Disability

What is 'Disability'?

‘Disability’ is not a singular or static condition, but an evolving, multi-dimensional concept that reflects the interaction between individuals with certain impairments and the social, attitudinal, environmental, and institutional barriers they face. While earlier understandings of disability primarily focused on biological or medical impairments such as a loss of vision, mobility, or cognitive function—the contemporary conception recognizes that it is society’s failure to accommodate such differences that truly disables individuals. This marks a paradigmatic shift from seeing disability as an individual ‘deficiency’ to viewing it as a form of structural exclusion. In other words, a person is not disabled merely by the impairment they have, but by the inaccessible infrastructure, discriminatory practices, and exclusionary social attitudes that surround them.

Within legal, social, and policy frameworks, the term ‘disability’ encompasses a wide spectrum of physical, mental, intellectual, and sensory impairments. However, it is distinguished from transient illness by its longer-term nature and its impact on an individual’s ability to participate equally and fully in society. The significance of the term ‘disability’ lies not only in its legal application but also in its societal implications. It speaks to a form of marginalization that intersects with other axes of disadvantage such as caste, class, gender, and geography. For many, ‘disability’ is not merely a category of health or diagnosis, but a political identity that forms the basis of collective claims for rights, entitlements, and recognition. Disability thus becomes a critical lens to examine the inclusiveness and fairness of legal systems, social services, and democratic institutions. It is also an analytical category that challenges assumptions of ‘normalcy’, redefines public infrastructure, and reimagines the design of systems and policies to be universally accessible.

In summary, disability is a socially constituted reality that emerges when impairments meet societal inaccessibility. Its recognition requires not just the identification of certain conditions, but a commitment to transforming the spaces, norms, and institutions that continue to exclude those who live with them.

Official Definition of 'Disability'

Disability has been officially defined in various Indian legislations, rules, notifications, and policy documents. These definitions have evolved from narrow, impairment-based formulations to more inclusive, rights-based interpretations. The dominant legal definition is now embedded in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), which aligns with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Modern legal definitions such as those under the Indian RPwD Act underscore this relational and participatory dimension. For instance, disability is now framed as arising from “long-term impairments which, in interaction with barriers, hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” This framing is closely aligned with international standards, particularly the UNCRPD, which India ratified in 2007. Official definitions are also reflected in specific rules, certification guidelines, government orders, judicial interpretations, and international legal instruments. Below is a structured examination of where and how 'disability' is defined across official and authoritative sources.

‘Disability’ as defined in legislation(s)

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

• Definition under Section 2(s): “Person with disability means a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others.”
• Under Rule 2(t), the rules define “benchmark disability” as disability of 40% or more, measured according to the notified guidelines. Establish procedures for disability certification, grievance redress, and access audits.

This definition replaces the outdated medical model in the 1995 Act and introduces a social and relational understanding of disability. The Act recognizes 21 categories of specified disabilities in its Schedule, including:

• Physical disability (locomotor, visual, speech, hearing)
• Intellectual disability (e.g., specific learning disability)
• Mental illness
• Neurological and blood disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis, thalassemia)

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Repealed)

The earlier definition was narrow and included only seven categories of disability. Focused primarily on physical and sensory impairments. Was widely criticized for lacking a social justice lens. This Act is now repealed but relevant in tracing the evolution of the legal definition.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017

Establish procedures for disability certification, grievance redress, and access audits.

Guidelines for Assessment and Certification of Specified Disabilities

Issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Provide clinical criteria, testing protocols, and scoring frameworks for each disability type. Serve as the basis for issuing UDID (Unique Disability ID) cards.

'Disability' as defined in international instrument(s)

The international legal understanding of “disability” has undergone a transformative evolution—moving from deficit-oriented categorizations to a rights-based, interactional approach that emphasizes dignity, equality, and full participation. These international definitions have significantly influenced Indian legislation, which draws its language and spirit from the UNCRP. Alongside the UNCRPD, other institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) have also shaped the normative understanding and operational frameworks surrounding disability.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2006

The UNCRPD is the first legally binding international treaty that explicitly defines and protects the rights of persons with disabilities. Although it does not offer a rigid definition, Article 1, states:

• "Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others."

This definition anchors disability in social exclusion and systemic inaccessibility, not just impairment. It represents a normative shift—from protection to empowerment and agency.

World Report on Disability (2011) - WHO & WB

In this widely cited report, WHO and the World Bank adopt a bio-psycho-social model of disability, defining it as:

• "The outcome of the interaction between health conditions and contextual factors, both personal and environmental."

This aligns closely with the UNCRPD’s framework and influenced the disability classification systems (such as ICF) now used globally and increasingly in India.

ILO Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Convention No. 159 (1983)

The ILO adopts a rights-centric, employment-specific definition of disability, emphasizing “the impact of impairments on a person’s capacity to obtain, retain and advance in employment”. This has formed the basis of ILO Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Convention No. 159 (1983).

• “A disabled person is an individual whose prospects of securing, retaining, and advancing in suitable employment are substantially reduced as a result of a duly recognized physical or mental impairment.”

India’s own affirmative action and job reservation schemes (under the RPwD Act) resonate strongly with these ILO principles.

Disability Inclusion and Accountability Framework, World Bank (2020).

In line with the CRPD, the World Bank focuses on inclusivity in development and emphasizes disability as a structural barrier to participation. The Bank's post-2011 frameworks adopt a “developmental disability model”, encouraging governments to integrate disability indicators into social, economic, and infrastructural policies.

• “Disability is not simply a health issue—it is a development priority, requiring inclusive public systems, disaggregated data, and multi-sectoral coordination.”

This understanding has directly informed India’s move toward the UDID (Unique Disability ID) program and disability-inclusive census models.

Harmonization of Laws with UNCRPD – National Study (UNESCAP, 2023)

Led by T.D. Dhariyal (former Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities). Emphasizes alignment of Indian statutes with Article 12 of the UNCRPD. Explores definitional inconsistencies in existing state laws and suggests a harmonized legal vocabulary

Guidelines for assessing the extent of specified disabilities dated 14.03.2024

Issued by: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. These guidelines operationalize definitions for the 21 disabilities listed under the RPwD Act, with clinical standards, quantification metrics, and assessment protocols. They form the backbone of the UDID (Unique Disability ID) initiative.

'Disability' as defined in official government report(s)

Several commission reports and expert committee studies provide detailed definitions and framing of disability for legal reform and policy design. These reports interpret disability not merely in terms of health, but as a justice, development, and governance issue.

Scheme for Implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (SIPDA)

The Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment (Chair: Mrs. Rama Devi) submitted its report titled “Assessment of Scheme for Implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (SIPDA)” on August 6, 2021. SIPDA is a centrally funded umbrella scheme aimed at enabling implementation of key components under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including creation of a barrier-free environment, the Accessible India Campaign, and District Disability Rehabilitation Centres. The Committee observed that frequent revisions to SIPDA—now comprising 13 sub-schemes—have created complexities for implementing agencies due to the absence of prior consultation with the Central Advisory Board. The report recommended a greater role for the Board in major policy decisions. Despite the doubling of sub-schemes since 2016-17, budgetary allocation rose marginally from ₹193 crore to ₹210 crore (a 9% increase), raising concerns about sufficiency. The Committee cautioned against a single pooled allocation for SIPDA, as it risks diluting the specific goals of individual sub-schemes. On the sub-scheme for creating a barrier-free environment, it noted that only 11 states/UTs received grants since 2017-18, with no funds released for making government websites accessible. It recommended revamping fund allocation methodology, expediting state proposals, and expanding coverage. The Accessible India Campaign, which aims to make selected public buildings and websites accessible, had achieved only 30% and 65% coverage respectively by mid-2022, prompting the Committee to urge strict adherence to deadlines and enforcement of penalties under the Act. Regarding the National Action Plan for Skill Development of persons with disabilities, the Committee found that many states had not received any funds due to lack of empanelled training partners (ETPs), often resulting in out-of-state service providers. It advised incentivising local ETPs and discouraging interstate operations without registration. Additionally, the Committee highlighted the importance of adopting international best practices, especially for training during the pandemic. A broader observation included the impact of terminology like “disability,” which, while legally necessary, may reinforce negative connotations; hence, the Committee encouraged rights-based and person-centric language in government discourse to promote dignity and inclusion.

'Disability' as defined in case law(s)

Judicial construction of the meaning of “disability” in India

Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721

One of the earliest cases to interrogate the limits of statutory definitions of disability. The court acknowledged the statutory definition’s limitation in not including all categories of impairments, but nonetheless linked the exclusion from reservation benefits to a constitutional concern under Article 14. It emphasized the need to interpret “disability” dynamically, beyond the rigid categories in the statute.

Javed Abidi v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 855/1998

Challenged the functional and institutional barriers affecting persons with disabilities in transportation. The court, while not defining “disability” in strict terms, implicitly broadened the conception by treating lack of accessible infrastructure as a disabling factor. This was one of the first cases where disability was treated as a result of societal failure, not merely physical impairment.

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 243 of 2005

Enforcing the right to accessible justice for persons with visual impairments the court drew directly from the UNCRPD and the RPwD Act, 2016 to define disability as the interaction of impairments with societal barriers. It explicitly rejected the outdated medical model and reaffirmed the relational and participatory concept of disability, setting a new standard for state compliance.

Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370

The Supreme Court interpreting the term “benchmark disability" broadened the interpretation of “benchmark disability,” holding that rigid percentage-based thresholds are insufficient to capture the lived reality of persons with specific impairments (in this case, dysgraphia). The court held that disability must be understood on a spectrum, recognizing that the denial of reasonable accommodation itself constitutes discrimination.

Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University, WP(C) No. 10024/2009

Delhi High Court held that learning and developmental disorders, even if not explicitly listed in earlier statutes, fall within the broader constitutional and international understanding of disability. It pushed for an inclusive interpretive approach based on principles from the UNCRPD.

V. Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 237

A controversial decision that reaffirmed functional thresholds for judicial appointments. While the court upheld exclusion based on 70% visual disability, the case sparked critical legal debate about whether functional ability alone should define disability. It revealed the tension between medical categorization and rights-based inclusion, and highlighted the need to re-express “disability” in capacity-based terms, not formal thresholds.

Types of 'Terms'

Disability is far from a singular or uniform construct in India. The RPwD Act formally identifies 21 categories of disabilities, including visual, hearing, locomotor, intellectual, and neurological impairments. However, this classification remains rigid and medical in orientation, often failing to encompass the full diversity of disabling conditions. For instance, nuanced distinctions between “mental illness” and “intellectual disability” or between “speech disorder” and “language impairment” often blur in practice. As Anita Ghai (2002) and later Nandini Ghosh (2018) argue, the legal and policy frameworks, while broader than before, still retain a medical residue that privileges diagnostic labels over lived experiences and intersectional realities.

In contrast, civil society organizations and disability rights activists have introduced more inclusive and socially embedded terminologies. Terms like “cross-disability identity,” “neurodivergent,” and “diffability” reflect efforts to decouple disability from pathology and reframe it as a form of social and political marginality. These concepts challenge normative ideas of “ability” and prioritize accessibility, agency, and self-representation. Renu Addlakha (2020), in her work on Indian disability studies, observes that while the state continues to rely on diagnostic categories, civil society adopts more fluid and relational models of disability, often accommodating overlapping impairments and experiences that fall outside legal definitions. Yet this inclusive framing sometimes leads to intra-movement tensions, especially when specific needs—such as the cultural-linguistic identity of the Deaf community—are subsumed under generic terms like “persons with disabilities.”

Functionally, the implementation of disability rights differs drastically across Indian states, despite a common legislative foundation. Nandini Mehrotra (2011) highlights that state employment rosters apply different interpretations of “suitability,” effectively excluding certain impairments from public sector participation even when the law mandates inclusion. Similarly, in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University (2009), the Delhi High Court interpreted “disability” to include learning impairments such as dyslexia, whereas other state institutions continue to deny such claims due to lack of updated assessment protocols. In tribal and rural regions, disabilities stemming from environmental neglect, untreated illnesses, or malnutrition often go unrecognized due to lack of institutional outreach, illustrating stark regional inequality.

A further complexity arises from the persistent terminological divergence between legal, bureaucratic, and public usages. For example, while the 2016 Act formally rejects terms like “handicapped,” several state-run schemes—including those in Odisha and West Bengal—still operate under the label “handicapped pension” or “physically challenged quota.” The 2011 Census referred to “mental retardation,” a term now internationally recognized as offensive and outdated. Such terminological confusion hinders both implementation and data standardization. As Altman (2016) notes in his comparative work on global disability measurement, terminological inconsistency impairs institutional coordination and cross-sectoral data harmonization, ultimately affecting policy effectiveness.

Academic research has responded by calling for a layered understanding of disability, one that distinguishes between legal recognition, social experience, and functional limitations. The result is a multiplicity of typologies, each serving different institutional logics—legal, medical, educational, and activist. To reconcile these frameworks, there is a growing consensus that while standardization is essential for enforceability and service delivery, it must not erase the complexity of lived experiences or the diversity of cultural and cognitive worlds.

International Experience

The global understanding of “disability” has significantly evolved in the post-UNCRPD era, shifting from a narrow, impairment-centric view to one centered on functional capacity, environmental barriers, and human rights. While most nations today adhere to the social model of disability, the specific definitions, mechanisms of recognition, and administrative frameworks vary widely depending on the welfare structure, legal culture, and data systems in each jurisdiction. This section offers a detailed comparative overview of key jurisdictions—USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and South Africa—with reference to authoritative sources and a critical lens toward Indian practice.

United States

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1990 defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”. The ADA Amendments Act (2008) expanded this by mandating a liberal interpretation of impairments and protecting individuals against discrimination for actual or perceived disabilities, including episodic and invisible impairments.

Operationalization in the U.S. is individualized and functional, using data from sources like the American Community Survey (ACS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), which emphasize self-identification and activity limitation rather than fixed medical thresholds.

United Kingdom

The Equality Act 2010 defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on one’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.” Importantly, the legal system accepts self-reporting of disability in both civil and administrative processes. Courts have increasingly aligned with the social model, identifying how societal arrangements—not just impairments—are disabling. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Labour Force Survey regularly collect disaggregated disability data, integrating it across employment, education, and health planning systems.

Australia

Australia's Disability Discrimination Act, 1992 uses a broad and anticipatory definition, covering current, past, and potential future impairments. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) marks a pioneering approach by moving away from categorical benefits to individualized support packages, determined through functional and participatory assessments. The Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) serves as a major data source, focusing on community-living conditions and support needs, rather than formal disability status.

Canada

Canada’s Accessible Canada Act (2019) recognizes disability as any “impairment or functional limitation”, embracing its evolving, contextual, and intersectional nature. It also enshrines the duty to accommodate within both federal and provincial law. The Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD), run by Statistics Canada, offers real-time, granular data, disaggregated by age, ethnicity, gender, and region—providing an ideal model for India’s fragmented disability data systems to emulate.

Sweden

Sweden’s disability legislation, particularly the LSS Act (1993), defines disability as a long-term limitation in functioning, and mandates municipalities to deliver locally designed services, prioritizing autonomy, inclusion, and user control. Sweden fully embraces universal design, ensuring that all infrastructure and services are by default accessible. Data on disability is embedded across sectors and gathered by Statistics Sweden using the ICF (International Classification of Functioning) framework—offering a biopsychosocial perspective not yet present in India’s medicalized classification systems.

South Africa

South Africa, through its 1996 Constitution and Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), places disability in the context of intersectional exclusion—rooted in poverty, race, and geographic marginalization. Disability rights are tied to the transformative goals of post-apartheid justice.

Data systems are participatory, and community-driven, with assessments often validated through public health workers and grassroots disability organizations, representing a contrast to India’s bureaucratic and top-down certification model.

Comparative Lessons for India

From these jurisdictions, three core learnings emerge:

• Functional assessment trumps categorization: Disability is recognized by its impact on life activities, not by fixed percentage labels (e.g., USA, UK, Canada).
• Universal design and inclusive delivery: Infrastructure and services must be proactively accessible (e.g., Sweden).
• Dynamic, disaggregated data: Disability data must be integrated across planning systems and disaggregated for policy action (e.g., Canada, Australia).

India’s RPwD Act, 2016, although progressive in language, lags in operationalization—particularly due to:

• Over-reliance on medical certification,
• Poor integration of disability data across sectors,
• Minimal participation of disabled persons in service design and delivery.

Appearance of 'term' in Database

Unified Disability Identity Card (UDID) Project

Managed by: Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), Government of India. The UDID project establishes a centralized, web-based system for issuing Unique Disability ID cards and maintaining disability-related data. The term “disability” is defined per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and is tracked through multiple variables including type, severity, and cause.

UDID Application Portal – Government of India (MoSJE). Source: www.swavlambancard.gov.in

National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP)

NCPEDP is a key civil society organization tracking and documenting disability access, employment, and inclusion across India. Their data appears through reports, research surveys, and annual publications.

Main website of NCPEDP https://ncpedp.org/ consisting annual reports and other research.

National Sample Survey (NSS) 2018 – Prevalence, Causes, and Treatment-Seeking

This government-backed dataset, analyzed by the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, is among the most comprehensive statistical sources tracking the prevalence, causes, and social patterns of disability in India. The term “disability” is defined in accordance with the RPWD Act, 2016—as long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that, in interaction with barriers, hinder equal participation in society. The NSS 76th Round captures disability by type (e.g., locomotor, hearing, visual, speech, mental illness, intellectual disability, others) and links it with socio-demographic factors such as age, gender, education, marital status, sector (rural/urban), and economic quintile.

The dataset enables disaggregated analysis of state-wise prevalence rates, employment status, and access to treatment, offering a statistical profile of systemic exclusion. It further operationalizes “barriers” as institutional, communicational, structural, and attitudinal, embedding a rights-based framework into large-scale quantitative data. Logistic regression analysis shows strong correlations between disability types and educational attainment, economic class, caste, and marital status, with marked vulnerability among the elderly, the never-married, and the non-literate. As a national database, NSS 2018 plays a critical role in measuring the distribution of disability and making policy-relevant inferences across administrative and demographic dimensions.

Figure: Survey of Persons with Disabilities – NSS 76th Round (2018) - Screenshot from the official Microdata Portal of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), Government of India. This portal provides access to the NSS 76th Round dataset on disability, conducted from July to December 2018. It enables public access to microdata, metadata, and related documentation used for national-level analysis of disability prevalence, types, and socio-economic patterns. https://prc.mohfw.gov.in/fileDownload?fileName=Disability%20in%20India%20Prevalence,%20Causes%20and%20Treatment-Seeking%20An%20Analysis%20of%20National%20Sample%20Survey,%202018.pdf

Research that engages with 'term'

Research on disability justice in India, particularly from non-governmental sources such as academic institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), and think tanks, has steadily expanded to critique and complement state-centric narratives. These studies go beyond legal frameworks and administrative documentation (e.g., RPWD Act 2016) to engage with lived experiences, institutional practices, inclusion barriers, and systemic ableism. These independent bodies examine intersections with gender, caste, digital divides, educational exclusion, and social stigma—offering grassroots, sociological, and rights-based understandings of disability.

The research is broadly organized into themes such as educational access, institutional reform, digital inclusion, NGO roles, and emerging paradigms of disability studies. Below are prominent research documents that deeply engage with the concept of disability, each offering unique theoretical and empirical contributions.

Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities: A Data-informed Report

This research report by Pacta and Chitta goes beyond formal legal provisions to offer a comprehensive and systemic account of how the Indian justice system engages with disability. While it grounds itself in the mandates of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and related jurisprudence (notably Rajive Raturi v. Union of India), its novelty lies in scrutinising the actual implementation of inclusion mandates across four institutional pillars: police, prisons, judiciary, and legal aid. Rather than taking disability as a pre-defined legal category, the report builds its concept inductively—by mapping the fragmented, inconsistent, and often absent disability-disaggregated data across these systems. The research draws on public datasets, RTI replies, judicial pronouncements, policy documents, and qualitative interviews, allowing it to uncover how disability often remains invisible to institutional reporting and accountability frameworks. It challenges the over-reliance on policy mandates alone and foregrounds the lack of infrastructure, training, representation, and accessible services as barriers to justice. By doing so, the report builds a concept of disability grounded in lived exclusion and institutional silence rather than official recognition alone.

Importantly, the research identifies several gaps: lack of comprehensive data collection mechanisms, inconsistent definitions and recognition of disability across institutions, poor reporting on employment and accessibility infrastructure, and limited inclusion of persons with disabilities as users or providers of justice. For instance, while judiciary efforts like Accessibility Committees show promise, police and prison systems often fail to even identify or record the disability status of individuals. On the other hand, there are overlaps in frameworks (e.g., between Harmonised Guidelines and MHA Guidelines) that generate confusion about compliance. Additionally, while some institutions like NALSA and state legal services authorities collect data on disabled beneficiaries, they lack mechanisms to assess the accessibility or quality of service delivery. These findings reveal both the urgency and potential of reforming data systems to ground disability inclusion not in aspiration, but in measurable institutional practice.

Disability Justice: Court Decisions on Disability Rights in India (CLPR)

This Resource Book aims to make landmark legal judgments on disability rights more accessible and understandable. It is designed for a broad audience—including disabled persons, legal professionals, government bodies, activists, students, and NGOs—to raise awareness, aid legal action, and encourage inclusive practices. Structured for easy navigation, the book explains key legal concepts, provides summaries of major court cases, and includes tools like QR codes to access full judgments, fostering a rights-based understanding of disability in India.

The Intersection of Disability and Caste (CLPR)

This Policy paper explores the importance of the intersections of disability and caste. The authors argue that to address the fulfillment of basic social rights of employment, education, housing & health for the most vulnerable, there is need to look at people from inter sectional perspective. The Policy paper also recommends empirical research and data collection to understand depth of the socio-economic deprivation faced by Dalits/Adivasi persons with disabilities, need of inter sectional approach in policy and welfare schemes, need of Anti-discrimination law and also for social movements to work together for overall welfare of marginalized sections of the society.

The State of Disability in India Samarth

This wide-ranging white paper, though corporate-sponsored, presents a deeply empirical and rights-based analysis of disability inclusion in India. It adopts a multi-pronged approach grounded in the social and human rights models of disability. The report critiques systemic exclusions across five key pillars: infrastructure accessibility, social security, political participation, employment, and public awareness.

It also introduces original data from the Samarth Survey, covering 20 cities, and includes voices from para-athletes, activists, and legal experts. While not purely academic, it draws extensively from grassroots knowledge, civil society engagement, and domain-specific legal analysis (e.g., RPWD Act implementation gaps, GST burdens on assistive devices, failures of insurance regimes). It offers forward-looking recommendations on universal design, disability-disaggregated data, inclusive budgeting, and de-stigmatization in media representation, helping to mainstream disability justice as a structural, not charitable, concern.

Rights of Persons With Disabilities in India: Provisions, Visions, Promises and Reality

The paper Rights of Persons with Disabilities in India: Provisions, Promises and Reality traces the historical evolution of the disability related legal provisions in India briefly, in the context of the United Nations mandated Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975) and the Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities (CRPD,2007). In such a scenario, the paper attempts to arrive at an understanding of the extent to which the provisions have been implemented. To this extent, the researcher conducted a series of telephonic interviews with several parent-advocates who have been vocal about disability rights in India. An extensive interview was also conducted with a parent-activist, Mr. A.Joshi, who has been at the forefront of the disability rights movement in India with his personal as well as professional engagements at a national level and who was able to provide a critical understanding of the systemic roadblocks in the implementation of the legal provisions. The paper particularly tried to look at the implementation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016 and the proposed dilution of the National Trust Act (NTA), 1999 that was hailed by many as a landmark Act for its provision of legal guardianship of individuals with special needs (after 18 years of age). A critical reading of the press coverage on these issues as well as the extensive interview with Mr. Joshi threw significant light on them. In conclusion, although several remarkable disability laws have been passed in India, till date, due to systemic inadequacies and loopholes, the fissures between what could have been achieved and what has been achieved, are quite wide. A more concerted effort needs to be taken towards strengthening the dialogue between various stakeholders in the disability sector as well as place pressure on the powers that be, to acknowledge the gaps inherent in the system.

HOW ACCOMMODATING IS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: ANALYSING INDIA’S RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016

Over one billion people worldwide suffer from a disability. Equal access in education and employment for this community of people is a primary focus of the disability rights movement. The barriers to achieving this are compounded in developing nations, where jurisprudence on this issue remains lacking. Foremost among these barriers is the definition of disability adopted in varying jurisdictions, which often focuses on the medical, rather than social, model of disability. One of the most significant ways to combat discrimination against persons with disabilities remains the right of reasonable accommodation, first proposed in the United States of America (‘USA’) in the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990. This paper adopts a cross-jurisdictional approach to the issues of defining disability and adoption of the right of a reasonable accommodation in the spheres of education and employment, comparing the construct of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 against the (Indian) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, with the aim of providing suggestions to fortify Indian jurisprudence in this area of law

Ensuring the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in the Workforce: A Global Policy Review of Reasonable Accommodations (THQ)

) Published by The Quantum Hub (TQH), a public policy research and consulting firm based in New Delhi, this report provides a comparative and empirically grounded review of how global policy frameworks—including India's—address the employment of persons with disabilities through reasonable accommodations. Focusing on assistive technologies and flexible work arrangements, the report identifies gaps in India’s RPWD Act implementation, critiques overreliance on the medical model, and highlights the lack of clear definitions, sector-specific mandates, and enforcement mechanisms.

The study draws from 20 country laws, 49 corporate policies, and consultations with stakeholders across nine nations. It underscores India’s failure to define “undue burden,” the inadequacy of incentives under the SIPDA scheme, and the absence of grievance redressal structures in both public and private employment. By offering best practices (e.g., South Africa’s Technical Assistance Guidelines, Estonia’s subsidy model, and the U.S. Disabled Access Credit), the report positions workplace accommodations as a matter of both economic gain and social justice, calling for a reimagined labour ecosystem that centers individual dignity, inclusive planning, and data-driven policy corrections.

Disability Studies in India: Global Discourses, Local Realities CWDS

This landmark edited volume by the Centre for Women’s Development Studies (CWDS), New Delhi, represents one of the most comprehensive efforts to develop disability justice as a multi-dimensional, rights-based academic field in India. The book critically explores intersections with gender, development, and education, while tracing how institutions reproduce ableist exclusions even under progressive policy regimes. It calls for a decolonized, locally rooted disability studies framework and critiques the “medical model” dominating policy discourse. The book interrogates global disability rights models and calls for local epistemologies, asserting that justice must emerge from Indian contexts of caste, rurality, and economic deprivation.

The Question of Accessibility and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act: A Study of Cases in the Supreme Court of India

The contemporary Indian society grapples with numerous societal inequalities, discrimination and normative biases, including ableism. The legislation by the parliament for recognising and enforcing the rights of subordinate groups is essential in building an equal society. Equally important is the role of the apex judiciary in interpreting, widening and reinforcing the scope of the rights enumerated in the legislation. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act was passed in the Indian parliament in 2016 and came into force in April 2017. The act was brought into force to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 2006, which was ratified by India on 1 October 2007. A content analysis of the act reveals that in the main text (i.e., excluding the content Index) of the 2016 Act, the terms ‘access’, ‘accessible’, or ‘accessibility’ have been used 48 times. This brief content analysis makes it clear the commitment of the act toward ensuring accessibility, at least in words. The aim of the paper is to analyze the cases in the Supreme Court of India dealing with the question of accessibility for persons with disabilities after the enactment of the 2016 act. These relevant cases are filtered out from the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) digital repository by using a Boolean search tool. Firstly, a phrase search for ‘the right to persons with disabilities act’ was performed, and the result was a list of 49 cases. Upon this result, truncation was performed by using the root word access*. Finally, we got a database of 16 cases that cited the 2016 act and discussed accessibility. Out of these 16 cases, 14 cases that dealt directly with the RPwD were included in the study. The content analysis and discourse analysis of these judgments were performed by employing the social model and human rights approach to disability. The author concluded that the Supreme Court has been promoting accessibility, and a total of five principles can be unveiled through these verdicts. These five principles are given in the key finding section. This examination does not only reveal the judiciary’s reading of disability rights but also underscores the continuous pursuit of meaningful accessibility, thereby encouraging the relevant stakeholders, such as policymakers and civil society, to incessantly engage in the process of converting legal certainty into lived possibilities.

A Seat at the Digital Table: Centering Disability in Digital Public Infrastructure (THQ)

Jeremy McKey’s independently authored paper, hosted by The Quantum Hub (TQH), offers a pioneering theoretical and empirical framework for embedding disability inclusion into India’s digital public infrastructure (DPI). Drawing from interviews, policy documents, and case studies of Aadhaar (identity), UPI (payments), and ONDC (e-commerce), the paper introduces the concept of a “Purple Stack”—a suite of digital technologies designed using principles of universal design, accessibility, and inclusive governance.

Rather than treating disability as an afterthought, the paper argues for its centrality in DPI conversations, particularly given the high exclusion risks posed by poorly designed digital systems. It critiques the tokenistic inclusion of disability in global DPI discourses and demonstrates how inclusive design not only supports persons with disabilities but yields system-wide improvements. Key recommendations include embedding accessibility into DPI standards, developing a research agenda on disability-data gaps, and creating open repositories of accessible technology tools. By foregrounding the economic and democratic value of accessibility, the paper reframes disability justice as fundamental to India’s digital transformation.

An Institutionally Ableist State? Exploring Civil Society Perspectives on CRPD Implementation in India

Chaney provides a powerful discourse analysis of Indian CSOs’ responses to the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The paper uses empirical inputs from multiple NGOs to show how institutional frameworks are frequently exclusionary and inaccessible, despite formal ratification of international obligations. The study positions disability justice as a political struggle against institutional ableism, drawing from grassroots voices rather than relying on government narratives or tokenistic consultation mechanisms.

Service and Knowledge: The Emergence of Disability Studies Extension

This chapter by University of Delhi scholar Tanmoy Bhattacharya examines how Indian universities institutionalize (or fail to institutionalize) disability studies and enabling services. The paper critiques how tokenistic “enabling units” often lack power or expertise, and argues for embedding justice within the very pedagogy and epistemology of Indian higher education. By drawing attention to the dissonance between policy (RPWD 2016 mandates) and practice (lack of infrastructure, invisible curricula), the research reframes disability not as a welfare issue but as a question of epistemic justice.

Persons with Disabilities vis-à-vis the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

India is on the cusp of notifying the implementing rules of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”). This brief aims to contribute to building discourse on how the DPDP Act can uphold the decisional autonomy of persons with disabilities within the data protection framework.

The brief starts by introducing the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in the digital ecosystem. It traces the issues of digital exclusion and inaccessible consent mechanisms under the extant Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) and the DPDP Act.

The brief then explores the key problems and gaps between the DPDP Act and the disability rights framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. To uphold informational privacy and autonomy for persons with disabilities, the brief makes recommendations to be enforced through amendments to the DPDP Act and its Rules. It recommends a) separate provision for defining persons with disabilities in the DPDP Act b) safeguards to prevent the abuse of data principal rights by lawful guardians c) certain exceptions for not requiring mandatory verifiable consent from lawful guardians d) reinstating sensitive personal data and associated safeguards and e) strengthening digital accessibility through the DPDP Act.

Areas of Action: Inclusive Police Services for Persons with Disabilities (iProbono)

Produced by iProbono India, this consultative report captures a civil society-led national conversation on police reform from a disability justice perspective. Grounded in nine detailed case studies, the report outlines systemic failures and lived experiences of discrimination in police interactions with persons with disabilities. It proposes legal reforms, institutional accountability mechanisms, and infrastructural redesigns to create accessible, dignified police services.

Key recommendations include amending criminal procedure laws (e.g., BNSS 2023) to codify duties toward persons with disabilities, mandating disability identification in arrest memos, and enhancing procedural safeguards in remand and detention. The report also outlines practical measures like implementing the MHA AIC Accessibility Guidelines across police stations and vehicles, integrating disability modules in police training curricula, and establishing accessible communication channels (e.g., text-based helplines, sign language interpreters). By combining grassroots testimony, legal analysis, and institutional critique, the document advances an intersectional, rights-based approach to policing and disability in India.

Disability & Justice: Case Study Compilation by (iProbono)

This extensive compilation by iProbono India foregrounds the lived experiences of persons with disabilities in their interactions with the police and broader criminal justice system. The research adopts a qualitative methodology grounded in case studies spanning multiple states and social locations. The report critiques policing practices through four analytical themes: accessibility of infrastructure, procedural accommodation, autonomy and sensitivity, and exposure to physical abuse.

Drawing from nine detailed case narratives—including those of autistic individuals, hearing- and mobility-impaired persons, survivors of sexual assault, and neurodivergent professionals—the compilation reveals how conventional legal and police systems structurally exclude persons with disabilities. It documents failures in upholding statutory mandates under the RPwD Act, the BNSS 2023, and the Mental Healthcare Act, including violations of procedural safeguards, non-recognition of invisible disabilities, denial of assistive devices, and degrading treatment in custody.

Importantly, the study contextualizes legal obligations (like Section 12 of the RPwD Act) within empirical gaps, judicial apathy, and infrastructural inaccessibility. It calls for reforms rooted in reasonable accommodation, intersectionality, and trauma-informed policing, making a compelling case for centering disability justice in criminal procedure, judicial oversight, and frontline law enforcement practices.

Delivering Justice Solutions to Persons with Disabilities through Online Dispute Resolution Platforms

This innovative work from a boutique Indian legal think tank explores the intersection of disability rights and digital justice. It documents how online dispute platforms—when inclusive—can bridge long-standing institutional exclusions, particularly in legal redressal.

Guide for Police: How to Work with Persons with Disabilities (iProbono)

This practical guide, developed by iProbono India in collaboration with legal and disability rights experts, serves as an operational toolkit for police personnel interacting with persons with disabilities (PwDs). It synthesizes statutory mandates under the RPwD Act, Mental Healthcare Act, and BNSS 2023, offering actionable recommendations for improving police conduct across arrest, investigation, and custodial stages.

The guide covers:

• Inclusive communication methods (text/SMS for deaf individuals, pictograms for cognitive disabilities, braille/audio for blind persons);
• Infrastructure adaptations (accessible vehicles, ramps, tactile signage, complaint apps with screen reader support);
• Custodial safeguards (avoiding handcuffing deaf individuals, ensuring access to assistive devices, mandatory reporting of mistreatment);
• Victim-sensitive practices, especially for women and children with disabilities (recording statements at chosen locations with support persons, sign language interpreters, and video documentation).

Importantly, the guide highlights the legal consequences of non-compliance under Sections 12, 89, and 92 of the RPwD Act and related penal provisions in the BNS 2023. It provides an institutional bridge between legal mandates and police practice, advancing a model of disability-responsive policing grounded in autonomy, dignity, and procedural fairness.

Status of Disability in India: A Review of Policy, Schemes, and Facts (NIUA & DFID)

This comprehensive review by the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), supported by DFID, maps India’s disability policy landscape through the lens of urban inclusion. The report critically evaluates legal frameworks like the RPWD Act, the Accessible India Campaign, and welfare schemes such as ADIP. It highlights the persistent disconnect between progressive statutory commitments and the lived realities of persons with disabilities, particularly in urban planning, public infrastructure, and employment. It also stresses the need for a rights-based, ecosystem-driven approach, advocating for inclusive design, disaggregated data systems, and stronger implementation monitoring. The report ties inclusion to broader development goals, showing how social exclusion limits national economic growth, urban efficiency, and public equity.

The report’s theoretical framing underscores a shift away from the medical model toward a multidimensional and intersectional understanding of disability. Drawing on the UNCRPD and SDG frameworks, it critiques systemic data deficits, fragmented programmatic delivery, and inadequate integration of disability in Smart City and urban governance initiatives. Its Theory of Change links rights awareness, social belonging, and urban accessibility, positioning inclusion as both a moral imperative and a developmental necessity. By foregrounding structural reform, robust monitoring tools, and stakeholder convergence, the report urges a transformation of urban ecosystems into accessible, rights-affirming spaces for persons with disabilities.

Challenges

Despite the progressive language of the RPwD Act, and India’s ratification of the UNCRPD, the operational landscape of disability governance continues to be marked by structural challenges that hinder accurate analysis, effective policymaking, and equitable service delivery. One of the most persistent obstacles is the lack of reliable, transparent, and disaggregated data on persons with disabilities. As observed by Addlakha and Singh (2017), disability data in India remains highly fragmented across sources like the Census, NSSO, and the UDID portal, each employing inconsistent definitions and divergent criteria—ranging from self-reported disability to medically certified benchmark thresholds. This inconsistency undermines not only comparability across time and sectors but also the very visibility of many disabled individuals, especially those with psychosocial, intellectual, and multiple disabilities.

Another critical issue is the non-standardised classification and measurement of disability. The reliance on fixed percentage thresholds for ‘benchmark disability’ in welfare schemes and employment quotas, does not adequately reflect the nuanced and context-specific barriers faced by individuals. For instance, episodic or non-quantifiable impairments like dyslexia or chronic fatigue syndrome may be excluded from services due to the limitations of current certification guidelines. Furthermore, most disability assessments continue to be routed through state medical boards, which not only creates bottlenecks in the issuance of disability certificates but also reinforces a medicalized, deficit-based model, contrary to the relational and participatory framework envisioned under the UNCRPD.

In terms of implementation, numerous studies and committee reports—including the 2021 assessment by the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP)—highlight widespread non-compliance across public and private sectors, particularly in accessibility mandates under Section 40 of the RPwD Act. Public infrastructure, education systems, and even digital platforms remain largely inaccessible to persons with sensory and mobility impairments. Enforcement is further weakened by the limited autonomy and resources of Chief Commissioners and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities, who often function without independent investigative or punitive powers.

Additionally, there is a systemic disconnect between legislation and grassroots service delivery, especially in rural and tribal areas where awareness of rights and access to assessment services is limited. This is compounded by the fact that many disability-related entitlements (e.g., pensions, aids, employment schemes) are centralized and digitized, leaving behind populations with low digital literacy or documentation gaps.

Collectively, these challenges reflect the need for institutional harmonization, intersectional data mapping, and a shift from medical gatekeeping toward community-led, rights-based frameworks that empower rather than pathologies. Without addressing these structural and epistemic gaps, the inclusive promise of India’s disability legislation risks remaining largely aspirational.

Way Ahead

As India seeks to deepen the impact of the RPwd Act, 2016 and align more effectively with the UNCRPD’s inclusive ethos, a range of forward-looking recommendations have emerged from judicial pronouncements, policy think tanks, and disability rights scholars. These proposals converge on the urgent need to reimagine disability not merely as an administrative category, but as a lens through which systemic equity and institutional responsiveness must be recalibrated.

One of the most consistent recommendations from judicial bodies and law commissions is the need to transition from impairment-based certification to functional assessments. In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021), the Supreme Court emphasized that the rigid percentage-based “benchmark disability” system unfairly excludes many who require accommodation. Legal scholars such as Dhanda and Raturi (2018) have proposed the integration of capability assessments—aligned with the ICF (International Classification of Functioning)—into welfare eligibility and policy design, thus fostering a more inclusive and realistic approach to state support.

To address India’s fragmented data environment, several research institutions including the Centre for Policy Research and the National Statistical Commission have called for the creation of a National Disability Data Integration Framework (NDDIF). Such a framework would link datasets from health, education, employment, and urban development sectors using harmonised definitions and self-reporting mechanisms, akin to Canada’s CSD or the UK’s Equality Monitoring tools. This would allow for real-time, intersectional analysis and ensure representation of undercounted groups, such as persons with psychosocial and invisible disabilities.

On the governance front, multiple evaluations—including those by the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP, 2022)—have called for strengthening the autonomy and mandate of disability commissioners at both state and national levels. Proposed reforms include granting these offices quasi-judicial enforcement powers, independent budgets, and the authority to initiate systemic audits of accessibility in public infrastructure and digital platforms

Process efficiency could also be significantly improved by adopting community-based and decentralized certification mechanisms, especially in rural and tribal areas. Drawing from models in Sweden and South Africa, academic bodies such as the Indian Institute for Human Settlements have proposed mobile disability outreach units, supported by trained community health workers and legal aid clinics, to bridge access gaps and reduce bureaucratic friction.

Finally, multiple stakeholders—ranging from the Law Commission to civil society platforms like Disability Rights India Foundation—emphasize the need for embedding disability inclusion audits across all government departments and at every stage of policy formulation. This would ensure that universal design, accessibility, and non-discrimination are treated as cross-cutting mandates, rather than sectoral exceptions.

In sum, the way forward requires not isolated schemes or tokenistic inclusion, but a structural recalibration of India's welfare and legal systems through a disability-justice lens—grounded in participation, intersectionality, and institutional reform.

Related terms

These terms appear interchangeably in legal, administrative, or colloquial usage, though some are outdated or discouraged in rights-based frameworks.

• Differently Abled – Popularised in policy and media discourse, though critiqued by activists for masking structural exclusion.
• Divyangjan – Coined in 2015 by the Government of India; widely used in schemes (e.g., “Divyangjan Pension”) but controversial for spiritualizing disability.
• Specially-abled – Used in public discourse and state-level schemes; not officially endorsed in RPwD Act.
• Handicapped – Legacy term used in older acts (e.g., PWD Act, 1995), now replaced but persists in state scheme nomenclature (e.g., “handicapped welfare office”).
• Physically Challenged – Still used in certain Central/State public employment notices and reservation lists.
• Person with Special Needs (PWSN) – Common in educational policy and inclusive schooling literature.
• Person with Benchmark Disability – Legal subcategory under RPwD Act (≥40% certified impairment).
• Person with High Support Needs – Defined under Section 2(r) of the RPwD Act.
• Persons with Multiple Disabilities – A distinct category under the RPwD Act (Section 2(h))
• Impairment – As per UNCRPD and WHO-ICF, refers to bodily or cognitive condition, distinct from disability.
• Activity Limitation – Used in ICF and WHO frameworks, often used in disability surveys.
• Participation Restriction – Denotes social or systemic exclusion; part of the functional model of disability.
• Functioning Limitation – Used in legal cases to focus on barriers in daily activities.
• Developmental Disorder – Legal term under RPwD Act; includes autism spectrum, specific learning disabilities.
• Psychosocial Disability – Refers to mental illness that interacts with societal barriers; not always listed in schemes.
• Invisible Disability – Commonly used in rights discourse to highlight impairments not outwardly visible (e.g., epilepsy, dyslexia).
• Locomotor Disability – Still used in certifications and state health schemes, aligned with orthopedic impairments.
• Neurodivergence / Neurodevelopmental Conditions – Terms increasingly used in academia and civil society, though not reflected in statute.
• Cross-disability Identity – Civil society term used to describe collective disability movement that transcends specific impairments.