Delhi HC seeks DU’s reply on accessibility for persons with disabilities at CLC

The Delhi High Court has asked Delhi University (DU) to submit a comprehensive affidavit detailing the physical infrastructure and accessibility provisions for persons with disabilities at the Campus Law Centre (CLC).

 

The directive came in response to a plea by Jayant Singh Raghav, a disabled student at the university, raising concerns about the provision of assistance devices for disabled students during examinations.

 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that the affidavit should address the implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with suggestions from amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta.

 

The court granted a last indulgence, allowing seven days for the university to file the affidavit.

 

“As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to file a comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016 and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the University,” the court said.

 

The amicus curiae had previously submitted a report suggesting improvements in physical infrastructure and accessibility at CLC.

 

The report recommended the immediate implementation of the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

 

It also called for an access audit of CLC and the installation of at least 10 ramps with tactile features at various locations.

 

Additionally, the report highlighted the absence of a lift in the current CLC building, despite it being mandatory according to UGC guidelines.

 

The university said that classes for persons with disabilities are conducted only on the ground floor due to the lack of a lift. The report stressed the need for a functional disabled-accessible washroom on each floor, given the current provision of only one such facility in the entire CLC campus.

 

The university’s counsel submitted that the repair work and the provision of facilities in accordance with the amicus curiae’s report is complete.

 

However, the court said that there are various other requirements outlined by the Disability Act and the amicus curiae’s recommendations that the university must adhere to.

 

The case is scheduled to be hea

rd again on December 7.