Supreme Court Exposes Gaps in Implementing Disability Rights Policies

Recent Supreme Court judgments in India have highlighted significant lapses in the implementation of disability rights, particularly under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016. These rulings underscore the gap between legal mandates and ground-level enforcement, emphasizing the need for urgent corrective measures.

1. Seema Girija Lal v. Union of India (2023)

In this Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court criticized the Union and state governments for their failure to implement key provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court noted that essential infrastructure, such as disability assessment boards, special courts, and state funds for persons with disabilities, remained largely unestablished. The Court directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to coordinate with states to ensure compliance with the Act's mandates.

2. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2017)

This case addressed the accessibility of public infrastructure for persons with disabilities. The Supreme Court mandated that all government buildings and educational institutions be made accessible by specified deadlines, with retrofitting completed in phases across various cities. The Court emphasized that accessibility is integral to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India (2024)

The Supreme Court reprimanded the Union Government for its "gross default" in implementing the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. The case involved a visually impaired candidate who had cleared the Civil Services Examination in 2009 but was denied appointment due to the government's failure to fill backlog vacancies. The Court directed the appointment of the candidate within three months, highlighting the systemic issues in implementing disability rights.

4. Delhi High Court Initiatives (2023)

The Delhi High Court issued directions to ensure that persons with disabilities can participate meaningfully in judicial proceedings. These directions included providing necessary infrastructure and assistive technologies in courts, formulating schemes for accused persons with disabilities, and conducting sensitization programs for judicial officers and staff.

5. National Medical Commission Guidelines (2023)

The Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission to revise disability guidelines to ensure that they are flexible and tailored to individual needs. The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodation should be individualized, as per the requirements of each condition of disability.

Key Observations and Directions

• Implementation Gaps: Despite clear directives, many states have failed to establish necessary infrastructure and mechanisms as mandated by the RPwD Act.
• Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court has actively intervened to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities are upheld, issuing specific directions to various authorities.
•  Need for Accountability: There is a pressing need for accountability mechanisms to ensure that directives are implemented effectively at the ground level.

These judgments reflect the judiciary's commitment to enforcing disability rights. However, the persistent implementation challenges indicate a need for stronger enforcement and accountability mechanisms to translate legal provisions into tangible benefits for persons with disabilities.