In a status report filed at the Madras High Court, the department had claimed that facilities for the differently-abled like lift mechanism, audio alert system and buzzer with switches to stop the vehicle in the event of an emergency were available on State-run buses.

 

“In 2010, the MTC operated six buses with all these features catering to the differently-abled persons. These services were introduced soon after the High Court issued a direction. It was seen on the roads for about eight years. However, after the vehicles crossed expiry period, they were withdrawn instead of being replaced,” said S Namburajan, State general secretary, Tamil Nadu Association for the Rights of All Types of Differently Abled and Caregivers (TARATDAC).

Noting how the differently-abled persons always need help while travelling in the public transport system, he said it was not enough to have low-floor buses. “The buses are not equipped with a ramp for easy entry and exit of wheelchair-bound persons. An audio-visual system informing the upcoming destinations would help the visually challenged and hearing-impaired persons,” Namburajan added.“The commuters lose their self-respect and dignity during journey,” said S Deepika, a differently-abled person.

  

However, a top official from the Institute of Road Transport (IRT) maintained that the new buses plying on the roads these special features for differently-abled persons.

“The buses are being built adhering to AIS 052 bus body code, which has prescribed provisions for differently-abled persons. The construction of buses is being undertaken by strictly adhering to the code of bus building,” said the official.

Meanwhile, activists have also expressed disappointment that the court failed to show sensitivity on the matter. Advocate P Muruganandham, a person with muscular dystrophy who was the petitioner in the case, had sought video conferencing facilities for the differently-abled petitioners, citing various reasons including inaccessible transportation and buildings. “However, I was told that no one else from the disabled community had brought up this issue. Not only was the request denied, the bench also said that it can do nothing other than expressing sympathy,” said Muruganandham.

Pointing out the irony in forcing differently-persons to come to court by using inaccessible transport to discuss matters of transport accessibility, activist Vaishnavi Jayakumar said Muruganandham was not speaking for himself alone, but was fighting for all members of the community who can neither use the inaccessible public transport facilities not can afford the expensive alternatives. “If the court itself lacks awareness of the reality of disabled Indians, where do we go,” she asked.