High Court Seeks Status Report On Accessibility Of Judicial Complexes To Persons With Disabilities In Punjab, Haryana & Chandigarh

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday sought a status report from the Governments of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh on the accessibility of judicial complexes to persons with disabilities.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji asked the Governments whether there is compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the infrastructure of Judicial complexes in various court complexes of districts and High Court.

The development came after the High Court took suo moto cognizance of the lack of infrastructure in judicial complexes which may be inaccessible to persons with disabilities in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh.

A plea was filed by a 60-year-old disabled lady who sought transfer of her case at District Court Punjab's Malerkotla, from the first floor to the ground floor as the judicial complex did not have any provision for a ramp or an elevator to facilitate a disabled person to attend the Court proceedings.

Taking note of the plight of disabled persons, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not limited to mere animal-like existence but includes right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term. Lack of appropriate facilities in public buildings, especially judicial complexes, equates to denial of access to justice and amounts to discrimination against persons with disabilities."

It stated that the State is obligated to create a level playing field and provide all necessary facilities to realise the fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens by the Constitution, which also includes the right to move freely across the territory of India.

While listing the matter for April 16, the Court asked the State to file a special affidavit concerning the District Court of Malerkotla.

Title: Court on its own motion v. P&H High Court