Author: Debdeep Giri, Xavier Law School, St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata
To the Point
The rights of persons with disabilities have progressively evolved from a charitable or welfare-based approach to one grounded in human rights, equality, and dignity. The global framework, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), has influenced domestic legal systems, including India’s Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), to recognize disability rights as fundamental entitlements. Despite these legal safeguards, persons with disabilities continue to face structural barriers, discrimination, and denial of equal opportunities in employment, education, healthcare, and political participation. This article critically examines the constitutional, statutory, and judicial developments shaping disability rights, while highlighting the challenges in achieving substantive equality for this marginalized group.
Abstract
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the rights of persons with disabilities, focusing on international and domestic legal regimes that safeguard equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It traces the shift from a medical model of disability to a rights-based approach under the UNCRPD, which India ratified in 2007. The article examines constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, statutory protections under the RPwD Act, 2016, and significant judicial precedents that have expanded the ambit of disability rights. It also discusses the intersection of disability rights with socio-economic rights such as access to education, employment, healthcare, and public infrastructure. The challenges of implementation, attitudinal barriers, and systemic exclusion are assessed against constitutional mandates and comparative jurisprudence. The article concludes by advocating for a stronger rights-conscious approach that balances affirmative action with accountability mechanisms to ensure inclusivity and equality for persons with disabilities.
Use of Legal Jargon
The discourse on disability rights is rooted in principles of constitutional morality, substantive equality, and reasonable accommodation. Persons with disabilities are entitled to protection against discrimination under Article 15, affirmative action in public employment under Article 16, and the broader umbrella of the right to life with dignity under Article 21. The RPwD Act operationalizes these guarantees by defining disability expansively, mandating reasonable accommodation (Section 2(y)), imposing non-discrimination obligations on public and private actors, and ensuring reservation in higher education and employment (Sections 32–34). Judicial interpretations have also reinforced accessibility as a facet of Article 21, thereby aligning domestic law with international obligations under the UNCRPD. The jurisprudence reflects the principle that disability rights are not privileges but enforceable entitlements arising from constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
The Proof
International Framework: The UNCRPD (2006) establishes a paradigm shift, affirming that disability is not inherent but socially constructed, arising from interaction with attitudinal and environmental barriers. Articles 5 (Equality), 9 (Accessibility), 24 (Education), and 27 (Work and Employment) form the backbone of international disability rights.
Indian Constitutional Mandate:
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.
Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination, extended through judicial interpretation to include disability.
Article 16(1) & 16(4): Ensure equality of opportunity in employment and affirmative action.
Article 21: Recognizes the right to live with dignity, which courts have interpreted to encompass accessibility, healthcare, and education for persons with disabilities.
Statutory Safeguards: The RPwD Act, 2016 expanded the recognized disabilities from 7 to 21 categories, introduced a 4% reservation in public employment and education, and codified the right to equality, accessibility, and non-discrimination.
Challenges: Despite robust frameworks, implementation remains weak. Public infrastructure continues to be inaccessible, employers often discriminate, and social stigma persists. Court interventions have often been necessary to enforce statutory rights, revealing gaps in compliance and accountability.
Case Laws
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, AIR 2021 SC 2447:
In this case, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether a candidate with a specific disability, writer’s cramp, was entitled to a scribe while appearing for the Civil Services Examination. The UPSC had denied the request on the ground that Vikash Kumar did not fall within the prescribed benchmark disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court rejected this restrictive approach, holding that the RPwD Act embodies the principle of reasonable accommodation, ensuring substantive equality rather than formal equality. It emphasized that the purpose of the Act, read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, is to empower all persons with disabilities, not merely those with benchmark disabilities. The Court directed that Vikash Kumar be provided a scribe, declaring that denial amounted to discrimination. The judgment reinforced the shift towards a transformative equality framework for disability rights in India.
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 2190:
In this case, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling on the intersection of disability rights and sexual violence. The case involved the conviction of the accused for the rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman. While affirming the conviction under Section 376 IPC, the Court significantly emphasized that crimes against women with disabilities must be viewed through the lens of intersectional discrimination. It held that women with disabilities are at a heightened risk of sexual violence due to their social and physical vulnerabilities, and courts must adopt a sensitive, victim-centric approach. Importantly, the Court linked the judgment to India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), interpreting domestic law in line with international human rights standards. This case broadened the scope of constitutional protections, underscoring the need for accessibility, dignity, and equality in addressing gender-based violence against disabled women.
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, [2021] SCC 1293:
In this case, the Supreme Court intervened in disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF officer who had developed significant mental disabilities, Obsessive‐Compulsive Disorder and Major Depression, during his service. The Court emphasized that such proceedings, even if not solely triggered by disability, constitute indirect discrimination when a mental impairment disproportionately contributes to alleged misconduct. Crucially, it rejected a government notification exempting CRPF personnel from disability protections under earlier law, affirming that the more expansive Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 now governs such matters. The judgment underscored the duty of reasonable accommodation, including reassignment to a suitable post without loss of pay and dignity. By aligning with the social model of disability and international standards under the CRPD, this landmark ruling deepened the constitutional understanding of equality and inclusion under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024:
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the film ‘Aankh Micholi.’ Disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra challenged derogatory representations and hurtful language used in the film’s trailer. The Court held that while filmmakers enjoy freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), this does not extend to lampooning, stereotyping, or misrepresenting marginalized groups. It emphasized that derogatory portrayals must not be shielded by creative liberty, particularly when they reinforce stigma. The Court established comprehensive guidelines for respectful representation of persons with disabilities in visual media, favouring dignity, accuracy, and nuance over mockery. It distinguished “disability humour,” which challenges stereotypes, from “disabling humour,” which demeans and marginalizes. Though it did not alter the film’s certification, the ruling marked a major step in aligning cinematic portrayal with the RPwD Act and UNCRPD, ensuring that creative freedom must respect and uphold constitutional equality.
Conclusion
The rights of persons with disabilities are no longer confined to the domain of welfare but have been constitutionally recognized as part of India’s democratic promise of equality and dignity. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in expanding the ambit of disability rights by interpreting Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 in light of international obligations under the UNCRPD. The RPwD Act, 2016 represents a significant legislative advance by codifying non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and affirmative action. However, the persistent lack of accessibility, inadequate implementation of reservation quotas, and systemic prejudices highlight the gap between law and practice.
The transformative vision of the Constitution demands a rights-conscious approach that empowers persons with disabilities as equal citizens, not passive recipients of charity. This requires proactive state action, accountability of private actors, and a cultural shift towards inclusivity. Courts have rightly emphasized that disability rights are enforceable entitlements, essential to achieving substantive equality. Going forward, the challenge lies in harmonizing legal frameworks with effective implementation, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not merely formally recognized but are substantively empowered to participate in all aspects of life with dignity.
FAQs
What are the primary rights of persons with disabilities under Indian law?
They include equality, non-discrimination, accessibility, reservation in education and employment, and protection of dignity under the RPwD Act, 2016.
Does the Indian Constitution specifically mention disability?
No, but Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 have been judicially interpreted to extend equality and dignity to persons with disabilities.
What is the role of the UNCRPD in India?
India ratified the UNCRPD in 2007, which directly influenced the drafting of the RPwD Act, 2016, aligning domestic law with global human rights standards.
What is meant by “reasonable accommodation”?
It refers to necessary modifications or adjustments that ensure persons with disabilities can equally enjoy rights without imposing a disproportionate burden on others.
Are private employers covered under the RPwD Act?
Yes, the Act obligates private establishments to adopt non-discrimination and equal opportunity policies.
What is the reservation percentage for persons with disabilities in India?
The RPwD Act mandates 4% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.
Can accessibility be enforced as a fundamental right?
Yes, courts have held that accessibility is integral to the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
What remains the biggest challenge in disability rights enforcement?
Implementation and societal attitudes remain major hurdles, despite strong constitutional and statutory protections.
