IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
[Aman Azad / News4Deaf]
(Disability Rights Activist & Social Worker)
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
(Through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications & IT)
2. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI)
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
4. RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD
5. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
6. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED
RESPONDENTS
SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 3, 40, 42 AND 46 OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016.
TO:
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
I. NATURE OF THE PETITION
This is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Equality) and 21 (Right to Life & Dignity) of the Constitution, and to specifically enforce the statutory mandate of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act, 2016).
The Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Honourable Court to remedy the “Digital Discrimination” faced by Deaf and Mute citizens who are forced to pay exorbitant costs for communication compared to hearing citizens.
II. THE FACTS OF THE CASE (THE “DISABILITY TAX”)
Voice is Free: For a hearing person, the primary mode of telecommunication is Voice Calls. In India, voice calls are currently provided effectively free of cost (unlimited) by all major telecom operators.
Sign Language is Data-Heavy: For a Person with Disability (Deaf/Mute), voice calls are impossible to use. Their “Voice” is Sign Language, and their primary mode of remote communication is Video Calling.
The Mathematical Disparity:
A standard Voice Call consumes approximately 0.5 MB of data per minute.
A Video Call (required for Sign Language) consumes approximately 8 MB to 15 MB per minute.
The Conclusion: A Deaf citizen pays 20 to 30 times more to communicate the same message as a hearing citizen. This financial burden acts as a discriminatory “tax” on their disability.
III. GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
A. VIOLATION OF RPWD ACT, 2016 (SECTIONS 3 & 42)
Section 42 (Access to ICT): The Act places a legal duty on the Government to ensure that all electronic services are accessible. “Accessibility” is not just about signal availability; it is about affordability. If the cost of the medium (Data) is prohibitive, access is denied.
Section 3 (Equality & Non-Discrimination): The refusal to provide an affordable tariff structure for video calls amounts to “Discrimination on the basis of disability,” as it disproportionately impacts Deaf users.
B. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 (RIGHT TO EQUALITY)
The current tariff structures treat unequals as equals. By charging standard data rates for video calls which are an essential utility for the Deaf but often “entertainment” for the hearing the Respondents are effectively penalizing the Petitioner class for their disability.
C. FAILURE OF “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” (SECTION 2(y)
The Respondents have failed to provide “Reasonable Accommodation.” Waiving data charges for specific video apps for verified Deaf users is a necessary and technically feasible accommodation to ensure equality.
IV. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY & PREVENTION OF MISUSE
To prevent concerns that users might use free data for entertainment (e.g., Netflix/YouTube), the Petitioner proposes a strict technical solution:
Verification: The benefit will only be unlocked for subscribers who upload a valid Government-issued UDID (Unique Disability ID) Card.
Whitelisting: Telecom operators can “whitelist” the specific IP Addresses and Server Headers of recognized communication apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Google Meet).
Restricted Usage: The free data allowance will only work when the data packets match these specific video services. If the user opens YouTube or Instagram, the data will be charged from their main balance.
V. WHY THIS IS ESSENTIAL (SOCIAL IMPACT)
The Petitioner submits that this is not just about “chatting.” The benefits are fundamental to the Right to Life (Article 21):
Emergency Safety (SOS): A hearing person in danger calls Police (112) via Voice. A Deaf person must use Video to show their surroundings or sign to an interpreter. Lack of data balance leaves them defenseless.
Tele-Medicine: Doctors increasingly use video consults. Deaf patients rely on visual diagnosis and interpreters. High data costs deter them from seeking medical help.
Employment: Deaf individuals often work in gig-economy or remote jobs where video meetings are their “office.” Taxing their “office entry” creates a barrier to employment.
Mental Health: The Deaf community suffers high rates of isolation. Visual connection is the only antidote. Denying it due to cost is cruel.
VI. PRAYERS (RELIEF SOUGHT)
In light of the above, the Petitioner prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to implement the RPWD Act, 2016 by creating a “Disability Accessibility Tariff” mandated for all licensed Telecom Service Providers.
DIRECT the Respondents to provide a “Sign Language Data Pack” which offers Daily Free High-Speed Data (Zero-Rated) specifically for video-conferencing applications (e.g., WhatsApp, Google Meet) to all subscribers holding a valid UDID Card.
DIRECT TRAI to create an exception in Net Neutrality rules specifically for “Disability Accessibility Services” to allow for this zero-rating.
PASS such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
(AMAN AZAD)
Founder
News4Deaf
