The Delhi High Court has recently, in the case concerning Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. Has observed that lack of availability of adequate enabling infrastructural facilities for persons with disabilities amounts to be a violation of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The observation came when the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing a plea that was filed by a young disabled girl who was permanently debilitated below her waist area in an accident, underlining and bringing forth the variety of problems which she had to face in usage of her. wheelchair optimally, being unable in accessing public transportation on wheel outside her home on to the footpath. The bench, thus, took note of her plight and the way such persons with disabilities face problems while commuting in public transportation, narrow streets and footpaths due to lack of adequate enabling infrastructure. 

The High Court directed the Aam Aadmi Party led Delhi Government to carry out necessary steps and a social disability audit within 6 weeks, thereby taking note of lack of adequate enabling infrastructure for disabled persons. Justice Najmi Waziri observed that non-availability of required enabling infrastructure for disabled people was glaring and apparent across the city which was grossly in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the Freedom of Movement of the disabled had to be honoured and assured in all ways possible and could not be restrained due to lack of proper civic amenities and enabling infrastructures.

The High court, thus, directed all the agencies in Delhi, engaged in providing various facilities to public which included Road construction authority, DTC, DMRC, Railways, Airport Authorities to coordinate with a nodal officer appointed by the government for conducting of social disability audit. It also asked the authorities to ensure and assure that movement of such disabled persons is not impeded in any manner whether be due to obstruction or construction of footpaths, lack of or poor construction of ramps etc. The court was of the belief that the young girl in the present case and other such persons with disability should be endowed with due facilities for making their commuting through public transport and public places less daunting and more comfortable

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s