Recently, while hearing the writ petition in the case of Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the dismal implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016. The court noted that many states had not framed the rules under the RPwD Act, almost seven years after the enactment of the law.
The petition seeks the establishment of district level committees for the enforcement of the provisions of the RPwD Act. It specifically advocates for the enforcement of various provisions encompassed within the legislation and its associated rules, particularly focusing on sections 72 and 101. While section 72 directs the State Government to constitute district level committees on disability to perform functions as may be prescribed by the State, section 101 directs State Governments to draft the rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act, within six months of its enactment. In the hearing dated 24th April, 2023, the government placed an affidavit on record indicating that 6 States had not constituted district level committees under section 72 and 4 States had not formulated rules under section 101 of the Act. Additionally, an affidavit placed on record by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 17th July, 2023, documented the status of implementation of the Act’s provisions by the other States. The affidavit specified that rules under section 101 have not been notified by a number of states. Moreover, many states were deficient in compliance of other diverse provisions of the Act.
Even though the case is sub juice before the court, it has exposed numerous gaps between enactment, and the implementation and enforcement of the law in India. This void in implementation has obstructed the access to socio – economic institutions and resources for the country’s population living with disability, blocking their right to empowerment and autonomy. These gaps became more critical when the court highlighted the lack of machinery in states that can be instrumental in the smooth implementation of the law. The court stated that several states had not fulfilled their obligations under the Act in terms of appointment of commissioners, creation of funds and establishment of special courts for cases that would fall under the Act.
This legislative lacuna becomes significant when factors such as poverty and stigma are taken into account. It becomes even more glaring when the stigma that is associated with disability is taken into account. The vicious circle of poverty and disability is conspicuously brazen in a country like India where almost a quarter of the population is living below the poverty line. Given the stigma that comes along with having a disability and the economic constraints brought about by severe poverty, Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in India are often ostracised from the mainstream society. The need to institute mechanisms for the implementation of the provisions of the law becomes acute in the given circumstances.
In accordance with the tenets of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the RPwD Act strives to empower PwDs to live and lead a life of dignity. Equality of opportunity and access to resources are crucial corollaries of that principle. By effective implementation and enforcement of the law, these objectives can be realized. The case of Seema Girija Lal holds the potential to narrow the gap and facilitate the Act in achieving its goals through infusing efficiency in the implementation systems.