Lack Of Appropriate Facilities In Judicial Complexes Leads To Denial Of Access To Justice For Persons With Disabilities: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken 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

The development came while hearing the plea of a 60-year-old disabled lady who sought transfer of her case at District Court 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."

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, the Court said.

Amrik Kaur, a 60-year-old lady filed the petition under Section 407 of CrPC seeking transfer of the trial of FIR lodged under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Amargar, Sangrur.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted Kaur was a disabled lady who was unable to walk as her right leg was amputated while her left leg was infected and relied upon the medical record of the petitioner to corroborate the same.

He further submitted that the petitioner has filed four cases which are pending adjudication before the Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, which is on the first floor and the judicial complex at Malerkotla does not have any provision of a ramp or an escalator to facilitate any disabled person to attend the Court proceedings.

The District Judge, Sangrur, had dismissed the transfer application filed by the petitioner stating that no medical record has been annexed along with the application, which could have been easily remedied if an opportunity was granted by the Court below, the counsel said.

It was also noted by the Trial Court that civil suits have been filed through her attorney and therefore an inference was drawn that the petitioner is not appearing before the Court herself.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that "Even if the civil suits are filed through attorneys, the petitioner has every right to present and monitor the Court proceedings as and when she desires."

A more sensitive and empathetic view towards the plight of disabled persons needs to be adopted, it added.

Reliance was also placed upon, the Apex Court's decision in State of Himachal v. Pradesh and another v. Umed Ram Sharma and others (1986) wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the right to accessibility is also a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, Justice Brar opined that the petitioner "has as much of a right to participate in judicial proceedings qua her cause of action, as the next person, irrespective of whether the suit was filed through an attorney."

Stating that the "tone-deaf view" taken by the Court below by treating the situation with unwarranted apathy, cannot be condoned, it set aside the impugned order and directed District Judge, Sangrur to assign the cases filed by the petitioner to any jurisdictional Courts situated at the ground floor.

Furthermore, the Court said that "it is proper to take suo moto cognizance of the lack of appropriate infrastructure to make judicial complexes across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh accessible to persons with disabilities, in public interest."

Hence, it directed the registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate bench in view of Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

 Mohd. Jameel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Amrik Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 72

Click here to read/download the order