http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: JAVEDC ABIDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1998

BENCH: K.VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK.J Shri Javed Abidi has filed the present Writ Petition under  Article  32  of the Constitution seeking direction to the Union of India implement the provisions of  the  Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and  Full Participation) Act, 1995, alleging inter alia that though the Act is intended to  grant  opportunities  to  the people  with  disabilities  for their full participation and the Act has come into operation with  effect  from  7.2.1996 but no effective steps are being taken for implementation of the provisions  of  the  Act.   The petitioner himself is an Orthopedically  impaired  person  and   has   incurred   the disability within the meaning of Section 2(i)(v) of the Act. He  appeared  in  person  in  this  Court  and  successfully presented his case indicating several infirmities as well as callousness of the different organisations of the  State  in Implementing the  provisions  of  the  Act.    In  the  Writ Petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :-         "(a)  Direct  the   Indian   Airlines   to         immediately  provide  for  aisle chairs in         every aircraft;         (b) Direct the Indian Airlines to  provide         ambulift   on  all  the  Airports  of  the         country;         (c) Direct the Indian Airlines to  provide         50% concession to all the disabled persons         as  defined  in  Section  2(1)  of the Act         because to provide this concession only to         visually     impaired      persons      in         discriminatory   rights   of   the   other         disabled, as guaranteed under  Article  14         of the Constitution of India;         (d)   Direct  the  Central  Government  to         appoint  only  disabled  persons   defined         under  Section  2(1) of the Act as per the         provisions of Section 3(2)(I) and  not  to         include  any  other  person  who  is not a         disabled person under the Act;         (e)  Direct  the   Union   of   India   to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       immediately appoint the Chief Commissioner         and Commissioners as per Section 57 of the         Act;         (f)   Direct  the  Central  Government  to         immediately   constitute    the    Central         Executive   Committee   as  defined  under         Section 9 of the Act;         (g) Direct all the State of the country to         form   their   own   State    Coordination         Committee  as  defined under Section 13 of         the Act;         (h) Direct all  the  State  Government  to         immediately  constitute  their  respective         State   Executive   Committee   ford   the         implementation of the Act;         (i) Direct the State Government to appoint         a Commissioner for their States for proper         implementation of their States for  proper         implementation of the Act in the States of         the Country;" As one of the grievance of the petitioner  was  the  Central Government  has  not  constituted  the Central Co-ordination Committee under Section 3 of the Act and  States  also  have not   constituted  the  State  Co-ordination  Committees  as required under Section 13 of the  Act,  this  Court  issued, notice   to   all   the  State  Governments  and  the  Union Territories  by  order  dated  20th  October,  1997  to  get responses from  them.   Pursuant to the aforesaid notice the Union of India through its  Secretary  in  the  Ministry  of Welfare  Department  filed  an  affidavit on 30th September, 1997, indicating the steps taken by the Union Government for implementation of the provisions of the  Act  including  the Constitution  of  the  Central  Committee  under  Section  3 thereof.   Different  States  also  filed  their  respective affidavits   indicating   the   constitution  of  the  State Co-ordination Committees under Section 13.  In view  of  the constitution  of the Central Co-ordination Committee as well as the State Co-ordination Committees in most of the  States we  do  not think any further direction is necessary in that regard,  but,  we  hope  and  trust  that   the   respective Committees  will discharge their obligation under the Act so as to achieve the objectives for  which  the  Act  has  been enacted.   It  may  be  borne  in mind that the Economic and Social Commission  for  Asian  and  Pacific  Region  held  a meeting  at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 and adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and  Equality  of People  with  Disabilities  in  the  Region  and  India is a signatory to the said Proclamation.  The Act in question was passed by the Proclamation.  The Act in question was  passed by the Parliament which intends to provide for the following as apparent from the Statements of Objects and Reasons :         "(i)  to  spell  out the responsibility of         the  State  towards  the   prevention   of         disabilities,    protection   of   rights,         provision  of  medical  care,   education,         training,  employment  and  rehabilitation         persons with disabilities;         (ii)  to  create  barrier free environment         for persons with disabilities;         (iii) to remove any discrimination against         persons with disabilities in  the  sharing         of    development   benefits,   vis-a-vis,         non-disabled persons;         (iv) to counteract any  situation  of  the         abuse and the exploitation of persons with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       disabilities;         (v)   to   lay   down   a  strategics  for         comprehensive  development  of  programmes         and    services    and   equalisation   of         opportunities     for     persons     with         disabilities; and         (vi)  to  make  special  provision for the         integration of persons  with  disabilities         into the social mainstream." The Committees constituted by the Central Government as well as  by the respective State Government must, therefore, make carnest endeavour to achieve the  objectives,  as  indicated above, in exercises of their powers conferred under the Act. The petitioner also made a specific grievance in the Writ Petition alleging the lack of facilities like providing aisle  chair  and  ambulift  by  the  Indian  Airlines which according to the petitioner is a social  obligation  of  the Airlines  and  the  said Airlines must provide these minimum facilities to permit easy excess  to  the  disabled  persons particularly  those  who  are  orthopedically  impaired  and suffer from locomotor disability.  The  Indian  Airlines  in course  of  the  hearing of this Writ Petition indicated the steps taken by it in relation to providing of aisle chair in the aircraft and providing ambulift at  different  airports. Initially  Indian  Airlines  had  indicated  that  providing ambulift at major airports would be a costly affair  but  in its last affidavit filed in this Court it has been indicated that  the  major  airports  are  going  to  be provided with ambulift and aisle chairs are now available in  aircraft  to be used   by   disabled  persons.    Having  considered  the affidavits filed by the Indian  Airlines  we  are  satisfied that  effective  steps have been taken in that regard and it is not necessary for issuing any further direction  on  that aspect. One of the major grievance of the petitioner is that the  Indian  Airlines  is  not giving any concession to such disabled persons for their movement by air even though  such concessions  are  being given to only blind persons, who are also disabled persons under  the  Act.    According  to  Mr. Abidi,  the  petitioner  in  this  case,  the orthopedically handicapped persons with Locomotor  disability  require  the relief  of  concession  for  their  travel by air more as it becomes an impossible task  for  them  to  travel  from  one corner to the other corner of the country by train and there is  no  justification  for  the  airlines  not to grant such concessions to such  people  when  the  concession  is  made available to the blind  people.  Mr.  Soli J.  Sorabjec, the learned Attorney General appearing for the  Indian  Airlines on  the  other  hand  impressed  upon  the  Court  that  the concession to the blind people was being given much prior to the commencement of the Act.  According to  Mr.    Sorabjee, the  learned  Attorney General the economic condition of the Indian Airlines is such that it is not feasible to grant any further concession to any other category of disabled  people and  the  Act  itself postulates for providing facilities to the disabled persons within the limits of economic capacity. Detailed affidavits have been filed indicating  the  present economic position  of the Indian Airlines.  It has also been indicated in the said affidavits that the  airlines  is  now reconsidering  the  question  to withdraw such facilities to several  group  of  citizens  or  to  move  the   respective departments of the Government to get the reimbursement. According to Mr.  Sorabjec granting such  concession to only disabled persons suffering from locomotor disability may  be  constructed to be a discriminatory attitude towards

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

them  and,  therefore,  the  Court  should  not  issue  such direction,  but  he does not dispute the fact that blindness is one of the disability under Section 2(i) of the  Act  and the Airlines is granting concession for travelling by Air to those suffering  from the disability of blindness.  While we agree with Mr.  Sorabjee, learned Attorney General that  the economic  capacity  is a germane consideration while deeding the question  as  to  whether  all  persons  suffering  from disability  as  defined under Section 2(i) of the Act should be granted concession like blind persons for  travelling  by Air,  at  the same time we cannot ignore the true spirit and object with which the Act was enacted.   To  create  barrier environment  for persons with disability and to make special provision for the integration of persons  with  disabilities into  the  social  mainstream  apart  from the protection of rights, provisions of  medical  care,  education,  training, employment   and   rehabilitation  are  some  of  the  prime objectives of the Act.  In this context  the  question  that arises   for   consideration   is  whether  atleast  persons suffering from locomotor disability to a  particular  extent can  be  granted the facility of concession while travelling by Air which  facility  is  already  being  given  to  those suffering from   the  disability  of  blindness.    When  we consider the different types of  disabilities  mentioned  in Section  2(i) of the Act and examine the same in relation to the difficulties one may face by travelling by train to  far off  places,  say  from  Delhi  to Trivandrum, those who are suffering  from  locomotor  disability  would  stand  by   a separate  class  itself  because of their immobility and the restriction of the limbs.  It may not  be  difficult  for  a person  with  low vision or a person with hearing impairment or mental retardation or a person suffering from leprosy  to travel  by  train  even  to  far off places whereas a person suffering from locomotor disability above certain percentage of the same will find enormous difficulty in  travelling  by train or  bus.    We  are  considering  the question of such disabled  persons  in  the  context  of  granting  them  the facility of  concession  for  travelling  by  Air.    Having considered the affidavits filed  by  different  parties  and having considered  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  Sorabjee appearing for  Indian  Airlines  as  well  as  Mr.    Abidi, petitioner  in person and bearing in mind the discomfort and harassment a  person  suffering  from  locomotor  disability would  face while travelling by train particularly to far of places we are inclined to  issue  direction  to  the  Indian Airlines  to  grant  them  the  same  concession  which  the Airlines is giving to those suffering from blindness.    But each  and  every person suffering from such disability would not be entitled to get the  concession  in  question  as  it would depend  upon  the  degree  of disability.  We think it appropriate  to  direct  that  those  suffering   from   the aforesaid  locomotor  disability  to  the  extent of 80% and above would be entitled to the concession  from  the  Indian Airlines  for  travelling  by  Air within the country at the same  rate  as  has  been  given  to  those  suffering  from blindness on their furnishing the necessary certificate from the  Chief  District  Medical Officer to the effect that the person concerned is suffering the disability to  the  extent of 80%.   Such District Medical Officer wherein the disabled ordinarily reside will constitute a Board with Specialist in Orthopaedic and one other Specialist whom he thinks suitable for the purpose and  examine  the  person  and  would  grant necessary certificate  for  that  purpose.    We  are  quite conscious of the financial position of the  Indian  Airlines but  yet  we  are issuing the aforesaid direction keeping in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

view the broad objectives of the Act, as  already  narrated, and  keeping  in  view  the  fact that concession is already being granted by the Airlines to the persons suffering  from blindness.   With  these direction and observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. Before  we  conclude  the matter we cannot but thank the petitioner who  appeared  in  person  and  brought  this matter  to  the  notice  of  the  Court  which  resulted  in acceleration of the implementation of  different  provisions of  the Act not only by the Union Government but also by the State Governments.