Manmayi Sharma* and Somya Jain**
The newly launched PM-eBus Sewa Scheme by the Union Government aims to deploy 10,000 e-buses in non-metropolitan cities of India. However, the absence of accessibility features in a significant number of these buses excludes a vast majority of persons with disabilities and others facing mobility challenges. This will contravene basic equality and accessibility mandates reflected in law and reinforced by the judiciary. Therefore, this article undertakes a critical examination of the e-bus tenders issued under the PM-eBus Sewa scheme in relation to disability laws, motor vehicle laws and urban planning guidelines and policies. Additionally, it suggests policy-driven measures as a way forward to enhance compliance with the law and promote accessible e-bus transportation in India.
Introduction: Public bus transport is evolving, yet plagued by inaccessibility
Mobility is a much-desired aspect of everyday life, given its significance in enabling personal freedom and access to various opportunities. Public transportation is a key way to access easy and sustainable mobility. However, despite being intended for wide public usage, many face barriers to accessing it, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, pregnant women, as well as those with strollers or heavy luggage – all of whom may encounter challenges while alighting, exiting, or simply riding in a public vehicle.
In India, the most popular and economically feasible mode of public transportation is buses. According to the 72nd National Sample Survey (2016), about 66% rural households and 62% urban households in India rely on buses as their primary mode of commute. Despite their affordability and wide coverage, public buses in India are quite inaccessible. High floor boards make boarding difficult, especially for wheelchair users. Most buses do not provide appropriate seating with handrails and supports. Buses often don’t stop at designated stops, and drivers seldom wait for persons with mobility challenges. As per the 45th Report of the Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment (2023), only 6% of public buses in India are accessible.
In recent years, India has seen a surge in the adoption of electric buses (‘e-buses’), which was kickstarted with the launch of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles (‘FAME’) initiative in 2015. The government’s focus on sustainable mobility policies is evidenced by its plans to roll out 50,000 e-buses across the country by 2027.
The PM e-Bus Sewa scheme (‘PMEBS’), launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (‘MoHUA’) in August 2023 aims to deploy 10,000 e-buses in cities lacking organised bus services – such as Patna, Vijayawada, Kota, Kohima and Shillong. The scheme, set to reach 169 cities in the country overall, aims to enhance the “ease of living” and improve the lives and livelihood opportunities of city residents.
With a significant influx of e-buses anticipated to join India’s bus fleet in the coming decade, there exists ample opportunity to prioritise and ensure their accessibility, especially at the stage of tendering and manufacturing of these buses. However, till date, the two tenders issued for procurement under the PMEBS – Tender I for the procurement of 3,600 e-buses (issued on November 17th, 2023) and Tender II for the procurement of 3,132 e-buses (issued on March 14th, 2023) – demonstrate a notable absence of accessibility parameters.
This article delves into the need for accessible public bus transportation in India, with specific focus drawn on the PMEBS initiative. First, the article examines the legal framework governing accessible bus transportation in India. It then analyses the accessibility gaps identified in the tenders issued under PMEBS. Last, while analysing the root causes contributing to non-compliance with legal mandates for bus transportation, the article suggests a way forward to enhance accessibility in India’s public bus transportation.
Legal Framework on Accessible Bus Transport: A Broad Overview
In India, mandates for accessible transport can be found in a wide range of laws and guidelines. The Constitution (Articles 14 and 19) guarantees equality, freedom of movement, and prohibits discrimination. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPWDA’), ensures equal opportunity, non-discrimination (Section 3) and requires ‘reasonable accommodation’ (Section 2(y)), i.e., ensuring necessary modifications and adjustments that, without imposing a disproportionate burden, enable persons with disabilities to enjoy their rights on par with others. The RPWDA also lays down statutory mandates requiring Union and state governments to take measures to provide access to all modes of transport (Section 41).
Specific to buses, Indian laws and policies outline extensive accessibility requirements within the disability law framework, motor vehicle laws, and urban planning guidelines, including time-bound compliance mandates.
The RPWDA, read with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (‘Rules’) mandate that all buses comply with the ‘Bus Body Code’, which comprises the ‘Automotive Industry Standards’, including AIS-052 and AIS-153. These standards lay down accessibility requirements for ‘Passengers of Reduced Mobility’, and are issued under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘CMVR’, Rules 125 C (1) and (7)). The RPWDA fixed a deadline of 15 June 2019 (two years from the date of notification of the Rules), within which the Union and State governments were to ensure that all public buses would be disabled friendly in accordance with the prescribed accessibility requirements.
Further, in order for a transport vehicle to obtain valid registration, it must obtain a fitness certificate as per Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MVA’). Buses that fail to meet the accessibility requirements outlined in the CMVR and the Bus Body Code are ineligible for such a fitness certificate (MVA, Section 62A(1) and CMVR, Rule 125 C (1)). Consequently, without such certification and registration, buses cannot ply on the road.
The AIS-173 introduced in 2022, also now requires incorporation of an ‘Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System’, i.e., AVAS for e-buses, given such quiet vehicles have been known to cause death or bodily injuries to blind or visually impaired pedestrians who are unaware of their presence.
Additionally, the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 enforced under the RPWDA (Sections 40 and 41, read with Rule 15(b)) state that accessible buses should provide “step-free, level boarding” by way of low floor buses and should be fitted with boarding apparatus such as hydraulic lifts or pull-out/foldable ramp in the doorway as part of the standards for “minimum compliance for accessibility” (Clause 6.3.1.2.2).
The Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 judgement of Rajiv Raturi v Union of India and Ors. ((2018) 2 SCC 413) referenced the Harmonised Guidelines (of 2016 with such accessibility requirements in pari materia) and directed states to undertake measures providing for “easily accessible entry and exit points at bus stops, railway stations and airports.” Thereafter, in a 2018 compliance hearing the Supreme Court stated that “all government /private owned public transport carriers are to be made accessible by March 2018.”
Additionally, under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Urban Bus Specifications-II (‘UBS-II’) (2013) mandates that cities with populations over 10 lakhs must procure buses with a floor height of 400mm or 650mm. For cities with populations under 10 lakhs, buses with a floor height of 900mm are allowed only with special permission from the Ministry.
Overall, as is evident, the law imposes a range of minimum accessibility requirements for public buses, such as low floor entry ranging from 400mm (“true low floors”) to 650 mm, the need for appropriate wheelchair entry through foldable ramps or hydraulic lifts, and the need for appropriate signage detailing the next stop and audio announcements. These requirements also make provision for housing/locking arrangement for wheelchairs, priority seats for persons with disabilities, provision for securing of crutches/canes/walker, handrails/stanchions and also controls or ‘safety buttons’ at priority seats for passengers to communicate a stop or any emergency to the bus staff and driver.
PMEBS Tenders Fail to Meet Basic Requirements of Law
The language in the PMEBS tenders claims to provide buses with “easy passenger accessibility, including for persons with disabilities” (page 281 & page 289). The tenders mandate compliance with the Bus Body Code, including AIS-153, which imposes a maximum floor height of 650 mm for buses to be considered accessible for persons with reduced mobility, including at least one wheelchair user (Clause 2.12). They further state that in the event of any conflict between the legal mandate and the tender specifications, there should be adherence to the “superior/higher standard”.
And yet, the PMEBS tenders violate certain basic legal requirements brought out in the section above. Three primary violations are detailed below –
- No low floor buses: The e-buses sought to be launched are inaccessible by design as
After representations from disability rights advocates, the government, on 29 December, 2023 amended Tender I to include 100 low floor buses for persons with disabilities. Though a step in the right direction, this still contradicts the broad promise and mandate of the RPWDA and the CMVR, which strive to ensure access of persons with disabilities to all transport, and not just a limited percentage.
Disappointingly, Tender II ignores all mandates and takes a step back from the progress made under the amended Tender I as the entire fleet of e-buses have the highest floor height of 900mm. Consequently, none of the 3,132 buses procured will have accessible entry/exit.
- Limited to no provision for wheelchair access: The provision in Tender I for “wheelchair of persons with disability” was initially limited to only 10% of the bus fleet, out of which 7m buses were simply excluded on account of their entrances being too narrow, rendering travel on such buses impossible for wheelchairs users. The amended Tender I now mentions that ramps or lift-based mechanisms to allow wheelchair entry would be, “provided in at least 25 percent of the fleet”. This is merely tokenistic and dilutes the larger mandate of the law.
- Provision of lifts and ramps a solution only for wheelchair access: The solutions provided in Tender I will benefit only wheelchair users, while ignoring the vast number of people who may not necessarily need a lift/wheelchair but instead simply require step free level boarding to enter the bus. These groups can include people who rely on crutches or walkers, or even pregnant women, children and the elderly. Tender II, on the other hand, has provision for wheelchairs for “100% of the bus fleet in the city”. However, ramps and lifts that are introduced in bus floors of 650mm and 900 mm are quite steep, impractical and dangerous to manoeuvre, and require additional human assistance. This is exhibited in news reports indicating accidents, including one where a disabled activist fell off the ramp of an “accessible bus” in Chennai, and sustained injuries to her skull during a demo inspection of the ramp.
Thus, efforts to address accessibility concerns raised by disability rights advocates in Tender I failed to adequately incorporate accessibility provisions. Tender II, issued two months later, disregards progress made in Tender I and neglects accessibility requirements altogether.
Except for the 100 low floor e-buses that will be procured under Tender I, basic entry and exit for all e-buses under PMEBS will remain a challenge. Despite these evident violations of accessibility rights, the MoHUA claims full compliance with accessibility standards under PMEBS.
Recognising Equality and Reasonable Accommodation
It is unfortunate that the state, which is entrusted with safeguarding the rights and interests of persons with disabilities, has neglected explicit legal mandates. Some of the common reasons given by the government for failure to procure low-floor buses is the prohibitive cost of manufacturing low-floor buses – such as in 2017 , when the Delhi Transport Corporation informed the Delhi High Court they were unable to procure low-floor buses due to lack of affordable bids. The poor condition of roads, especially in smaller cities (that are the chief focus of the PMEBS), further discourage bus operators from running low-floor buses due to the fear of damage and increased maintenance costs.
While acknowledging these challenges, such financial and infrastructural constraints should not serve as a justification to compromise the legal rights of persons with disabilities. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently emphasised the government’s duty to ensure disabled-friendly transportation. For e.g., in Vaishnavi Jayakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (WP No.29914 of 2022), the Madras High Court directed municipal corporations to enhance the quality of roads to facilitate accessible low floor buses.
Specifically, as far as poor roads are concerned, the PMEBS guidelines (page 5) incorporate the will and foresight requiring relevant cities to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the concerned state departments for maintenance of roads along the bus route. As far as costs are concerned, there seems to be significant funding for rapidly transitioning from diesel to hybrid and electric buses. This is evident from the Central Government’s recent plan to replace one-third diesel buses with e-buses and India’s long term commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2070. And yet, when it comes to implementing equal access and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, the government seemingly prioritises costs versus compliance, allowing for dilution of the law, and compromising the safety and equal treatment of persons with disabilities and many others.
Taking stock of the issues under the PMEBS, the article emphasises the non-negotiable requirements for the scheme to be in consonance with basic legal mandates for ensuring bus access. While there is considerable ground to cover in meeting all accessibility norms and standards spelled out in the law, the government should ensure that the requirement of accessible entry and exit, through low-floor e-buses should be incorporated as a minimum basic standard of access in all its tenders – and currently the PMEBS tenders. All buses, or at least a significant percentage of buses on all bus routes, should be procured as true low-floors, with foldable ramps installed in the doorway – as an initial step towards accessibility. Step-free level boarding not only makes it easier for persons with disabilities and many others to access buses, but also reduces the dwelling time taken during boarding/deboarding through ramps and lifts and minimises the risk of boarding/deboarding accidents. Implementing this small measure for accessibility can potentially increase the overall ridership of public buses and empower people to travel independently without being limited by mobility challenges.
Conclusion
To conclude, accessible bus transportation is not only a legal right but also essential for the day-to-day living of persons with disabilities. Without proper provisions in place, e-buses procured under the PMEBS remain inaccessible to a significant portion of the population, thereby perpetuating the mindset of exclusion and inequality. With the PMEBS currently underway, it is crucial to acknowledge that adherence to basic accessibility standards through this initiative would reflect a decade-long commitment to a substantial portion of the population, towards ensuring their equal access to transport, and consequently, equal opportunity and dignity.
*Manmayi Sharma is a Senior Resident Fellow with the Disability Inclusion and Access team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and a law graduate from National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. With a background in litigation, she has worked in diverse fields including disability law, women’s rights as well as laws pertaining to insolvency and competition law.
**Somya Jain is a Research Fellow with the Disability Inclusion and Access team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. She is a law graduate from National Law University, Lucknow and has previously worked with a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha as a Legislative Assistant.
Categories: Legislation and Government Policy
Law School Policy Review & Kautilya Society 