Severe locomotor disability qualifies for equal air-travel concession, while no further committee directions were needed.

The Supreme Court noted that the relevant coordination committees under the Persons with Disabilities Act had already been constituted substantially, so no further mandatory directions were required, but it stressed that the statutory bodies must actively implement the Act. On air-travel concession, it held that persons with 80% or more locomotor disability formed a distinct class entitled to the same concession as blind persons, because the legislation required meaningful access and the disability created comparable travel hardship. The benefit was confined to those medically certified by the prescribed authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether further directions were required regarding constitution and functioning of the Committees under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. (ii) Whether persons suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 80% or above were entitled to air-travel concession at the same rate as blind persons.

Issue (i): Whether further directions were required regarding constitution and functioning of the Committees under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Analysis: The record showed that the Central Government and the States had already constituted the relevant co-ordination committees under the Act in substantial measure. In that situation, no additional mandatory direction was considered necessary. At the same time, the Court emphasised that the statutory bodies must actively discharge their functions to realise the purposes of the enactment.

Conclusion: No further direction was issued on this aspect, though the statutory committees were expected to implement the Act effectively.

Issue (ii): Whether persons suffering from locomotor disability to the extent of 80% or above were entitled to air-travel concession at the same rate as blind persons.

Analysis: The Court treated persons with severe locomotor disability as a distinct class because of the practical difficulties they face in travelling long distances by rail or bus. While recognising the financial position of the airline as a relevant consideration, the Court held that the object of the Act required meaningful facilitation of disabled persons and that the existing concession to blind persons provided a valid basis for comparable relief to those with severe locomotor disability. The Court limited the concession to persons certified as having at least 80% locomotor disability by the prescribed medical authority.

Conclusion: Persons with locomotor disability of 80% or above were held entitled to the same air-travel concession as blind persons, subject to medical certification.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with limited relief by directing air-travel concession for severely locomotor-disabled persons, while declining to issue further directions on committee constitution and allied administrative matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory welfare scheme already grants a benefit to one class of disabled persons, a comparable benefit may be extended to another distinctly affected class when the object of the legislation, the nature of the disability, and the need for meaningful access justify such classification, subject to reasonable eligibility limits and certification.

---