Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe*, C.J., and M.S. Karnik, J., directed the State Advisory Board on Disability to consider the prayers made in relation to implementing Accessibility Guidelines for Bus Stops and Bus Terminals, 2021 and the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2016 and to take action for redressal of the grievances of the differently abled persons.
The present case was related to the installation of poles/bollards at the entrance of footpaths in Mumbai, which rendered footpaths inaccessible to differently abled persons and the people who used wheelchairs. Further, Public Interest Litigation No. 54 of 2024 (‘PIL No. 54 of 2024 ’) was clubbed with the present case, which sought direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to implement the Accessibility Guidelines for Bus Stops and Bus Terminals, 2021 for Mumbai and the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2016 with respect to buses and bus terminals in Mumbai. The petitioner also sought directions to Respondents 1 to 3 to implement the Bus Body Code as specified in GSR No. 895(E) dated 20-9-2016 in Mumbai.
Counsel for the respondents stated that all the poles/bollards put at the entrance of footpaths, which caused obstructions and were inaccessible for the differently abled persons and for the people using wheelchairs, were removed. It was submitted that the Municipal Corporation had set up a grievance redressal system and the differently abled person was at liberty to file complaint with the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of the local ward office, if he was unable to use the footpaths.
The Court noted that the State Advisory Board on Disability for differently abled persons under Section 66 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 had been constituted.
The Court disposed of both the PILs and directed the State Advisory Board on Disability to consider the prayers made in PIL No. 54 of 2024 expeditiously and to take appropriate action for redressal of the grievances of the differently abled persons. The Court stated that any other differently abled person, who had any grievance, should be at liberty to approach the State Advisory Board on Disability.
[High Court of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2024, decided on 17-4-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sahana Manjesh for petitioner.
For the Respondents: Anil C. Singh, Senior Advocate with Chaitalee Deochake i/b. Komal Punjabi for Respondent 1; P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader with Abhay L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent 2; Akshay Shinde for Respondent 3; Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate i/b. Reshmarani Nathani for Respondent 4; Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Sagar Shetty, Shubhra Swami Paranjape, and Shraddha Nagaonkar for Respondent 1; P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader with R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent 3.
Jamshed Mistry, Amicus Curiae, with Ronita Bhattacharya-Bector present.
