The Right of Persons with Disability Act (RPwD Act, 2016) was enacted in 2016 to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). It repealed the earlier legislation, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. India’s disability law stands as a beacon of progress, embracing a broad and inclusive perspective on disability. It boldly places responsibilities on both public and private sectors, reflecting a commitment to equality. Yet, nearly eight years since its enactment, the law’s promise remains largely unfulfilled, hindered by slow and uneven implementation.
The purpose of the UNCRPD is aptly enunciated in Article 1 of the Convention as to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. It is undisputed that India’s disability laws, inspired by the principles of the UNCRPD, aimed to establish a robust and mandatory framework to accomplish the mandate of the Acts – the empowerment and equality of persons with disabilities. Yet, despite two major legislations and three decades of effort, the practical implementation of these laws remains inconsistent and sluggish, necessitating judicial intervention. This is exemplified by two cases brought before the Supreme Court, where civil society organizations and activists have turned to the apex court for justice.
In 2005, Mr. Rajive Raturi, a person with visual disability, filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court seeking directives to enhance accessibility in public spaces. Spanning nearly two decades, the litigation saw two key judgments. Initially governed by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, the case evolved under the RPwD Act, 2016, with the Court issuing eleven directives in 2017 to promote accessibility across infrastructure. The Centre and State Governments were ordered to submit compliance reports, but delays and improperly formatted affidavits in 2019 highlighted ongoing challenges in implementation.
Meanwhile, NALSAR – CDS, under the guidance of Prof. Amita Dhanda, was assigned the task of preparing a report detailing the actions taken in alignment with the guidelines and the Accessible India Campaign to enhance the accessibility of existing infrastructure. The report has categorically pointed out that the legislation embraces the mandatory temperament through the use of the term ‘shall’ in Rule 15 which states that every establishment shall comply with the standards relating to environment, transport, and information technology. Rule 15 in turn, births from Section 40 of the Act which retains the same mandatory tenor in its construction by using the word ‘shall’ in its provision. Before the Supreme Court, the government did not dispute the fact that the Act intended for a mandatory compliance scheme ensuring entitlements for persons with disabilities. The court, though, pointed out that use of terms like ‘guidelines’ for the documents laying down such standards has relegated them to mere tools of sensitization and guidance. The report calls for the establishment of minimum standards and rightfully so since Rule 15 in its current form consists of ministries formulated guidelines, having used terms like ‘standards’, ‘codes’ and ‘guidelines’ interchangeably within its ambit. While the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs issued the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021, Accessibility Code for Educational Institutions was specified by the Ministry of Education. The fungible use of terms could be one of the reasons for a complete lack of enforcement on the part of the authorities. It was also recognized by the court that the numerous guidelines provided by various ministries lay down inconsistent standards of accessibility, thereby causing confusion and some rules are only goals without any framework for realization. Establishing a consistent and baseline standard of accessibility, framed as ‘non-negotiable rules,’ was deemed crucial for seamlessly integrating accessibility into the current infrastructure by the court. The court has given the central government time until March 7, 2025 to submit a compliance report.
In a similar vein, the petition in Seema Girija v. Union of India was filed before the Supreme Court in 2021, raising critical concerns regarding the implementation of the RPwD Act, 2016. All States and Union Territories were named as respondents. The matter remains under judicial consideration and the court is monitoring the case. The Court’s orders thus far have highlighted significant lapses by several states in fulfilling their statutory obligations under the Act. These include the failure to establish crucial bodies and mechanisms, such as the Committee for Research on Disability, Assessment Boards for individuals with high support needs, nodal officers within District Education offices, authorities for issuing certificates of registration to institutions and certificates of disability for persons with disabilities, district-level committees, State Commissioners, special courts, public prosecutors, designated authorities for appointing guardians, state funds, state advisory boards, and the necessary rules as mandated under the Act. In its last order dated September 30, 2024, the Court observed that despite previous directions, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities within the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had not submitted a status report. At the government’s request, the Court granted a final opportunity to the Union of India to comply, scheduling the matter for October 14, 2024. However, no subsequent action has been taken, leaving the case in a state of continued inertia.
A sheer lack of political will has marked this dire state of affairs, leaving those in need without remedy. Delayed and partial implementation of judicial directives by the executive has also undermined the timely enforcement of the law. Urgent action at all levels of the government now needs to be taken to prioritise disability rights. The timely and effective implementation of laws, policies, and frameworks is essential to transform the provisions designed to protect the rights of persons with disabilities from mere rhetoric into practical tools that can be relied upon to uphold their rights. The Supreme Court in Seema Girija underscored that the Central and State Commissioners bear the statutory responsibility of ensuring its implementation. However, the commissioners do not have the necessary budget or manpower to undertake their mandate under law. Neither do they have any coercive powers enabling enforcement of their orders. The implementation of accessibility requires a cross-sectoral approach, amongst all tiers of the government. All ministries engaged in public infrastructure need to address disability in planning and implementation of the works. It is also necessary to have close consultation with persons with disabilities and civil society organisations at each stage. This requires disability literacy in curricula and continuous training for administrators. To ensure that the law complies with its intended purpose, robust mechanisms of accountability must be established at every level of governance. This includes not only clear frameworks for monitoring the implementation of policies but also safeguards against systemic failures, empowering PwDs with the confidence that their rights will be respected and upheld.
*****
* The writers are lawyers working at RFKN Chambers. The views expressed are personal.