On Tuesday 29th April, we had 5 hearings.
First, Kabir Paharia’s matter was listed in the Supreme Court. On this date, we informed the Court that the latest medical assessment was in Kabir’s favour and therefore prayed that he may be accommodated in the next academic year at AIIMS Delhi by blocking a seat for him. At first, the Court was hesitant to direct his admission in a specific college. However, we showed them Kabir’s marks in NEET-UG 2024 which were better than candidates in his subcategory of SC-PWBD who got admitted at AIIMS Delhi. The Court asked the Government to check the factual position and come back.
On Friday, the Government confirmed that what we were saying was right and accordingly, on Monday, the Court’s judgment came, directing that Kabir be accommodated in AIIMS Delhi in 2025-26.
Second, our PIL was listed praying for the permission to change scribe details for the civil servicex exams in case of exigencies – something which the UPSC has no formal process for doing. And, second, for allowing blind and low vision candidates to give the civil services exams independently on the computer with a screen reader. The Court heard the matter briefly and renotified it to the subsequent Tuesday [6th May].
On 6th May, after we showed the relevant guidelines and judgments, the Court directed the UPSC to file an affidavit setting out the procedure for changing scribe details and asked them to work out the modalities for screen reader use. They renotified the matter for Friday [09.05.2025].
On Friday, the UPSC came back with the requisite affidavit which allows for change of scribe details. But it did not have a timeline within which such requests must be processed. At our behest, the Court directed the UPSC to add the same and they agreed to do so.
On the screen reader issue, The DEPwD and DoPT supported our stand, arguing that the civil services rules do not prohibit screen reader use. But it is a question now of who will ultimately bell the cat. The UPSC is worried that this could result in malpractices and harm the purity of the exam. The Court is pushing them to allow it, if not for the prelims exam, at least for the mains exam. The matter will again be heard on 16th May.
The third matter listed on 29th April was Molshri Agarwal’s, concerning the non-grant of reservation to persons with specific learning disabilities in the civil services. It did not reach that day. On being mentioned, it was listed high up on the board for final hearing on 16th May.
The 4th matter that was listed was Swami Gauri Vivekananda’s matter in the Bombay High Court. This was a case where the Court had commissioned a report from Dr. Satendra Singh and then found the Petitioner eligible to pursue PG medicine. The only surviving issue now is compliance with Dr. Singh’s structural suggestions for other similarly placed candidates. The case did not reach and was renotified.
The 5th matter was Prabhat Mishra’s in Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench, concerning the non-maintenance of a waitlist for reserved candidates in the PwBD category due to which our client was prejudiced. We showed the Supreme Court’s order in this matter to the Court, as per which the High Court was requested to hear the matter on priority. Accordingly, the matter, which has not been heard for 18 months despite being ready for hearing, was posted for hearing on 22nd May at 3:30 pm.
On Friday 2nd May, we spoke at the WAVE summit in Mumbai on media accessibility. We stresssed the importance of a legally binding framework with clear-cut consequences for noncompliance and the need to combine a carots and sticks approach to secure compliance.
On Monday 5th May, the Jeewan Kumar matter was listed in the Delhi High Court, concerning grant of hostel accommodation to blind and low vision litigants that we are representing. The Court directed us to consider the reply of the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD and accordingly posted the matter for sometime in July.
The second case that was listed was in the CCPD on digital inaccessibility of 212 establishments. In this case, we adopted a 3-pronged approach. First, as regards the establishments that have still not commissioned an audit from an IAAP-certified auditor, we pressed for the imposition of a higher penalty of INR 50,000 which the Commission seemed inclined to do.
Second, we stated that the audit and remediation process will take time. Till then, at least a baseline level of accessibility must be assured. For this purpose, all establishments may be directed to ensure that they have some non-negotiable accessibility norms, of which we outlined 12 such norms.
The third thing was that we gave specific feedback qua some platforms that were sourced from the community, such as Yatra, Amazon and so on. We will continue to pursue this matter.
The third case was in the CCPD in which they are monitoring the issuance of UDID cards in all districts across the country. One of our consultants assisted the court in this matter as a friend of the court, and alerted them to several ground-level issues faced in issuance of UDIDs and disability certificates. And the Court was very receptive to our suggestions.
On Wednesday 7th May, one matter was listed in CAT Delhi, on behalf of a blind person working in Navodaya Vidalaya Samiti who, instead of being given her preferred place of posting at her native place, is being made to suffer in Ambala where she is facing many accessibility issues. The Court asked us to remove some technical issues in the Application, such as the impugned policy not being annexed and the need to specifically challenge NVS’ refusal of her representation and her non-selection in their transfer lists. We did so and the matter was again listed on Friday.
On that day, the Court again, at the behest of counsel for the other side, raised some hyper-technical objections. We tried to impress upon them that we had removed all technical defects and the matter could now be considered. We also told them that this lawyer had orally assured us that he is also a human being and understands the Applicant’s plight and kept giving us false assurances for months on end that her case was being considered, only to again have her transfer request rejected. We said that who will take responsibility if she faces some violence or problems in Ambala? Accordingly, the matter was listed for consideration of interim relief on 21st May.
On 7th May, our fresh case was also listed in the Delhi High Court, on behalf of Visually Impaired Bank Employees’ Welfare Association, arguing that SBI’s promotion policy structurally discriminates against blind and low vision bank officers seeking promotion to scales 4 and 5. Notice was issued in the matter.
On Thursday 8th May, two fresh matters by us were listed. First, in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on behalf of a 78% locomotor disabled candidate who has a dispute with the medical college where he is pursuing his MS in General Surgery about the date on which his course will end and his documents released. The Court listed this case for 15th May, during the vacations, due to the urgency in the matter.
The second was a petition in the Bombay High Court which raises the issues of non-grant of reservation by higher education institutions in Maharashtra, contrary to the RPwD Act. Notice was issued in this matter, and it was renotified to 10th June.
The third matter that was listed was on accessibility of films in which the judge was on leave and the case was renotified to 10th July. We were orally told that MEITY is taking the stand that regulation of ticket-booking platforms is not within its remit. We asked them to file a reply, and we can the respond suitably.