Being a regular user of the DU website as part of the teaching fraternity, I can also confirm that the website of DU is not fully accessible, especially, the noticeboard where the day-to-day latest notices are displayed. Even the notices themselves are in inaccessible form.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 at 18:33, 'Rahul Bajaj' via AccessIndia < [email protected]> wrote: > In the week of 16th February, we had a total of 9 hearings. Out of these, > 6 hearings were effective and 3 were ineffective. I am sharing the details > of the effective hearings below. > > > > > > *Monday:* > > In the Delhi High Court, we appeared on behalf of a blind llm student in > Delhi University. The case had been filed in May last year with 2 main > grievances – first, the failure of the university to provide hostel > accommodation to him and, second, accessibility issues on the DU website. > The first issue got resolved amicably soon after the filing of the case. On > the second issue, DU in their response stated that their website is fully > accessible and that the Petitioner had failed to point to any specific > accessibility issues. In the hearing, we pointed out to the Court that, > while some progress has taken place since the filing of the case on > ensuring accessibility of the website, some issues still remain. The most > critical one being the captchas on some university pages being > inaccessible. The lawyer for DU suggested that we hand over a list of > issues to them for their resolution. We agreed to do so but said that a > comprehensive solution can only be found if DU is asked to get their > website audited by an independent auditor and to resolve the issues. The > concept of an accessibility auditor was explained to the Court. > Accordingly, the court gave DU 3 months to commission an independent audit > and to resolve the issues flowing from the same as well as the issues > separately flagged by the Petitioner. It directed that the Petitioner must > be informed about the completion of this exercise, so he can check it for > himself. > > > > *Wednesday:* > > On Wednesday, we appeared in the Delhi High Court on behalf of the > Respondents in a challenge by the Union of India to a judgment by CAT > holding that the blanket exclusion of those with SLD and other category D > disabilities from the civil services exams is illegal and directing them to > reconsider this approach for the next cycle. The Court told the Union > lawyer that the judgment below directs a reconsideration of the exclusion > with domain experts and relevant ministries and that there is nothing wrong > with that. The lawyer for the union tried to argue that this is a policy > matter and reservation is being given to other disability categories. One > of the judges also pointed out that granting age relaxation to this > category but no reservation appeared arbitrary. Accordingly, the Court > dismissed the writ petition. It however granted a further period of 8 weeks > to the Union to comply with the CAT judgment. > > > > > > *Thursday:* > > In the Delhi High Court, we appeared in a writ petition on the issue of > accessibility of feature films in theatres. We pointed out to the Court > that, while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued > accessibility guidelines for feature films, there are many > implementation-level issues. We had made a written note with 8 suggestions > for how these gaps can be addressed and we pointed those out to the Court. > The Court, after patiently understanding all issues, enquired as to which > authority would need to fix them. We pointed out that this must be a joint > effort between the MIB, MEITY and CBFC. MIB would need to ensure that > information about accessibility options to watch movies must be made widely > available, including through ticket booking platforms, ensure that the > accessibility features are of the required quality and are made available > on a universal basis. The MEITY must ensure that ticket booking platforms > are themselves accessible. CBFC must ensure that accessibility features are > made available in all the languages of the movie concerned as well as > published on its website. Accordingly, all 3 authorities were asked to > expeditiously implement these suggestions within 2 months and the matter > was renotified to 7th May. > > > > > > > > *Friday:* > > On Friday, there were 3 effective hearings: > > · In CAT, we appeared on behalf of a candidate with multiple > disabilities of blindness+ hard of hearing who is challenging the exclusion > of the deaf-blind from the ambit of reservation in the civil services. The > Court issued notice in the matter and renotified it to Monday. It orally > told the Union lawyer that the Supreme Court has directed adopting an > inclusive approach, encompassing accessibility and reasonable accommodation > and therefore they should allow this candidate to apply. They further asked > them to consider having empathy. They renotified the matter to Monday, 23 > rd February, given that the deadline to apply is 24th February. > > · In the Supreme Court, we appeared on behalf of a candidate with > SLD. His case is that, after cracking the Combined Graduate Level Exams, he > was allotted a post in CAG, only to ultimately have his candidature > cancelled on the ground that the post in question had not been identified > for his category and the assurance of an alternative posting also being > breached. After much persuasion from the Court, and multiple hearings, the > Union agreed to accommodate him in a Group C clerical post if directed to > do so by the Court. On Friday, we tried to tell the Court that the > candidate was earlier given a group B officer level post and is now being > given a clerical post and therefore should be given a post with similar > service benefits to what he was given earlier as well as notional seniority > for the time period he lost out on. However, the Court was insistent that > no further relief can be provided and would altogether dismiss the matter > if we pushed any further and accordingly reserved the matter for orders. > > · In the Delhi High Court, we appeared in a review petition filed > by a candidate with locomotor disability. His grievance is that ONGC > identified the post he applied for, of Material Management Officer, for > those with both legs affected subcategory of locomotor disability but did > not reserve the post for those with locomotor disability. The post was only > reserved for those with visual and hearing disability. This was the only > post identified as being suitable for those orthopedically disabled persons > both of whose legs are disabled. The Court had dismissed the petition on > the ground that a candidate cannot insist that reservation be provided for > a particular subcategory of disability. On Friday, we tried to point out > that we were not asking for reservation for a subcategory of disability. > Rather, we were saying that once a post is identified for those with > orthopedic disability, it must be reserved for that category. We tried to > argue that identification of a post is only for the purpose of reservation. > However, we could not persuade the Court. We were only engaged to argue the > review petition, and another law office had drafted the writ petition. When > drafting the petition, they had inexplicably used the 1995 Act rather than > the 2016 Act. Further, the opposite lawyer had also created a false > narrative of the candidate submitting a fabricated disability certificate > to create prejudice in the court’s mind, and the whole controversy related > to the 2018 recruitment year which is long over. So we could not prevail. > > -- > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of > the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "AccessIndia" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9Aj%2B9bXc6E3wN%3D9-eYNTnc%2Bzyd%3D_xbd3MW6OP1h6Lphbtg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9Aj%2B9bXc6E3wN%3D9-eYNTnc%2Bzyd%3D_xbd3MW6OP1h6Lphbtg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CANJnwVHSfPwkTjNXUV-N-VszgWxydgLtHB%3DKy-5URKNNpywodQ%40mail.gmail.com.
