Fwd: SAC-RR Group B Response to draft comments (received on 10.06.2025) from stakeholders as compiled by Ministry of Heavy Industries
Vaishnavi Jayakumar (Inclusive India)
From: Vaishnavi Jayakumar (Inclusive India) <vaishnavi...@inclusiveindia.info>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 16:36
Subject: SAC-RR Group B Response to draft comments (received on 10.06.2025) from stakeholders as compiled by Ministry of Heavy Industries
To: <manishk...@gov.in>
Cc: arman_ali <arma...@ncpedp.org>
To,
Manish Kumar
Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Heavy Industries (MHI),
Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110011
Email : manishk...@gov.in
Subject : Response to draft comments (received on 10.06.2025) from stakeholders as compiled by Ministry of Heavy Industries
Dear Mr. Manish Kumar,
We write in response to the Ministry of Heavy Industries’ compilation of stakeholder feedback, to respectfully clarify and reinforce key concerns related to the accessibility provisions for public service vehicles, especially in the context of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
With respect to the accessibility mandate applied to all bus types and sectcors, while the document recognises the need for wheelchair access to Type-I city buses, it is followed by the Ministry’s confounding statement that Type II/III Buses “IF equipped with wheelchair access, must follow the requirements in both AIS 052 and AIS 153, as listed by DEPwD”
The law has been abundantly clear for a while now on comprehensive bus accessibility for all public service vehicles, including those run by private operators, whether Type I, II or III.
In 2018, the apex court stated that “all government or private owned public transport carriers are to be made accessible by March 2018.”
Earlier the apex court in the 2017 judgement of Rajive Raturi vs Union of India and Ors S.C. W.P.(C)No.243/2005 stated : “Section 41 of the Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for comprehensive accessibility in all modes of transport including but not remitted to the bus transport. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the Union, States as well as Union Territories to ensure that all Government buses are disabled friendly in accordance with the Harmonized Guidelines.”
Additionally, the Harmonised Guidelines Standard referenced by the Supreme Court required buses be low floor for step-free boarding.
In regard to the safe wheelchair accessibility to city buses in Indian traffic, while wheelchair lifts are deployed for long distance travel in buses elsewhere in the modern world, the rationale for the high floor bus is due to luggage being stored at the base.
In India buses still largely run on truck chassis, a century after buses diverged from trucks in evolution. From 2005 in various courts the same excuses have been proffered by government, operators and industry - bad roads, floods, speed breakers. The stage carriage model of city bus services, characterised by time-sensitive fixed routes with frequent stops unseparated from city traffic via bus lanes (with the exception of a fraction of BRT) is not compatible with wheelchair lifts.
Furthermore, it poses morally unacceptable safety hazards to wheelchair users given unruly Indian traffic. The Madras High Court in 2024 has recognised this by stating, “The lift system which was sought to be used in the high floor buses is admitted to be a failure by both sides. Besides, with the kind of crowd in the metropolitan cities, it is impossible to operate such lifts to enable the wheel-chair bound commuters to get inside the bus.”
As far back as 2012, the Urban Bus Specifications II prescribed 400 mm low floor buses as a norm for Type-I city buses. MOHUA additionally recommended in addition to the low floor bus rollout, bus platform height standardisation to 400 mm for ordinary city bus service to enable level boarding and universal access along with minimal dwell time for urban settings.
It is shameful that the nation seems to be going backwards, rather than forward with respect to basic public transport, with the anachronistic embarrassment that is the high floor electric bus.
When it comes to the prescriptive specifications and harmonisation of AIS-052 with UNECE R107 amendment, the decision to create a fresh standard (AIS-216) by extracting relevant elements from AIS-052 linked with AIS-153 is baffling. Prior prescriptive specifications like the UBS-II, could have been expanded (specifications for hilly regions, for example, if the current Type-I, II, III classification did not permit) and mandated for procurement compliance, via annexures to the Bus Body Code.
Invoking UNECE R107, the template of India’s Bus Body Code, in the decision to draft a new standard is also inappropriate, given that AIS-216 further dilutes accessibility provisions in AIS-052 and AIS-153; where the UNECE R107 is being amended to expand accessibility provisions.
A vital omission when creating AIS-052 lies in the definition of a low floor bus - the equivalent in UNECE-R107 was the turning point in 1999 Europe to go for accessible low floor buses thanks to disability rights advocates. When you refer to Section 1.1.74 in AIS - 052 (definition of a low-floor vehicle) and Section 2.1.4. in UNECE R-107 (definition of a low-floor vehicle), it can be seen that the UNECE R-107 term ‘Class’ corresponds to the AIS term ‘Type’ the inclusion of Class I, II or A in the definition of ‘low-floor vehicle’ therefore mandates that Intra-City, Inter-City and Intra-City Mini buses be low-floor. Therefore, Annexure I below, gives specific suggestions to remove all ambiguities or inconsistencies under the definitions in AIS-052.
Decades of foregone accessibility have passed due to omissions or dilutions of the statute and in litigating ambiguities. The accessibility mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is long overdue. It is essential that Government, manufacturers, service providers and users surmount any challenges with a solution-oriented, imaginative approach rather than the twenty year old excuses of bad roads, speedbreakers, monsoon waterlogging etc.
It is this can-do spirit, deployed admirably in India’s BS-VI roll-out, that is required to make taxis, rickshaws, app aggregators etc accessibility-compliant. (Embracing Universal Design as the default, is no different from BS-VI decision-making - both are examples of the categorical imperative.) The SAC-RR transport accessibility group would be happy to meet and collaboratively discuss the specific challenges that other stakeholders may be struggling with, as too little information has been provided as justification for reclassification.
Regards,
Arman Ali & Vaishnavi Jayakumar
Facilitators, SAC-RR Group : Access to Transport Ecosystem
Annexure I
Section 1.1.74 in AIS - 052 defines a low-floor vehicle as:
"Low floor vehicle" means a vehicle in which at least 35 per cent of the area available for standing passengers (or of its forward section in the case of articulated vehicles) forms a single area without steps, reached through at least one service door by a single step from the ground.
Section 2.1.4. in UNECE R-107 defines a low-floor vehicle as:
‘Low-floor vehicle’ is a vehicle of Class I, II or A in which at least 35 per cent of the area available for standing passengers (or in its forward section in the case of articulated vehicles, or in its lower deck in the case of double-decker vehicles) forms an area without steps and includes access to at least one service door.
With the UNECE R-107 term ‘Class’ corresponding to the AIS term ‘Type’ the inclusion of Class I, II or A in the definition of ‘low-floor vehicle’ therefore mandates that Intra-City, Inter-City and Intra-City Mini buses be low-floor.
Therefore, to remove all ambiguities / inconsistencies it is proposed that definitions in AIS-052 shall specify clearly that:
A) All intra-city public service vehicles (including Type-1, mini or micro buses) shall be low floor, with a maximum ground to floor height of 400 mm, wheelchair ramp and wheelchair securement space with tie-down restraints (WTORS).
B) All inter-city public service vehicles (including Type-2 buses) shall be either low floor with wheelchair ramp, or be equipped with a lift, like long distance (Type-3) buses and shall be equipped with WTORS and wheelchair storage area.
Furthermore, AIS-052 and AIS-153 may be merged and harmonised (after rectifying the diluting amendments on ramp gradient, guide dog space etc) while upgrading India’s Bus Body Code & Specifications to be in sync with accessibility-related amendments in UNECE R107 scheduled to be formalised in the upcoming WP-29 November 2025 session.