In a significant intervention expanding the contours of accessibility rights, the Supreme Court of India has emphasised that public transport cannot be considered accessible unless “first and last mile” connectivity for persons with disabilities is ensured, urging authorities to consider wheelchair-friendly and specially modified cabs as an integral part of inclusive mobility.
The observations came from a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking measures to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs) in accessing public transport systems.
The PIL highlights a structural gap in India’s transport framework while buses, metros, and railways are gradually being made accessible, the journey to and from these systems remains inaccessible for many PwDs.
This “first and last mile” problem, the petitioner argued, effectively nullifies the utility of accessible public infrastructure, as individuals with disabilities are unable to reach transport hubs independently.
During the hearing, the Court acknowledged this reality, noting that in modern cities, cab services have become an essential extension of public transport and must therefore meet accessibility standards.
The bench raised a pointed and practical concern that if a wheelchair user reaches the main road, “where do they leave it?” This observation underscores a deeper issue accessibility cannot be partial or fragmented.
The Court was informed that many cabs, particularly those fitted with CNG cylinders, lack adequate space to accommodate wheelchairs, effectively excluding persons with disabilities from using such services.
Recognising these challenges, the Court suggested introduction of specially modified cabs, Use of external carriers or design adjustments and development of dedicated accessible vehicles within app-based cab. The case is rooted in the broader framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which mandates barrier-free access to public infrastructure and services.
The Supreme Court’s observations build on its consistent jurisprudence recognising that accessibility is intrinsic to dignity under Article 21. Mobility and independent movement are essential to full participation in society. State and private actors alike have a duty to ensure inclusive design
Earlier rulings, including those in accessibility-related PILs, have emphasised that lack of access amounts to indirect discrimination against persons with disabilities.
A key submission before the Court was that rules and guidelines already exist, but their implementation remains weak.
The petitioner argued that despite statutory mandates accessible transport remains limited, Private mobility services operate without uniform accessibility standards and Persons with disabilities face systemic exclusion in everyday travel
The Court acknowledged this gap, indicating the need for practical, enforceable solutions rather than mere policy declarations.
The Union Government informed the Court that accessibility issues in transport are already under examination by a committee constituted pursuant to earlier Supreme Court directions in a related matter.
Taking note of this, the Court adjourned the case and sought further assistance, indicating that the issue may be addressed within a broader policy framework on accessibility.
The case extends the concept of accessibility from static infrastructure (buildings, stations) to dynamic mobility systems (cabs, ride-sharing platforms).
By focusing on cab services, the Court signals that private transport operators are equally bound by accessibility obligations, especially when they function as public-facing services.
The suggestions for modified cabs and platform-based solutions indicate a move toward universal design principles, aligning India with global accessibility norms.The ruling could influence policies in metropolitan cities, where app-based mobility dominates last-mile connectivity.
The Court’s approach reflects a rights-based understanding of disability; Article 14 (Equality) equal access to public services, Article 21 (Life and Dignity) includes right to mobility and independence and Directive Principles mandate inclusive development and social justice
By framing accessibility as a constitutional obligation rather than a welfare measure, the Court strengthens the enforceability of disability rights.
The Supreme Court’s observations in the present PIL mark an important step toward reimagining urban mobility through the lens of inclusion. By highlighting the gap between infrastructure and actual accessibility, the Court has brought attention to a critical but often overlooked dimension of public transport.
As India moves toward smarter and more digitised cities, the challenge will be to ensure that technological and infrastructural advancements do not exclude those who need them the most.
The outcome of this case may well determine whether accessibility in India evolves from policy promise to lived reality for millions of persons with disabilities.
