The 3rd Jindal Global Law School Intra-College Moot Court Competition

Moot Problem

Vikram Abidi works at the Association for Disability Rights in New Delhi. He has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair and has 75 percent disability.

In January 2012, Vikram was to travel to Mumbai for a disability rights conferen ce and had booked a flight ticket with Jupiter Airlines. The airlines did not have any form seeking information on his disability and as to whether he would need any special assist ance. When Vikram arrived at the New Delhi Airport, which was run by the Delhi Internationa l Airport Company (DIAC), he was not provided any wheelchair for his transport within the airport either by DIAC or by Jupiter Airlines. After several requests he was provided with a wh eelchair for use within the airport, but only after payment of an additional fee of Rs. 500/-. Ha ving no other choice, Vikram paid this fee and availed of the wheelchair. Thereafter, after he checked in and was given a boarding pass, he was asked to fill a form by Jupiter Airlines groun d staff stating that he would not create any danger or harm to any other passenger or member of the crew within the flight and that the airlines would not be responsible should any harm be caused by him. Vikram was highly offended by such a requirement of filling this form, and was strongly opposed to signing the same, but the Jupiter Airlines staff would not let him bo ard the flight unless such form was filled. Thus, again, after having no choice, he filled the form.

When he was to board the flight, he was taken in the wheelchair to the plane and was given a seat in the front row of the plane. During the flight, Vikram wanted to use the restroom, but when he requested assistance from the flight staff to take him there, to his sho ck, he was told that he would not be able to use the restroom as they did not have an aisle chair to take him, nor were the restrooms accessible for him to use.

After Vikram returned from Mumbai, he sent representations to DIAC and to Jupite r Airlines for

the humiliating treatment and demanded compensation for the same. Upon not recei ving an

adequate reply from them, Vikram filed a petition against DIAC and Jupiter Airli nes, under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Delhi on the following amon g other grounds: a. That his treatment by the Respondents was in violation of the provisions of t he Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participat ion Act) 1996, as no measures were taken by them to adapt their services to provide easy access to persons with disabilities and that the toilets in the airplanes were not adapted for use by persons with disabilities b. That as a person with disability he was discriminated and treated unequally, which is in violation of Article 14 of the constitution; c. That his right to be treated with basic dignity was violated; d. He also sought compensation for such humiliating treatment from the Responden ts The Respondents filed their Statement of Objections arguing that they were not covered under the PWD Act and that Chapter III of the constitution did not apply to them as they were private parties and not State as defined under Article 12 of the constituti on and that they were not liable to pay any compensation.

Please argue for both the Petitioner and Respondents. The Counsel for the Petiti oner and the Respondents are free to add in any additional grounds or issues.