Case Comment: Rajive Raturi Vs. Union Of India (2018) 2 S.C.C. 413
- IJLLR Journal
- 44 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Divyangna Chauhan, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
INTRODUCTION
The case of “Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India”, (2018) 2 S.C.C. 413 is a landmark decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. this case addresses the statutory and constitutional entitlements and rights of persons with visual disability in order to access public spaces, transport, and government infrastructure. This case was decided by a bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. The following case was brought under Article 32 as a public interest litigation (PIL).
The petitioner sought the enforcement of obligations “under the Rights of Persons with disabilities act, 2016 (RPwD ACT, 2016)”. Earlier, the same act was known as the Persons with disabilities act, 1995, as the petitioner himself was visually impaired. He even invoked the constitutional guarantees “under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India” and India’s international commitments under “the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).”
The court observed and said that “the rights that are guaranteed to the disabled persons have to be respected and provisions made for them so that they also become equal participants in the life of the society”. The judgment decisively shifted India’s disability rights jurisprudence from a welfare/charity approach to a rights-based model grounded in dignity and substantive equality by rejecting resource constraints as an excuse and laying down time-bound directives.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Rajive Raturi, visually impaired and associated with a Delhi-based human rights organization, filed this PIL in 2005 on behalf of the disabled community. This particular petition specifically focused on the rights of persons who are visually impaired or persons with visual disabilities, through the broader implications and interpretations, it extended to all differently abled persons. The petitioners' main grievance was that, despite the mandatory statutory obligations related to the accessibility of public infrastructure, it remained inaccessible to persons with disabilities, especially those with visual disabilities.
