation of Designating blind greater an Equal grievance lawyers to access to Opportunities redressal 13 access case court Policy by the officers and files/ websites higher institutional records in a and legal judiciary, as izing a seamless and material mandated by support timely used by the 2016 Act, mechanism to fashion lawyers in order to make courts during the enable more course of disabled court inclusive and making staff such as accessible.
written law
submissions clerks/legal
/ oral interns to
arguments function
effectively
Prayers (a) (c) Issuance of a (a)
sought (a)Requiring (a)removal direction to (a)Directing
the of all courts to that all
concerned accessibili formulate an courts
court ty barriers Equal appoint a
registries set forth Opportunity grievance
to maintain at para 28 Policy, with redressal
a database of the IA the following officer for
of blind within a key addressing
lawyers, on period of 2 ingredients: complaints as
the basis of months; (b) (a) Assigning to
disability directions legal interns accessibility
certificate for and law barriers, and
and conducting researchers/ publicize
certificate an clerks to work details of
of practice; accessibili with Hon’ble the same on
(b) making ty audit of Judges serving their
it all court on courts in website; and
obligatory websites which filings (b) directing
for the and removal are made in that
concerned of barriers soft copy and sensitization
High Court identified paper-books sessions be
registry to in such are prepared conducted on
ensure that audit, with in soft copy a regular
the an outer form to basis, to
pleadings time limit facilitate help Hon’ble
are served of six ease of judges and
in Microsoft months for access; (b) In court staff
Word (.docx) the case such better engage
format to completion assignment to with the
blind of this e-courts is needs of
lawyers, process; impermissible, lawyers with
part of this and (c) making it disabilities.
database, issuance of mandatory for
in cases in direction the court
which they to the registry to
are Ministry of scan, in an
14
involved; Law and accessible
(c) strict Justice, form, an ample
insistence Union of quantity of
by court India, for case files on
registries the a daily basis
on the issuance of to enable the
requirement directions individual
of the to all concerned to
annexures online contribute as
being typed legal meaningfully
out and databases, as their
modification to make ablebodied
of rules of their counterparts;
practice and platforms (c) With
procedure of fully respect to
courts to accessible point b above,
mandate for blind it is prayed
typing out lawyers. that this
of annexures Hon’ble Court
[to ensure be pleased to
their direct all
accessibilit court
y and registries to
legibility] purchase
in cases in camera
which blind scanners that
lawyers are would enable
involved; court
and (d) if registries to
(c) is not scan large
feasible in amounts of
a given content in a
case, short
ensuring time-span; (d)
that Allowing such
annexures individuals to
are served use their
to a blind laptops/
lawyer in Braille
soft copy displays in
form. court to be
(b) able to make
notes of
proceedings/
conduct
research, if
needed and
assist the
Hon’ble Judge
in any other
manner; and
(e) In order
15
to enable the
individual to
be able to
access the
concerned
courtroom in a
comfortable
fashion,
casting the
responsibility
on the
Grievance
Redressal
Officer of the
court
concerned to
discuss with
the individual
any obstacles
that they may
face in this
regard and
arranging for
appropriate
sighted
assistance, if
needed.
All the High Courts as well as the Secretary General of this Court shall give their response to the aforesaid facilities which the applicant has sought for before the next date of hearing.
List on 12.02.2019.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (RAJINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER