Digital Service Providers Must Ensure Real-Time Accessibility Compliance for Persons with Disabilities Under RPWD Act.

The petitioners, two visually impaired individuals (one a disability rights activist and another a banker), filed a writ petition against Rapido (Respondent No. 1) alleging that its mobile application was inaccessible to persons with disabilities

They contended that the app was incompatible with assistive technologies like screen readers, preventing them from independently booking or tracking rides

During the proceedings, the Court issued directions for compliance, leading Respondent No. 1 to incorporate suggestions into its March 2026 Android update

The petition sought mandating accessibility audits, training for staff, and the enforcement of statutory standards under the RPWD Act

1. Whether mobile applications providing essential services like transport fall under the ambit of "information and communication technology" as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

2. Whether service providers have a positive duty to ensure digital interfaces are inherently accessible and compatible with assistive technologies

3. Whether the government’s obligation under the Act is fulfilled merely by the issuance of guidelines or requires active monitoring and implementation

The court applied Section 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, which mandates access to information and communication technology

It further referred to Section 3 (non-discrimination), Section 40 (accessibility standards), and Section 43 (electronic goods and service accessibility) of the Act

Additionally, the court relied on Rule 15(2) of the RPWD Rules, 2017, which imposes a continuing obligation on Ministries to ensure compliance with accessibility standards, and Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines

The Court reasoned that in the digital age, transport applications are essential for civic life and thus fall squarely within the statutory definition of "communication technology"

It interpreted Section 42 as a "substantive equality-driven obligation" rather than a mere aspiration, requiring design principles that prevent the denial of effective access

The Court noted that while Respondent No. 1 updated its app to address the petitioners' grievances, the obligation is "dynamic" and requires constant upgrading

Regarding the Government (Respondent No. 2), the Court held that the duty under Rule 15(2) is not discharged by simply framing guidelines; there must be a verifiable mechanism for periodic monitoring and enforcement to ensure that accessibility is "meaningfully adhered to in practice" rather than remaining a policy-level formality

It held that the undertaking to remain "disabled friendly" remains in force as long as the app is operational

The Court further directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to ensure that the mandate under Rule 15(2) is operationalized through active monitoring and compliance verification across the digital transport ecosystem

Liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh petition should future grievances arise