New Delhi: In July 2024, when trainee Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer Puja Khedkar was accused of fraudulently accessing reservations meant for persons with disabilities, it was one more instance when a scandal overshadowed systemic challenges that genuine claimants face.
The fallout of such fraud cases is disproportionately borne by those who require disability accommodations.
Khedkar, whose protection from arrest was extended by the Supreme Court in March 2025, allegedly misrepresented her disability status to gain an unfair advantage in the selection of civil service candidates.
In response to the clamour for increased scrutiny in such cases, the ministry of social justice and empowerment in October 2024 introduced an amendment to the rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The 2024 amendment extended the time within which a designated medical authority may issue a disability certification or a unique disability identity (UDID) card from one month to three months, starting from the date of submission of the application.
Intended as a corrective measure, this extension has significantly prolonged the bureaucratic ordeal for legitimate applicants.
On the ground, families like mine grapple with these consequences.
My daughter, who has autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), has been waiting for her disability certificate for over 13 months, far exceeding the limit of three months.
Opaque procedures and administrative inefficiencies combine to create barriers for children who desperately need formal recognition of their disabilities.
According to the 2011 Census of India, there are 26.8 million persons with disabilities in the country, about 2.21% of the population. The National Sample Survey (76th round) by the ministry of statistics and programme implementation reiterated in 2018 that the percentage of persons with disabilities was 2.2%, indicating a commensurate increase in the absolute numbers of Indians with disabilities.
To be effective, policies for those with disabilities, particularly in case of disabilities that are not immediately visible or easily understood, require structural changes in the education system and in healthcare, and continuous effort instead of one-time interventions.
Legally enforceable measures towards disability inclusion remain out of reach for millions of persons with disabilities in India.
The Law’s Definitions Of Disabilities
Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD), persons with disabilities are defined in two key categories: a person with a ‘disability’ and a person with a ‘benchmark disability’.
All individuals with benchmark disabilities fall under the broader category of persons with disabilities, but not all individuals with disabilities qualify as having a benchmark disability. A person with disability is anyone who has a long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory condition that makes it difficult for them to do everyday activities on account of barriers in society.
These barriers could be physical, such as buildings without ramps for wheelchair users, or social, such as a lack of societal understanding about autism.
The definition of a person with a benchmark disability includes two sub-categories.
The first consists of those whose disabilities impact at least 40% of their overall daily functioning, even if their condition is not easily measurable. For example, an individual with autism could be considered to have a benchmark disability if her condition significantly impacts her social interaction, communication, and behavior in daily life, even though the extent of her disability cannot be precisely measured by a percentage.
The second category applies to those whose disabilities have been defined in the law in measurable terms and who meet the required threshold as certified by a government-authorised medical board.
For example, for an individual with blindness, the degree of visual impairment may be specifically measured based on standardised criteria, and she may be potentially certified as a person with a benchmark disability if her disability meets that criterion.
The law places a significant emphasis on this classification in order to gatekeep entitlements.
Disability Criteria
The law promises a broad range of rights and protections for all persons with disabilities, including equal treatment, accessibility, safety, family support, and protection from abuse. The law also guarantees reproductive rights, voting rights, legal capacity, access to justice, and non-discrimination in workplaces.
The law mandates inclusive education, requiring schools to provide accessible infrastructure, individualised support, and a non-discriminatory admission process.
To promote economic independence, it includes provisions for vocational training, self-employment opportunities, and protection against discrimination in hiring and at workplaces.
Governments are also responsible for implementing social security programs, healthcare services, rehabilitation measures, and opportunities for participation in cultural and sporting events, ensuring an adequate standard of living for persons with disabilities.
These rights are available to all persons with disabilities, irrespective of whether they meet the criteria of ‘benchmark disability’ or not.
However, some of the most critical entitlements are restricted to those with benchmark disabilities.
Only persons with benchmark disabilities are eligible for free education in government schools until the age of 18 years, reservations in higher education and employment, identification of suitable job roles, and incentives for private sector hiring. They are also entitled to priority in government housing schemes, access to special employment exchanges, and targeted developmental programs.
A Rights-Based View Of Disability
In 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India affirmed governmental policy design that differentiates between general disabilities and benchmark disabilities, recognising that the RPWD Act embodies a shift toward a more inclusive and rights-based understanding of disability.
The court noted that the current law reflects the social model of disability, which acknowledges that exclusion arises primarily from societal and physical barriers rather than individual impairments.
It further held that failure to distinguish between the general rights of persons with disabilities and those granted specifically to individuals with benchmark disabilities undermines the law’s true intent. This interpretation was reinforced by subsequent rulings, most notably in a 2023 single-bench order of the Supreme Court.
The certification of benchmark disability is crucial, as it serves as the key to unlocking numerous rights and entitlements.
However, there is a fundamental gap in the law—there is no general disability certification, there is only certification for 21 conditions constituting “specified disabilities”.
This means that individuals whose conditions fall outside this list cannot obtain formal recognition under the Act, leaving them without access to essential support and accommodations.
The absence of a broader certification framework exacerbates the exclusion faced by many individuals with disabilities, reinforcing the systemic barriers that persist despite legal protections.
The complex nature of disability classification often creates confusion, further exacerbating challenges faced even by those with specified disabilities who fall short of the benchmark threshold.
Policy Neglect
In 2018, the father of a boy with ADHD filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court, seeking enforcement of inclusive education policies for children with ADHD. In its final order dated 18 October 2019, the court concluded that children with ADHD are not covered under the RPWD Act.
It is true that ADHD is not explicitly listed as a disability under the law, but the court’s reasoning was flawed.
The current definition of disability under the RPWD Act follows the social model of disability, which emphasises the barriers created by society rather than limiting protection to a rigid list of medical conditions—the 2021 SC order defined the shift in the view of disability as “a social construct rather than an individual pathology”.
Under this framework, any condition that substantially restricts a person’s ability to participate in society due to systemic barriers should qualify as a disability. ADHD can clearly meet this threshold, if it significantly impacts learning, communication and social interactions.
Instead of engaging with this broader interpretation, the court took a narrow, outdated view, unsupported by legislation, treating the absence of ADHD from the benchmark disability list as an outright exclusion from legal recognition.
However, the high court did direct the formulation of a policy for children with ADHD. Six years later, no such policy has been formulated, a reflection of a deeper societal dispassion toward issues around disability.
Evidence is abundant that the government’s failure to act is part of a broader pattern in which disability rights remain on the periphery of policy priorities.
The allocation for disability welfare in the Union Budget 2025-26 stands at Rs 1,275 crore. While it reflects a 9.22% increase from the previous year’s revised estimate of Rs 1,167.27 crore, this figure remains a fraction of the GDP.
Disability rights groups, including the pan-India group National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled, have long demanded that 5% of allocations across all ministries be earmarked for disability inclusion, calling current funding grossly inadequate.
The RPWD Act, despite its progressive framework, remains poorly implemented. In April 2024, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over its “dismal” enforcement, citing widespread non-compliance. Research has found that schools frequently lack trained special educators, and public spaces routinely fail to meet universal design standards (see here, here, here and here).
A 2015 study by the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People found that reserved positions for employment of persons with disabilities remain largely unfilled despite legal obligations.
Legal Mandate To Compel Change
Legal frameworks and policy mandates have significantly advanced the idea of physical accessibility for all, and they have the potential to drive true social inclusion.
Robust legal enforcement can dismantle entrenched biases and systemic discrimination, and ensure meaningful inclusion for individuals with disabilities. Legal mandates have the power to compel institutions and individuals to adopt inclusive practices, thus driving behaviour change.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court ruled on a case highlighting how inaccessible public spaces continue to exclude people with disabilities. The petitioner, a visually impaired individual, pointed out that many government buildings, transportation systems, and public services still lacked basic accessibility features.
The court reaffirmed that accessibility is not a privilege but a fundamental right, and emphasised that the failure to provide barrier-free environments amounts to discrimination.
“Accessibility is not merely a convenience, but a fundamental requirement for enabling individuals, particularly those with disabilities, to exercise their rights fully and equally,” said the Supreme Court. “Without accessibility, individuals are effectively excluded from many aspects of society, whether that be education, employment, healthcare, or participation in cultural and civic activities."
The judgment marked a significant development in disability rights jurisprudence, as the bench unequivocally held that non-compliance with accessibility mandates constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
The court issued a series of sweeping directives aimed at rectifying the persistent shortcomings in accessibility for persons with disabilities in India.
For instance, it found that the government rules meant to ensure accessibility were in the nature of non-binding suggestions as opposed to mandatory requirements. The court found this unacceptable and directed the government to replace them with clear, enforceable accessibility standards within three months.
These new rules were to be made in consultation with persons with disabilities and experts.
The court further said that these standards must carry consequences for non-compliance, such as refusal of building completion certificates and imposition of penalties. It stressed that older buildings and infrastructure must also be modified to ensure complete access.
The court acknowledged the deep systemic barriers that prevent disabled individuals from fully participating in society, particularly in public spaces, transportation and digital services.
To address these challenges, the court mandated that both the central and state governments submit comprehensive compliance roadmaps outlining how they would meet the accessibility standards.
These roadmaps were meant to be detailed, actionable timelines with specific, measurable targets to be met within a clearly defined timeframe.
Discrimination Despite The Law
Physical infrastructure changes do not automatically result in attitudinal shifts, and my daughter’s experience in primary education illustrates systemic discrimination that persists.
Though legally entitled to inclusive education, she faced resistance and even outright hostility during the admission process.
Schools, either due to ignorance or unwillingness, cited vague justifications to deny admission despite the law prohibiting such discrimination. Even when admission was granted, teachers lacked the training to support neurodivergent students, leaving children like my daughter at a disadvantage.
Despite legal mandates for individualised support, many educators remain unaware of their responsibilities.
After repeated attempts to secure basic accommodations, my daughter had to be withdrawn from a school due to its failure to provide adequate support. Fortunately, she has now found a more accommodating environment at another school.
My experience underscores the urgent need for schools to be held accountable for ensuring equitable educational opportunities.
Legal interventions alone cannot change mindsets, but they can drive behavioral shifts by creating enforceable consequences for non-compliance.
The Supreme Court ruling of November 2024 reinforced this point, holding that accessibility laws must be treated as binding obligations rather than optional guidelines.
While schools in India are legally required to provide inclusive education, including accessible infrastructure, trained staff and non-discriminatory admissions, the consequences such as fines and even criminal liability for non-compliance are rarely enforced in practice.
With disability issues rarely highlighted by the mainstream media, the work of raising awareness and actively countering ableist stereotypes has come to rest on persons with disabilities and their families, instead of being a collective obligation requiring action from government agencies, private institutions and civil society alike.
(Nilotpal Datta is an independent lawyer working on Constitutional and human rights issues.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.