Jeeja Ghosh and Anr v. Union of India & Ors: Strengthening the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Aviation

Jeeja Ghosh and Anr v. Union of India & Ors: Empowering Persons with Disabilities under the Aerial Environment

Introduction

The Indian Supreme Court in Jeeja Ghosh and Anr v. Union of India & Ors. handled an important problem relating to dealing with persons with disabilities (PWDs) when they travel in the air transport system. In this case, the issue regarding systemic discrimination against differently-abled persons when undertaking air travel emerged. The very essence of the judgment was the basic rights of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also considered India’s obligations under international treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and domestic legislation, including the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Civil Aviation Requirements and Non-Compliance

The 2008 Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) required airlines and airports to make arrangements for the travel of passengers with reduced mobility. The CAR obliged airlines to offer appropriate assistance and training to their crew to effectively handle disabled passengers. But the Court held that the above requirements had not been successfully implemented, as seen in the case of Ms. Jeeja Ghoss, an activist who suffers from cerebral palsy. The Court was critical of the airline for its insensitive conduct and observed that the denial of assistance was an unambiguous violation of both the CAR and the petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Judicial Interpretation of Fundamental Rights

The Court recalled that the right to dignity was an integral aspect of the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. It underscored that discriminatory treatment of PWDs constitutes a breach of their basic right to equality under Article 14. Relying on past judgments like Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021), the Court reasserted the doctrine that the State and its agencies are bound to provide for non-discrimination and equal involvement of PWDs in public life.

International Obligations under the UNCRPD

India is a signatory to the UNCRPD, which mandates State parties to abolish discrimination against people with disabilities and ensure accessibility in transport. The Court emphasized compliance with international obligations, pointing out that both government and private sectors, including airlines, have to adapt to the needs of people with disabilities. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was also used to point out that international commitments have to be incorporated into national laws.

Government’s Welcome Response: Modified CAR, 2014

In response to the incident, the DGCA modified the CAR in 2014, rectifying most of the issues flagged by the petitioners. The modified CAR put in place better guidelines for help, the usage of wheelchairs, and accessible infrastructure within airports. The Court appreciated the government’s forward-thinking approach but emphasized the need for ongoing checks to avoid further violations. It emphasized the necessity for airlines to conduct training for their employees and manage complaints effectively through specific grievance redressal systems.

The Court’s Directive on Accountability

The Court ruled that the onus of ensuring compliance with the CAR lies with both the government and the airlines. It instructed the DGCA to take action for monitoring airlines and imposing penalties in case of non-compliance. The judgment strongly pointed out that denying boarding to individuals with disabilities for no legitimate reasons is illegal. It further suggested the formulation of a clear complaints resolution process to redress grievances in a timely manner.

Conclusion

The ruling in Jeeja Ghosh and Anr v. Union of India & Ors. is a milestone in upholding the rights of individuals with disabilities in the context of civil aviation. It emphasizes dignity, equality, and non-discrimination in public services. The judgment also brings out India’s commitment to global conventions and emphasizes the necessity for strong domestic processes to facilitate the integration of all persons, regardless of their physical or mental capacity, in general activities. The case creates a precedent for facilitating accessible and respectful journeys for all travelers and enforces the policy that human rights cannot be diluted in any industry.