Sunaina is a law graduate from Panjab University Chandigarh.

Abstract

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, is a progressive step in the law, but it is constrained by a host of socio-cultural stigmas, historical trends of institutional marginalisation and widespread inadequacies of infrastructure. The quest to cultivate dignity means breaking the invisible ableist social architectures that underlie Indian social institutions. This article examines the structural vulnerabilities, judicial landmarks and the socio-legal struggle over “reasonable accommodation” and concludes that the law is not sufficient to achieve genuine equality. 

Keywords: Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act 2016, Institutional Ableism, India, Socio-Legal Framework, Reasonable Accommodation, Intersectionality.

Introduction: The Mirage of the Statute

Laws are frequently hailed as historic moments, as historic victories of human rights, as moments that have been fixed in words. But sociologically speaking, a statute is not an endpoint; it is a way point into a complex web of social negotiations. The legal framework relating to disability in India has undergone a dramatic paradigm shift from the old welfare-centric disability law of 1995 to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016. The 2016 Act was enacted to expand the number of recognised disabilities from 7 to 21, encompassing physical, visible, invisible, neurological, and cognitive disabilities

But, the law, in practice, does not reflect the lived realities of millions of people with disabilities in India. Sociologist Erving Goffman conceptualised stigma as an attribute that deeply discredits a person, stripping the person in society’s eyes of a whole person and turning him or her into a “tainted, discounted [person]”. This stigma is further reinforced in historical and institutional processes in India, which look at disability in a paternalistic and exclusionary way. Doctrinally, the concept of Karma is misinterpreted quite often, and impairment is represented as a punishment or spiritual failing, but instead of structural inequality, it’s about personal shame. This social prejudice has been translated into a structural norm during the colonial era with the establishment of the biomedical segregation that was institutionalized by post-independence state mechanisms in a paternalistic “medical-charity” model which transformed active rights-holders into passive objects of pity and welfare. Such systemic arrangements are reinforced by a built environment and institutional architecture that is developed and designed solely for the “normative, able-bodied citizen,” further marginalizing disabled people, and maintaining the ableist mythology that their marginalization is a natural byproduct of personal disability or malfunction, rather than a mistake in design. Thus, the RPWD Act provides a wide-ranging framework for rights and inclusion, but the “architecture of dignity” is yet to be constructed because the sociological soil in which it is embedded is highly impervious and ableist.

The Socio-Legal Transformation: From Charity to Rights

Before one can grasp this statutory shortfall, it is necessary to trace the transition from a charity-based approach to a rights-based framework. For decades, Indian jurisprudence and administrative policy operated on a medical paradigm, reflected in the Lunacy Act, 1912, and initial applications of the PWD Act, 1995, which viewed disability as an individual defect requiring institutionalization or state compensation. The socio-historical picture of this model is that of a citizen-less object of pity, devoid of agency and excluded from the constitutional dignity of Article 21. This paternalistic stance was legally disrupted by the Supreme Court in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, which introduced “reasonable accommodation” as a constitutional obligation.

The RPWD Act, 2016, posed a great challenge to the old regime by incorporating a social constructivist approach to disability. It clearly defines disability not as an individual fault, but as the result of a mix of impairment and structural barriers. The law changed the focus from the body of the “problem” to the societal environment, thus setting in motion a statutory requirement for structural change. It introduced enforceable protections, increased the quota for government employment to 4% for persons with disabilities under Section 34, and to 5% for those in higher education institutions under Section 32, and criminalized atrocities and discrimination against persons with disabilities under Section 92 of the Act.

Institutional Ableism and Structural Barriers

Even with this strong legal protection, institutional ableism is undermining the effectiveness of the law. It is an area where  about social and cultural capital are relevant. Bourdieu suggests that the institutions of society are set up to perpetuate the advantages of the holders of the capital of the dominant culture. The education, employment, and political systems in India are organised in such a way that it excludes the PwDs and denies them the capital to help them move up the social ladder.

Recognising the serious issues of accessibility on India’s physical and digital map, the state launched the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan (Accessible India Campaign) as an integral measure to ensure access to public infrastructure for everyone. But according to the statistics only a very small percentage of public buildings, transport and state-maintained digital portals are fully accessible. It is not that they cannot board the bus or access the portal, it is that they cannot because the way the environment is designed is violent, which is in contravention with section 40 of the RPWD Act, which stipulates that it must be universally accessible. The Supreme Court of India, at multiple instances has highlighted that access to something is an important aspect of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court gave detailed orders to make public infrastructure, transport and technologies accessible, noting that “spatial liberty is the sine qua non of legal equality”.

The Bureaucratic Maze and Access to Justice

But the sociological picture of the Indian state capacity presents a picture that is all too often a disjointed, slow-moving machinery that views disability rights as an afterthought. One of the main challenges is the certification regime that is stuck. To have reservations or protections based on the RPWD Act, one must have a disability certificate, stating a “benchmark disability” of at least 40%. This certificate, however, is obtained through a process that is marred by insensitivity, complicated medical boards and significant regional differences, all of which have the effect of creating a ‘gate’ that is not a gateway to justice.

In addition, the penalties outlined in the statute fall far short of being effective. The Act stipulates, in Section 79, the establishment of Independent State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities, to keep track of the implementation of safeguards and address complaints. But as seen in cases such as Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India, many states have not provided for the appointment of dedicated Commissioners and have left offices of Commissioners under-resourced and under-staffed. The “Special Courts” that were supposed to speed up the trials of offences committed against PwDs remain unestablished in many districts and the ‘punitive chapters’ of the RPWD Act remain a dead letter.

Intersectionality and Substantive Equality

A disability is not a standalone phenomenon but interacts with the already existing social hierarchy in India, such as caste, class, society, gender and geography. A sociological examination of the RPWD Act shows that it has been implemented in such a way that intersections are not considered, and the implementation processes are often performed in such a way that PwDs are considered as one group. Amartya Sen’s “capability approach” states that a law cannot be equated with substantive freedom and internal capability to turn those rights into achievements.

The barriers are multiplied if the person is a rural, Dalit woman with a psychosocial or intellectual disability. She is stigmatised for her caste-based exclusion, gendered vulnerability to violence and acute social isolation due to mental illness. The local context of the limited and fragmented public health system and entrenched patriarchal norms frequently result in her being hidden away, institutionalised against her will, or in denial of legal capacity despite the rights to dignity and community living that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the RPWD Act, 2016 give her.

In Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, the hon’ble Supreme Court tried to tackle such systemic value structures by emphasising the urgent need to do away with systemic ableism and the fact that “reasonable accommodation” is not a charitable concession, but rather an integral part of substantive equality.

Conclusion: Engineering the Architecture of Dignity

The struggle for the rights of the disabled in India shows that a progressive law is a necessary, but still not sufficient, precondition for social justice. This is because the RPWD Act, 2016 offers a legal framework, but a true “architecture of dignity” demands a radical transformation of our social structures, physical environments and collective cultural attitudes. To truly live by the spirit of the law, we need to turn our spotlight on the structures of our environments rather than the physical features of the person. The federal system should be used to hold local bureaucracies to account for formal, non-compliant practices, increase and strengthen professional sensitisation in judiciaries and public services, and actively invest in universal design. Real empowerment can only come when we take down these invisible walls of ableism that exist in society; when the architecture of society reflects the egalitarian nature of our constitutional law.