The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday said it was sorry to note that the State government and its public transport corporations did not bother to respond to a PIL petition, filed by a 27-year-old visually-challenged person, even after a year since the court issued notice to the authorities on the petitioner’s grievance.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit made these observations during the hearing of the petition filed by N. Shreyas, the visually-challenged lawyer.
Personally argued case
The petitioner, who is personally arguing his petition, had sought a direction to the authorities to provide audio-alerts/voice-based announcement system in public transport buses in the State, Bengaluru city, in particular. He sought the audio alert system as visually-challenged persons were not be able to know the destination or the stops while travelling in the buses.
Mr. Shreyas has pointed out that Namma Metro had voice-based alerts and a similar facility should be provided in buses owned by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation and the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation.
The petitioner also said that the audio alert system was introduced in some BMTC buses a few years ago and later the facility was discontinued, while also bringing to the notice of the court that many public transport buses in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra had the facility of audio alert.
During rush hour
The petitioner told the court that though usually conductors of the buses assist persons with disabilities, they would be helpless during rush hours or when the bus is overcrowded.
“There cannot be any dispute that the petition raises an important social issue and the authorities cannot treat the petition as an adversary litigation,” the Bench pointed out.
The court would be happy if the authorities come up with certain other suggestions, which would become role model to other States to assist the visually-challenged persons, in addition to take a proper and positive step to redress the grievance raised by the petitioner on behalf of visually-challenged persons, the Bench said, while adjourning further hearing.
