The internet has become a necessity for modern living. It presents us with a vast sea of information that can be accessed through the right tools. Rightly so, even the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Fheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (AIR 2020 Ker 35) is in consonance with the aforesaid, highlighting the importance of internet regarding the Right to Education and Right to Privacy under Articles 21 and 21(A) of the Constitution. Even after its importance, the internet to a large degree has remained inaccessible to persons with disabilities (PWD), although multiple policies and legislations have been initiated. This article, hereinafter, aims to look at the RPWD Act that ensures rights to PWD in India, and when such legislation fails to work properly, how another body has to take up the role of maintaining accessibility. Lastly, we will conclude by discussing some reasons for the persisting disparity and solutions for the same.
Past Efforts: UNCRPD & RPWD Act
One of the most watershed moments in the development of the rights of PWD in the twenty-first century was the signing, and later ratification, of the United Nations Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) by India on October 1, 2007. The Convention effectively and broadly categorised the term “person with disability”, while urging its signatories to adopt legislations that would ensure the rights of PWD. The Convention, under Article 9(1)(b), called for measures from its member states, to ensure equal access to “information, communication and other services, including electronic services and emergency services” Additionally, under Article 9(2) called, including others, for state parties to develop and promulgate minimum standards for accessible facilities, to ensure accessibility of services to the public, to promote access to information and communication technologies, and promote design, development, production, and distribution of system that provide these technologies.
Later on, the long overdue Rights of Persons With Disabilities (RPWD) Act was enacted on April 19, 2016, to fulfil the terms of UNCRPD. The new Act led a more proactive approach towards making the state more accessible to PWD. Section 40 of the Act called for laying down standards for the accessibility of information and communication (“ICT”) facilities for the urban and rural population. Section 46 of the Act instructed both public and private service providers to implement the accessibility guidelines within two years of the date they are notified by the Central Government. Surprisingly, in a study of major government websites, many of them still fail to meet global standards and have multiple flaws, showcasing that they are yet to meet the required guidelines.[1]
Further, Rule 15 of the Act sets an inclusive standard for every website through the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) and necessitates that “documents to be placed on websites shall be in Electronic Publication (ePUB) or Optical Character Reader (OCR) based pdf format”.
Present Steps: Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disability
The time prescribed to implement the required changes by the services providers as per Section 46 of the RPWD Act has long elapsed, indicating the sheer presence of certain apathy towards PWD. To make sure that these guidelines are adhered to, lawyers and activists have started to use the Court of Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) as a forum for redressal. This form of activism is believed to increase even more after states, too, set up their independent commissioners for persons with disabilities. These commissionerates are semi judicial bodies that would have powers to take up grievances of PWDs throughout the state, and work for the successful implementation of the RPWD Act.
One of the notable cases included a complaint filed against the Indian Intellectual Property Office (IPO), under the court of CCPD, detailing many features of the website as inaccessible to PWD (Case no. 10426/1101/2018). The complainant prayed for the website, as well as the documents present, to be made accessible to attorneys with disabilities. Ultimately, working with the National Informatics Centre, the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) agreed to bring in the required change, including the introduction of voice captcha and displaying of search results on screen readers. Additionally, the IPO office also appointed a disability officer that would look further into the matters of accessibility.
Similarly, another case involved the accessibility of an iOS application named ‘Practo’, providing medical services, which was taken up in 2022 (Case no. 13205/1102/2022). As followed in the earlier IPO case, the Court of CCPD reiterated that necessary modifications, as per the GIGW or the notification issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, were to be followed. It also observed that since Practo dealt with ‘health services’, it was the onus of the Director General of Health Services to look over the matter, and not of the Ministry of Information and Technology. The Court has also, over the years, instructed other service providers, like One 97 Communications Limited (Case no. 13392/141/2022) and Ani Technologies Private Limited (Case no. 13532/1102/2022159384), to introduce accessibility features in their respective applications ‘PayTM’ and ‘Ola’ respectively, which had not been in compliance with the mandates of the legislation.
Possible reasons and solution: Governmental and Private
Having discussed the past and the present, we understand that India has a long way to go for complete internet accessibility. To take any steps for the better, and to make sure that we don’t form wrong assumptions, it is, thus, important that we understand the lacunae that have plagued the State so far. One of the major issues we face, even after multiple guidelines, policies, and legislations are made, is that most of them lack specific goals, with a system to ensure compliance with them. Even in cases where these are present, there is a lack of coordination between ministries and their accessibility guidelines remain stagnant at various stages.
Discussing the issues from the side of the service providers include a lack of coordination between the needs of PWD and the people developing the services, while PWD might be unable to understand developers’ financial and technological constraints, even if the developers wish the ensure accessibility.[2] Another issue might arise because bringing in accessibility to already established services might be considered too complicated due to the lengthy guidelines present for developers. Private service providers, at times, also refuse to make changes due to the lack of larger profit incentives, since PWD are considered to be a small minority of the actual users, thus giving them even less of an incentive to revolutionise.
The problem with the lack of incentive from the service providers themselves could be solved by introducing more data that shows that online accessibility can help players to increase their business. It is also important to understand that services made accessible to PWD are not accessible exclusively to them. These tools can be used by everyone who avails the services. Some of the best examples of this can be seen in tools we use daily, like Apple’s Siri, the language user interface, or the subtitles seen in movies.
The Government should also make sure that the websites for its various ministries, offices, Public Sector Undertakings, universities, etc. are made accessible as soon as possible. The process of checking for the same has become increasingly simple over the years, with the task being completely automated and only requiring little human intervention. To stimulate private players, under its procurement policies, the Government should incorporate rules to trade only with companies that follow accessibility standards, as done in the United States of America.
Lastly, more attention should be brought to litigations against players that do not follow mandatory guidelines to push more players to make changes as soon as possible. Service providers should not wait for the court to reach its doorstep, rather they should themselves understand their responsibility and take necessary action.
Conclusion
The issue regarding internet accessibility is not a new one and there have been huge advancements in the field since the RPWD Act. However, both the public and private sector still have a long way to go for achieving the dream set out in the UNCRPD. It is time that the Government finally walks the talk and follows-up on its obligations. The myriad of positive legislations, rules, and policies created require proper systems for implementation to bring out more proactive changes in the technologies we use now. The way forward requires changes that are visible and are not merely limited to on-paper plans.
ENDNOTES
[1] Nistha Kesswani, Accessibility Analysis of Indian Government Websites, International Conference on Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, 2021.
Surjit Paul & Saini Das, Accessibility and usability Analysis of Indian e-government Websites, Universal Access in the Information Society, 2020.
[2] Mukta Kulkarni, Digital Accessibility: Challenges and Opportunities, IIMB Management Review, 2019.
The Author, Tapesh Chauhan, is a 1st year law student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.