Inclusive Equality in Disability Rights and Beyond: Inroads by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, over time, has given multiple judgments that serve as the landmarks for the evolution of various concepts that exist while focusing on the inclusion of individuals with disability in society.

Rights of persons with disabilities (PwD) were first recognised in 1996, but mere recognition is insufficient unless it is supported by robust legislation, effective execution, and systematic monitoring of implementation — a responsibility vested in the judiciary. The judiciary is constitutionally mandated to uphold individual rights and dignity. The barriers faced by persons with disabilities are deeply rooted in societal prejudice, stereotypes, and misconceptions. Therefore, it is imperative for judges to actively identify and dismantle these barriers, ensuring that constitutional principles are upheld in both letter and spirit.

The Supreme Court, over time, has given multiple judgments that serve as the landmarks for the evolution of various concepts that exist while focusing on the inclusion of individuals with disability in society. Therefore, we delve deep into the inroads created by the Supreme Court and critically analyse its relevance.

Functional assessment of the medical aspirants

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud laid down certain criteria of functional assessment in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Sciences¹, along with providing some guidelines for the Medical Assessment Board to comply with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPD Act) and assess the actual functional capacity of candidates. For candidates with more than 80 per cent locomotor disability, the guidelines allow their functional capacity to be determined using assistive tools to see if it can be bought below 80 per cent. Some of the important guidelines among others include: Board to provide with detailed reason for its conclusion, admission assessment should be limited to evaluation of fitness as disability quantification already happens during the issuances of unique disability identification card, establishment of an enabling unit, and equal opportunity cell for assistance of students and information circulation.

No quantification of disability

While clarifying the meaning and scope of reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, Justice Chandrachud in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC² stated that the concept of benchmark disability, which was used to determine entitlement to reservation, could not be used as a threshold to determine reasonable accommodation. The appellant in the case was denied reasonable accommodation of a scribe because they did not fall under the criteria of benchmark disability, which was overturned later.

Legal accessibility

Incomprehensibility of an impugned judgment led the Supreme Court to a realisation that accessibility also means accessibility of judgments even to individuals with disability, particularly those with visual impairment who rely on screen readers. Therefore, in SBI v. Ajay Kumar Sood³, the Supreme Court directed the judicial institutions to refrain from using improperly placed watermarks that hinder access and upload an accessible version of judgments and orders, which are digitally signed rather than scanned copies of printed documents, which is a highly time-consuming and pointless practice.

Right to reservation in promotion

If reservation was provided at the entry level, is it necessary to provide the same for promotion as well? While answering the question in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph⁴,the Supreme Court concluded that a person with disability is entitled to reservation in promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016). The Court interpreted Section 20(2) RPwD Act, which mandates every establishment to provide reasonable accommodation and a conducive environment for disabled people and concluded that persons with disability are entitled to reservation in promotion.

Testimony of a witness with disability cannot be treated as inferior

The Court laid down certain guidelines in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P.⁵ to inform women and girls with disability about their rights against sexual abuse. While considering the rape case of a visually impaired victim, the Court emphasised the concept of intersectionality and held that the testimony of a prosecutrix or witness with disability cannot be treated as weak or inferior merely because of their disability, and must be given equal credence as that of non-disabled witnesses, subject to usual evidentiary scrutiny.

Training officials for reasonable accommodation I examination

In Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency⁶, the Court attributed that inadequate training and knowledge at the exam centre led to the discomfort caused to the appellant, who had writer’s cramp. According to the Central Government guidelines, she was entitled to have one extra hour; the Court further stated that reasonable accommodation cannot be denied once entitlement has been recognised. Therefore, the Court directed the National Testing Agency to formulate an appropriate remedy and to train officials to ensure correct implementation of person with a disability provisions and reasonable accommodations. Further, the Court mentioned that rights on paper are meaningless if front-line staff do not understand or respect them.

Digital accessibility

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India⁷ recognised digital accessibility as under the ambit of right to life under Article 21. Digital inequality not only marginalises people with disability but also rural communities, senior citizens, economically weaker groups, and linguistic minorities. The Court directed Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Government to make digital know your customer KYC process accessible, particularly for individuals with facial disfigurements, visual impairments, or other disabilities. It laid down guidelines that included accessible KYC procedures (including non-eye-blinking liveness checks), accessible content formats, and dedicated grievance mechanisms and sensitisation training.

Analysis

The Supreme Court has tried its best to craft an increasingly coherent framework for persons with disabilities. The court has moved from the rigid percentage-based disability thresholds to functional and individualised assessment, classified reasonable accommodation as a universal right and extended accessibility obligations to judicial documents and now to the entire digital ecosystem but challenges still remain.

Most of these judgments rely extensively on executive and institutional machinery, compliance to which is slow and uneven. Although the reasoning is increasingly principled, reforms are still pushed primarily through individual writ petitions: one case for medical admissions, another for UPSC, another for NEET, another for KYC, etc. This reactive pattern means that many sectors remain untouched until a litigant comes forward, placing a disproportionate burden on PwDs to litigate basic entitlements.

There is also a massive dependence on progressive Benches. These progressive reasonings come from a relatively small set of Judges. The Court often focuses on prospective correction and systemic guidelines, but the relief for the individual (for example, compensatory admission or re-exam) may be delayed or partial, which can never fully compensate for lost years or opportunities

The Supreme Court has undoubtedly created a “way out” for persons with disabilities. Yet the lived reality for many PwDs continues to depend on administrative will, institutional capacity, and social attitudes, which means that the “way out” is, at present, more a roadmap than a destination fully reached. For that roadmap to translate into everyday inclusion, continuous monitoring, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and sustained advocacy by disabled persons’ organisations remain essential.