During the hearing on accessibility accommodations for disabled law students preparing for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), Advocate Rahul Bajaj raised a critical issue concerning the inaccessibility of legal documents submitted by the Union in the case. Representing visually impaired students, Bajaj highlighted that the Union’s counter-affidavit was not provided in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR)-enabled or accessible format. This placed undue responsibility on disabled litigants and lawyers to make the document accessible on their own.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan supported the concerns and emphasized that the onus of providing accessible content lies with those filing the documents. Justice Kant remarked, “Those who want to give content, it is their responsibility,” and questioned why such practices had not yet been implemented in the Supreme Court.
Bajaj proposed solutions, including filing documents in Word or OCR-enabled formats, and suggested institutional reforms where litigants or advocates could indicate their disabilities during case filing. He referred to ongoing discussions in the Delhi High Court’s Accessibility Committee, where similar mechanisms are under review, and pointed out that the Supreme Court’s own Accessibility Report had made similar recommendations, which remain unimplemented.
The Union’s counsel suggested that awareness of a specially-abled advocate’s involvement could be communicated to the Registry through an email. Justice Kant stressed the need for the Registry to ensure that all filings, particularly those involving disabled advocates, are accessible.
The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General to resubmit the counter-affidavit in an accessible format within one week. This step aligns with the judiciary’s broader goal of ensuring inclusivity and equitable participation for persons with disabilities in legal proceedings.
Case Details
Title: Yash Dodani and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 785/2024
This directive underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the need to eliminate systemic barriers and ensure equal opportunities for disabled legal professionals.
Lawcutor 