Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has recorded serious non-compliance with accessibility standards by a ride-hailing mobile application, observing that its current form is “far from being ‘disabled friendly’.” The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta, in an order dated 19 March 2025, took on record an Accessibility Audit Report submitted during the proceedings, which identified 207 accessibility issues within the Rapido Android application. Of these, 81 were categorized as “High Impact (P0)” issues. The court directed the respondent company to make the application compliant within four months and warned that any breach of the undertaking would amount to wilful disobedience of court orders.

Additionally, the court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to file an affidavit detailing the regulatory mechanism ensuring that applications like Rapido’s meet accessibility standards prior to launch, with specific reference to Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

Also Read: “Acts Done Without Approval Under Section 17A Are ‘Null and Void’, Karnataka High Court: ‘Approval is Imperative to Safeguard Against Vexatious Prosecution’”

The matter arises from a writ petition filed by two petitioners seeking enforcement of accessibility standards under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Ms. Sarah, and Mr. Aman Jain, Advocates, approached the court seeking directions to ensure compliance with accessibility norms in the mobile application operated by Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd (Rapido), the first respondent.

Earlier, by an order dated 6 December 2024, the court had recorded the submission of the first respondent that it had engaged external agencies to conduct an accessibility audit and was directed to submit the corresponding report within one month. The respondents included Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and other authorities.

However, it was subsequently brought to the court’s attention that the report had not been submitted within the timeline mandated. During the hearing on 19 March 2025, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Accessibility Audit Report, along with a certificate dated 18 March 2025, had been received only the previous day and was handed over to the court.

The certificate from SaralX Accessibility Private Limited stated that an accessibility audit was conducted on 38 screens of the Rapido Android app, covering various core journeys. The audit identified 207 issues categorized as per WCAG 2.2 and BIS IS 17802 guidelines. The breakdown included 170 issues at Conformance Level A and 37 at Conformance Level AA, further classified into 81 high-impact, 97 medium-impact, and 29 low-impact issues.

The report detailed evaluations including color contrast testing, TalkBack screen reader checks, zoom and text resizing assessments, and text truncation analysis.

The court noted with concern the findings of the audit, stating, “It is noticed that the above certificate reveals an alarming state of affairs inasmuch as 207 accessibility issues have been identified in the ‘Rapido Android App’. Notably, 81 of these issues have been referred to as ‘High Impact (P0)’.” The court observed, “It is evident that the application of the respondent no.1 is far from being ‘disabled friendly’.

”

During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged the court to take stern action against the first respondent and to impose penalties under Section 89 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides for penalties where a service provider fails to comply with the accessibility requirements mandated by law.

In response, counsel for the first respondent submitted that the company undertakes to address all the accessibility issues identified in the audit report as well as any additional issues that may arise, ensuring that the application is fully compliant and disabled friendly.

The court recorded this undertaking, noting, “learned counsel for respondent no.1 assures and undertakes, on instructions, that all the accessibility issues referred to in the Accessibility Audit Report as also any other issue that may arise, shall be duly addressed by the respondent no.1 and the application of the respondent no.1 shall be made ‘disabled friendly’ in all respects, latest within a period of 4 months from today.”

The Bench further recorded, “it is assured and undertaken, on instructions, that adequate steps shall be taken to ensure that the application continues to be ‘disabled friendly’ in all respects, for as long as the same is in operation.”

The court stated that “any breach of the aforesaid undertaking/s shall be construed as wilful disobedience of the order/s of this Court.”

Also Read: Courts Cannot Rewrite Statutory Provisions or Introduce additional procedural Safeguards that are not contemplated by law’: Supreme Court Rejects IAS Officer’s Plea for Mandatory Preliminary

The Bench directed that the undertaking provided by the first respondent be complied with in its entirety within four months. It also issued directions to respondent no.2, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, stating, “the respondent no.2/Ministry of Road Transport And Highways is directed to file an affidavit to place on record the regulatory mechanism that is in place to ensure that the application/s, such as the one introduced by the respondent no.1, comply with the necessary requirements for being disabled friendly prior to their launch, and have all requisite accessibility features as mandated under the law, particularly, under Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.”

The court granted a final opportunity to respondent no.2 to file the affidavit within four weeks. The Bench directed that failure to comply will require the concerned Joint Secretary of respondent no.2 to personally appear before the court on the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on 13 August 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Advocate; Ms. Sarah, Advocate; Mr. Aman Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Advocate; Mr. Vinay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, and Mr. Mani Kant, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3; Mr. Gaurav Prajapati, Legal Consultant, DEPwD

Case Title: Amar Jain and Anr v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd (Rapido) and Others

Case Number: W.P.(C) 14735/2023 and CM APPLs. 66430/2023, 6270/2024

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]