Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Uber India In Plea Alleging Discrimination By Driver Against Visually Impaired Person

The petition states that the when the petitioner booked a ride through Uber, he was subjected to discrimination and disrespectful behavior by the driver.

It is stated that the driver refused to get out of the auto and guide the petitioner by hand to the door of a cafe where he was travelling. The driver refused saying that it was a waste of his time and energy.

The petition states that the driver agreed to begin the ride only after some persuasion and still exhibiting disrespectful behaviour.

The petitioner contends that despite having a zero-discrimination policy against PwDs, Uber failed to ensure proper implementation and enforcement. He states that despite posting about such incidents on his social media, he continued to experience reluctance from Uber's drivers.

He asserts that Uber failed to implement the policy of sensitizing/training its drivers on disability-related issues, in violation of Section 41 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which provides for accessible transport. He contends that the failure to implement accessible services violates PwDs legal rights to accessibility and equality.

The petitioner further contends that MoRTH is in violation its statutory duties under the RPwD Act. He argues that MoRTH has been negligent in ensuring that Uber complies with the RPwD Act by not enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for refusal of service to PwDs.

The petitioner prays for Rs. 1 lakh compensation from Uber for the mental anguish, distress, and inconvenience caused due to the discriminatory behavior. He prays that penalties be imposed on Uber under Section 89 of the RPWD Act for failure to make their app accessible and thus violating statutory obligations.

He futher prays to direct the MoRTH to issue a comprehensive legal mandate to all ride-hailing service providers, directing them to adopt accessible service standards in line with the RPwD Act and other relevant laws, including specific provisions on accessible vehicles, driver training and app accessibility with a suitable grievance redressal mechanism.

Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notices to Uber and MoRTH and asked them to file counter affidavits.

It asked Uber to provide a specific response to the grounds raised by the petitioner that it must ensure certain accessibility features on its platforms.

Futher, it asked the MoRTH to respond to the petitioner's contention that the advisory issued by it 'Advisory for Licensing, Compliance and Liability of On-demand Information Technology based Transportation Aggregator' is silent on certain aspects. These include specifications pertaining to the technical and physical accessibility features, a mandate for regular and comprehensive training and sensitization for drivers and specific steps for timely redressal and accountability.

The Court posted the matter on 27 March, 2025.

Case title: Rahul Bajaj Uber India Technology Private Limited (Uber) & Anr. (W.P.(C) 18010/2024)

Counsels for Petitioner: Mr. Amar Jain and Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Advocates with Petitioner in person.