- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Javed Abidi v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Shri Javed Abidi, an orthopaedically impaired individual within the meaning of Section 2(i)(v) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Act”), invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. He alleged systemic indifference to the Act’s mandates, which had been in force since 7 February 1996, and sought multiple directions to the Union of India, Indian Airlines, and the State Governments for effective implementation.
On 20 October 1997 the Court issued notices to all States and Union Territories regarding constitution of the Central and State Coordination Committees contemplated under Sections 3 and 13. Affidavits from the Union Government and several States subsequently confirmed that these committees had been set up and had begun functioning. Indian Airlines also filed successive affidavits detailing measures taken to supply aisle chairs in aircraft and ambulifts at major airports.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Union and State Governments had complied with their statutory obligation to constitute Central and State Coordination Committees under the Act.
- Whether Indian Airlines was required to provide accessibility aids—specifically aisle chairs in aircraft and ambulifts at airports—for persons with disabilities.
- Whether it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 for Indian Airlines to extend a 50 % fare concession only to passengers who are blind while denying the same benefit to other categories of persons with disabilities, particularly those suffering from severe locomotor disability.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments (Shri Javed Abidi)
- The Act’s objectives of equal opportunity and barrier-free access were not being honoured; crucial statutory bodies had not been constituted.
- Indian Airlines' failure to supply aisle chairs and ambulifts deprived orthopaedically impaired passengers of basic mobility and dignity.
- Denying a fare concession to passengers with locomotor disability while granting it to blind passengers was unjustified, discriminatory, and violated Article 14.
Respondents’ Arguments (Indian Airlines/Union of India)
- The concession for blind passengers pre-dated the Act; extending it further was economically unviable given the airline’s precarious finances.
- The Act allows implementation “within the limits of economic capacity,” and selective concessions could trigger claims of discrimination from other disability categories.
- Accessibility equipment was being progressively installed; aisle chairs were now carried on aircraft, and ambulifts were planned for major airports.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Constitution of Committees. The Court noted affidavits confirming that both Central and most State Coordination Committees had been constituted. Given this compliance, no additional orders were deemed necessary, though the Court reminded these bodies of their statutory duty to fulfil the Act’s objectives, which include prevention of disability, removal of discrimination, and creation of a barrier-free environment.
Accessibility Facilities. After reviewing Indian Airlines’ affidavits, the Court found that satisfactory steps were underway to place aisle chairs aboard aircraft and ambulifts at major airports. Consequently, no further mandatory directions were issued on this point.
Air-fare Concession. The central dispute concerned extension of the existing 50 % concession—currently limited to blind passengers—to those with locomotor disability. The Court balanced two considerations:
- The Act’s “broad objectives” of integration and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.
- The airline’s evidence of financial strain and the statutory caveat that facilities be provided subject to “economic capacity.”
Recognising the particular hardship faced by passengers with severe locomotor disability in long-distance rail or road travel, the Court treated them as a distinct class warranting equal concessionary treatment. However, to mitigate financial impact, eligibility was restricted to passengers with 80 % or more locomotor disability, verified by a certificate issued by a District Medical Board headed by the Chief District Medical Officer and including an orthopaedic specialist.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF. The writ petition was disposed of with the following operative directions:
- Indian Airlines shall grant the same 50 % concession currently available to blind passengers to persons suffering from locomotor disability of 80 % or above, upon production of an appropriate medical certificate.
- No further directions were necessary regarding constitution of statutory committees or installation of aisle chairs and ambulifts, as adequate steps had already been initiated.
Implications: The judgment enforces a concrete equality-based benefit for a subset of persons with disabilities and underscores the judiciary’s willingness to reconcile statutory objectives with economic feasibility. While it sets no broad precedent on fare concessions for all disability categories, it clarifies that differential treatment must be justified by rational criteria and aligned with the Act’s integration mandate.
G.B Pattanaik, J.— Shri Javed Abidi has filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Union of India to 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 orthopaedically 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 petition, the 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(i) of the Act because to provide this concession only to visually impaired persons is discriminatory and directly violative of the fundamental 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(i) 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 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 States of the country to form their own State Coordination Committees as defined under Section 13 of the Act;
(h) direct all the State Governments to immediately constitute their respective State Executive Committees for the implementation of the Act;
(i) direct the State Governments to appoint a Commissioner for their States for proper implementation of the Act in the States of the country.”
As one of the grievances of the petitioner was that the Central Government has not constituted the Central Coordination Committee under Section 3 of the Act and the States also have not constituted the State Coordination 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 20-10-1997 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 30-9-1997, 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 Coordination Committees under Section 13. In view of the constitution of the Central Coordination Committee as well as the State Coordination 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 obligations 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 from 1-12-1992 to 5-12-1992 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 Parliament which intends to provide for the following as is 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 of 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-à-vis, non-disabled persons;
(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;
(v) to lay down strategies 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 Governments must, therefore, make an earnest endeavour to achieve the objectives, as indicated above, in exercise of their powers conferred under the Act.
2. 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 access to the disabled persons, particularly those who are orthopaedically impaired and suffer from locomotor disability. The Indian Airlines in the 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 the 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.
3. One of the major grievances 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 orthopaedically 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 concession to such people when the concession is made available to the blind people. Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, 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.
4. According to Mr Sorabjee, granting such concession to only disabled persons suffering from locomotor disability may be construed to be a discriminatory attitude towards them and, therefore, the Court should not issue such direction, but he does not dispute the fact that blindness is one of the disabilities 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 deciding 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-free 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, provision 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 at least 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 a 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 the Indian Airlines as well as Mr Abidi, the 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-off places, we are inclined to issue directions 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 a Specialist in Orthopaedics 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 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 directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
5. 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.
Alert