'Must Look At India's Remote Corners': Madras HC Satisfied With Stakeholder Consultation Process For Draft Universal Accessibility Guidelines

The Madras High Court on Wednesday disposed of a PIL seeking wide publicity of the draft 'Harmonized Guidelines and Standards For Universal Accessibility in India, 2021', while simultaneously noting that the respondent authorities have substantially complied with the prescribed procedure. The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu, while pronouncing the order, also made a suggestion regarding the consultative procedure that could be adopted in future. The bench was of the conviction that, taking into account the linguistic diversity in the country, public consultation can be made more participative if the draft legislations are circulated in all official languages including in the printed form. "….considering the linguistic diversity amongst the people of the country, it would be more appropriate if efforts are taken to ensure that draft legislations, like the present one, are circulated in all the official languages across the country including in printed form so that there could be wider consultation with the public at large for achieving better and broader perspectives to all issues involved before taking final decision", the court noted in its order. The petitioner, a disability rights advocate, had also requested to make the draft guidelines available in user-friendly HTML format instead of the currently available PDF format. Regarding this aspect, the Court asked Additional Solicitor General R. Shankaranarayanan to ascertain the feasibility for such conversion. The petitioner presented his case before the bench by pointing out that the 2014 pre-legislative consultation policy of Central Government has not been complied with while publicising the draft guidelines in question. The State on the other hand filed a counter-affidavit explaining various steps that had been taken for wide public consultation before preparing the relevant draft guidelines.ASG Shankaranarayanan submitted that the draft guidelines were put up in public domain on August 12 and public comments were received till 13th October, which is well beyond the minimum 30 days period as sought for by the Petitioner. In response, the counsel for petitioner, Advocate A. Yogeshwaran, made an additional submission that merely placing the soft copy of the draft in the website of the Centre For Public Works Department (CPWD), that too in English, excludes illiterates and persons not familiar with computers and technology. He also submitted that since the modified guidelines directly affect persons with disabilities, the same may be documented and disclosed through print or electronic media. The ASG then shared with the court details about a perception survey conducted after consulting with Persons With Disabilities (PWDs), concerned organisations and domain experts. Elaborate social media campaign to enhance the outreach along with survey forms sent via emails (300) to concerned stakeholders and the level of their participation (40 replies) was also shared with the court. ASG also drew the court's attention to two subsequent virtual consultations involving 28 disability rights groups and organisations. National Institute Of Urban Affairs (NIUA) has also carried out social media campaigns to attract participation from all over the country, ASG said. ASG also submitted that the consultation report is available on the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) website in the public domain. The said consultation is reported to have received substantial press coverage in national and local newspapers for which links have also been provided. The draft framework and recommendations of the guidelines were presented to a group of national and international experts from the domains of Universal Accessibility and Disability Rights, ASG informed the court. The petitioner vehemently argued that none of this pertains to the final draft guidelines since the consultation process and outreach mentioned by ASG has happened in the pre-preparation stage of Guidelines. "Please see my rejoinder to counter affidavit; perception survey, stakeholder consultation, focus group discussions, these were made for preparing the draft guidelines, not a substitute for publicising the draft." ASG tried to convey that since it's a set of guidelines on accessibility standards relating to the physical environment of persons with disabilities, even if it pertains to a specific section of people directly affected, Rule 15 (c) conclusively mentions the ICT accessibility standards to be followed and that the said rule only specifies that the documents must be published, and it must be uploaded in OCR based PDF format or ePUB. The petitioner, on the other hand, stood firm on his argument. "Rule 15 lays down standards of practice, it does not mention how when a draft is revised, how it must be given in public domain. Rule15(c) regulates how website standards must be, not...

'Must Look At India's Remote Corners': Madras HC Satisfied With Stakeholder Consultation Process For Draft Universal Accessibility Guidelines

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

'Must Look At India's Remote Corners': Madras HC Satisfied With Stakeholder Consultation Process For Draft Universal Accessibility Guidelines

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers