Amar Jain And Anr vs Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd (Rapido) And Ors

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14735/2023, CM APPL. 66430/2023 & CM APPL.
6270/2024
Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

AMAR JAIN AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amritesh Mishra, Adv.

versus

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD (RAPIDO)
AND ORS
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr.
Dhruv Joshi, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Mr.
Vineet Negi, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Aryan Dhaka, Mr. Vikrant Badesra,
Ms. Sunidhi Tyagi, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Ms.
Kavya Shukla, Mr. Vineet Negi, Mr.
Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Theresa, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
a) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one
directing the Respondents No.2 and 3 to direct Respondent No. 1 to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21

take immediate, effective, and comprehensive steps in effecting the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
ensuring that the rights and accessibility of persons with disabilities
are safeguarded. These steps should include, but not be limited to,
mandating accessibility audits, providing accessibility training for
staff, implementing clear and enforceable accessibility standards, and
improving the features of the app as suggested earlier, all within a
strict timeframe of 1 month.
b) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one
directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to direct Respondent No.1 to
immediately conduct a comprehensive accessibility audit of its ride
booking mobile app to identify and address all accessibility barriers
for individuals with disabilities, especially those with visual
impairments and ensure that the issues are promptly rectified within a
reasonable timeframe of 6 months.
c) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one
directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to direct Respondent No. 1 to
collaborate with experts in the field of digital accessibility and
provide specialized training to its customer care representatives to
effectively address accessibility-related cosncerns and provide timely
resolutions to customers with disabilities and ensure comprehensive
and holistic end-to-end accessibility of its offering.
d) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, including one
imposing penalty on Respondent No. 1 under Section 89 of the RPWD
Act, 2016 for failing to make their app accessible despite repeated
attempts by the petitioners to address the same.
e) Directed the Respondent No.2 to put in place a strong legal
mandate and operational guidance on all app aggregators, to ensure
that their digital offerings and functional processes are disabled
friendly.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a corporate lawyer, policymaker and a
disability rights activist. He has been blind since birth. Petitioner no. 2 is a
banker at the Indian Bank at Siliguri, West Bengal and has total visual
impairment. The respondent no. 1 is a mobile application that provides
Indian-type taxis and logistic services.
3. The present petition arises out of the grievances relating to the alleged
inaccessibility of the mobile application operated by respondent no. 1,
particularly for persons with visual impairments.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21

4. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the application of
respondent no. 1 is not fully compatible with assistive technologies such as
screen readers and lacks essential accessibility features, thereby making it
difficult for visually impaired users to perform core functions such as
booking, cancelling, tracking rides, or interacting with various interface
elements without assistance. The petition, thus, seeks directions on the
strength of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act 2016
(hereinafter ‘the Act’) .

5. The petitioners have highlighted the difficulties in daily commuting
needs, who are essentially relying on Roppen Transportation Services Pvt
Ltd. (“ hereinafter Rapido ”) mobile ride application. According to them,
the mobile application fails to cater to the accessibility needs of disabled
individuals, raising serious concerns.
6. During the pendency of the petition, the Court had issued various
directions. The suggestions made by the petitioners were also considered by
the respondents. The Court lastly, on 19.03.2025 and on 29.01.2026,
directed the respondent no. 1, Rapido, to place on the record the compliance
affidavit. The affidavit placed on the record would indicate that the issues
raised by the petitioners have been appropriately reviewed. The
suggestions/feedbacks were deeply incorporated in Android and updated in
March 2026 version and the same was subsequently communicated to the
petitioners.
7. Mr. Amar Jain, who is petitioner no. 1 and appears in person, also
hands over a brief note of his submissions and highlights that further
suggestions be directed to be considered by respondent no. 1 within a time-
bound manner. He submits that the order dated 19.03.2025, particularly
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21

paragraph 6 thereof, records the assurance of the respondents to ensure that
the application continues to be „disabled friendly‟ in all respects. He further
submits that periodic accessibility audits, preferably on a quarterly basis,
ought to be undertaken.
8. Section 42 of the Act, casts a clear and affirmative obligation to
ensure access to information and communication technology for persons
with disabilities. The statutory mandate is not merely aspirational in
character but is a substantive equality-driven obligation flowing from the
principle of non-discrimination enshrined under Section 3 of the Act. The
breadth of the provision demonstrates that accessibility is not confined to
traditional or static forms of communication but extends to dynamic and
technology-driven platforms which form part of everyday civic and
commercial life. In the present digital age, mobile applications offering
essential services such as transport and mobility fall squarely within the
ambit of „information and communication technology‟ contemplated under
Section 42.
9. The obligation under Section 42 read with Sections 40 and 43 of the
Act must be understood as imposing a positive duty upon service providers
to ensure that digital interfaces are inherently accessible and compatible
with assistive technologies, including screen readers and other accessibility
tools used by persons with visual impairment. Any failure to incorporate
such design principles would amount to a denial of effective access, thereby
undermining the substantive equality guaranteed under the Act.
10. Mr. Mukul Singh, learned CGSC who is appearing on behalf of
respondent no. 2 submits that the necessary affidavits have been filed.
11. The suggestions made by Mr. Amar Jain, a copy whereof has been
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21

handed over to the respondents, be duly considered and all possible
endeavour shall be made to implement the same. If for any reason, any
suggestion is technically not feasible, the reasons thereof shall be
communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall thereafter be at liberty
to put forth further suggestions, if any.
12. The directions and the undertaking of the respondent contained in
paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 19.03.2025 shall remain in force so long
as the application stays in operation.

13. The respondent shall continue to undertake accessibility audits in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
14. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways indicates that it has discharged its regulatory role by issuing the
Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, which, inter alia, require aggregator applications to
include accessibility features for persons with disabilities. Reference is made
to Clause 40.8 of the said guidelines. The affidavit addresses the grievance
of the petitioners in relation to the aforesaid regulatory framework.
However, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Rules, 2017 casts a continuing obligation on the Ministries and Departments
to ensure compliance with accessibility standards.
15. The statutory obligation cast upon the appropriate Government under
the Act, particularly when read with Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed
thereunder, is not discharged upon mere formulation or issuance of
guidelines, but extends to ensuring their effective, uniform and verifiable
implementation across all stakeholders operating within the digital and
transport ecosystem. The regulatory framework, therefore, must necessarily
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21

incorporate mechanisms for periodic monitoring, compliance verification
and, where required, corrective enforcement, so as to ensure that
accessibility standards are meaningfully adhered to in practice. In the
context of app-based aggregators and similar technology-driven platforms,
such oversight assumes greater significance, as accessibility is inherently
dynamic and requires continuous upgradation in line with evolving
technological interfaces.
16. The concerned Ministry shall, therefore, to ensure that the mandate of
accessibility with reference to Rule 15(2) framed thereunder, is
operationalised in a manner that secures real and substantive access for
persons with disabilities, so that the benefits of the Act and Rules are
effectively extended to Persons with disabilities and does not remain
confined to normative or policy-level compliance.
17. In future, if any further grievances arise, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to file a fresh petition.
18. With these observations, the instant petition, along with the pending
applications, stands disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 16, 2026/SH/ss




Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21