The legislature can only give up its minor legislative duties to a delegated authority after clearly stating the policies and principles to guide them, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislature can only delegate minor legislative tasks after clearly stating policies and principles for guidance. The Court looked into the failure of States and Union Territories to meet accessibility standards for persons with disabilities (PWDs) as outlined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). This case began with a 2005 writ petition from a visually impaired individual seeking improved safety and accessibility in public areas, including transport and essential services for PWDs. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stated, “It is well established that the legislature cannot give up essential legislative duties to the delegated authority. The legislature may assign minor legislative tasks to the delegate, but it must first define the policy and principles for the delegate’s guidance. Consequently, the delegated authority must operate within the legal framework. Any delegated legislation must align with the law it is based on and cannot exceed the policy and standards set by that law.”
In a previous ruling in 2017, the Court outlined eleven action points requiring compliance with accessibility standards for government buildings, railways, airports, and transport services. However, many states and union territories either did not respond or provided inadequate information, leading the Court to note delays in meeting these requirements. The Court tasked the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) at NALSAR University of Law with creating a report on accessibility standards in various areas, including government buildings, public transport, digital platforms, and court facilities.
NALSAR-CDS highlighted issues with accessibility measures in different areas and pointed out a mismatch in the legal framework that is causing slow progress. The report noted that the RPWD Act established mandatory accessibility rules, but the Right of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (RPWD Rules) only provided self-regulatory guidelines. As a result, Rule 15 of the RPWD Rules, which outlines accessibility standards, was deemed invalid under the RPWD Act. The report also argued that the lack of strict rules and over-reliance on guidelines hinder the effective implementation of accessibility rights.
The Supreme Court identified key principles of accessibility to consider when separating the mandatory rules from the broader guidelines set out in Rule 15:
- Universal Design: The guidelines should focus on universal design, ensuring that spaces and services are accessible to everyone without needing special adjustments or designs.
- Broad Inclusion for All Disabilities: The rules must address various disabilities, including physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental health issues. This should include specific conditions like autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, mental health challenges, sickle cell disease, and ichthyosis.
- Integration of Assistive Technology: There should be a requirement to include assistive technologies, like screen readers, audio descriptions, and user-friendly digital interfaces, to make sure that information is accessible on both public and private platforms.
- Continuous Engagement with Stakeholders: The process should involve regular discussions with people with disabilities and advocacy groups to gather their experiences and practical knowledge.
Rule 15, as it stands now, does not set non-negotiable mandatory standards but only offers persuasive guidelines. The RPWD Act clearly aims for compulsion, yet the RPWD Rules have shifted towards self-regulation through delegated legislation. This lack of compulsion in the Rules goes against the purpose of the RPWD Act, the Bench noted. Therefore, the Court concluded that many of the guidelines in Rule 15 seem to be merely suggestive, disguised as mandatory rules. Rule 15(1) is thus beyond the scope and intent of the RPWD Act, which establishes a system for mandatory compliance. Ensuring a basic level of accessibility should not be left to gradual improvement. As a result, the Supreme Court postponed the Writ Petitions to March 7, 2025, and instructed the Union government to outline mandatory rules.
Cause Title: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 858)
