This article is written by Gautam Badlani, a student of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. This article examines the provisions and judicial decisions relating to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 thereby highlighting the salient features of the Act and critically analyzing rights of the disabled. The article also points out certain drawbacks of the Act and makes certain suggestions with respect to the amendment and changes that can be made to the Act to make it more efficient. 

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction 

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was enacted by Parliament in the year 2016. It replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 

In India, for a long time, disabled individuals were considered a liability and were subjected to stigmatization and discrimination. However, around the 1980s, it was felt that disabled people must be provided with an opportunity to participate in societal development. Governments, NGOs, and society at large realized that disability was a medical condition which could be addressed through appropriate rehabilitation. With the UN declaring the 1982-1992 period as the Decade of Disabled Persons, the rehabilitation movement got a further boost. The Decade of Disabled Persons played a key role in improving the status of  disabled people. Emphasis was laid on improving educational and employment status and raising more funds for the disabled.

The Indian Government set up the Rehabilitation Council of India in 1986 with the aim of facilitating the rehabilitation of disabled people. Furthermore, the National Policy on Disability was adopted in 2009. This comprehensive policy focuses on critical areas such as education, employment, social security, etc., for the disabled. 

Need for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The primary aim of enacting the Act was to safeguard the interests of people who suffer from disabilities. This Act provided for the individuality and dignity of disabled people, prevented discrimination against them, and called for an inclusive society. 

The Act was enacted owing to India’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December, 2006. India ratified the Convention in 2007. As per the Convention, the signatory States were mandated to enact new laws or amend the existing laws to remove obstacles to the development and growth of disabled people. The National Policy on Disabled Persons needed to be modified in order to bring it in line with the 2007 UN Convention. 

The Convention imposed a duty on the States, private individuals, and civil society to ensure that the rights of disabled people were secured. The signatory States are under an obligation to not only ensure the implementation of the Convention but also to modify their domestic law to bring it on par with the provisions of the Constitution and to prepare the country’s report.

India, being one of the first signatories of the Convention, enacted the 2016 Act to fulfill its obligations under the Convention. In November, 2015, India submitted its first country’s report. 

This Act, furthermore, widened the definition of disability by incorporating 21 types of disabilities, as compared to 7 in the preceding statute. The schedule to the Act covers physical disability, mental disability, intellectual disability, and disability resulting from chronic neurological conditions and blood disorders. Acid attack victims and those with speech and language disabilities have been included in the list for the first time. 

Overview of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 aims to provide certain rights to disabled people and protect them from social stigmatization and discrimination. Section 2(s) of the Act defines “person with disability” as a person who suffers from long-term mental, physical, sensory or intellectual impairment which, in collaboration with barriers, affects his effective participation in society.

The definition of disability provided in the 2016 Act is much more inclusive than the definition in the preceding Act. The 1995 Act included only those persons within the definition of disabled persons who suffered from a 40% or more of a certified disability. 

Section 27 of the Act also provides for the rehabilitation of a disabled person. The appropriate government is responsible for the rehabilitation of the disabled, with a special focus on education, employment, and health concerns. The appropriate government has to provide financial assistance to those non-government organizations which are engaged in facilitating the rehabilitation of disabled people. 

Objectives of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

• The primary objective of the Act is to ensure that disabled people enjoy their right to equality and are able to live a dignified and respectful life. 
• The Preamble of the Act provides that it is aimed at protecting disabled people from all sorts of discrimination. The Act seeks to ensure the full social, political, and economic participation of disabled people. 
• This Act promotes inclusive education and provides employment safeguards for disabled people. Thus, it aims at empowering disabled people through inclusive growth and active societal participation.

Salient features of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Rights of disabled persons

Chapter II of the Act deals with the rights of disabled people. Disabled people have been conferred with the following rights:

1. They have a right to equality and protection from discrimination. They cannot be discriminated against due to their disability. The appropriate government is responsible for ensuring that the dignity and integrity of the disabled persons is not violated. 
2. The disabled persons have a right to live in the community and the government is responsible for protecting them from being forced into living in any specific arrangement. 
3. The disabled persons enjoy equal rights and cannot be forced into undergoing infertility medical procedures. 
4. The Central as well as the state elections commissioners are responsible for ensuring that the polling booths are accessible to disabled people. 
5. The disabled persons are to be protected from violence and exploitation. They cannot be subjected to any degrading or cruel treatment. Disabled people cannot be forced to be the subject of research without their consent. In case of any natural disaster or emergency, they have equal rights to safety and protection. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that if any registered organization believes that an act of violence or abuse is likely to be committed against a disabled person, then the registered organization must give such information to the Executive Magistrate having the requisite jurisdiction. 
6. Section 38 of the Act provides that where a person suffering from benchmark disability believes that he is in need of high support, he can make an application for such high support to the notified authority. An application in this regard can also be made by any other person or organization on behalf of the disabled person. Such an application is to be forwarded to the Assessment Board, which will assess the application and submit a report to the concerned authority. The disabled person would then be provided high support on the basis of the report and the relevant government schemes.
7. The Act also provides that if an employee acquires a disability while he is in service, he may not be dismissed or removed from employment. He may be transferred to another suitable post but the pay scale cannot be reduced.

Educational safeguards

Chapter III of the Act deals with the education of disabled children. Section 16 of the Act imposes a duty on government funded educational institutions to provide inclusive education to disabled children. Educational institutions are prevented from discriminating against children suffering from disabilities and are required to provide education, sports and recreation facilities to the disabled children, provide them with reasonable accommodation, make the campus more accessible to them, ensure that dead and blind children are imparted education using appropriate means of communication and suitable pedagogic means, provide them with transport facilities and monitor their participation and progress. 

Section 17 aims at promoting inclusive education. It provides that the government and the local authorities are responsible for setting up training institutes and for training staff and professions on how to promote inclusive education. Children with a benchmark disability are entitled to free books and other learning materials until they attain the age of 18 years. 

Section 32 provides for a 5% reservation in all government higher education institutes and those educational institutes that are beneficiaries of government funds.

Skills, development and employment of disabled persons

The Act makes special provisions for the promotion of skill development and employment of disabled people. Under Section 20, discrimination against  disabled people in matters related to employment is specifically prohibited. The government establishments are mandated to provide them with reasonable accommodation and are prohibited from reducing the ranks of those employees who acquire disability during the work. Disabled people cannot be denied promotion merely on grounds of disability. 

Section 21 mandates every establishment to notify an equal opportunity policy and the same has to be registered with the Chief or State Commissioner.

Section 23 requires every establishment to appoint a grievance redressal officer and to inform the chief commissioner or the state commissioner about the same. Any person can approach the officer and complain about the discrimination done by the establishment on the grounds of disability. The redressal officer has to maintain a register of complaints and the enquiry into every complaint has to be completed within two weeks of registration.

Equal recognition before law and guardianship 

People suffering from disabilities have the right to equal recognition before the law in regards to the general people under Section 3. This gives them the right to inherit and own property and manage their own financial affairs.

While disabled people have the right to take their own legal decisions, this Act also envisages a situation where a disabled person might face difficulty in making legally binding decisions. For such a case, Section 14 provides for the concept of a limited guardian. The limited guardian is to help the disabled person and can take legally binding decisions on their behalf. Limited guardianship implies joint decision making between the disabled person and the guardian on the basis of mutual trust and understanding. Such a guardian can be appointed by the District Court or any such authority notified by the State Government. The disabled person has a right to appeal against such an appointment by the designated authority. 

Special provisions under the act for people with benchmark disabilities

People suffering from benchmark disabilities are provided special provisions in Chapter VI of the Act. Section 31 provides that every child suffering from a benchmark disability has a right to free education in any neighborhood school or in any special school until he attains the age of 18. All higher government educational institutions as well as educational institutions receiving government grants are mandated to provide a minimum of 5% reservation in favor of children suffering from benchmark disabilities.

Section 33 provides that the appropriate government has to identify the posts which can be reserved in favor of a person’s suffering from benchmark disabilities. An expert committee will be constituted for the identification of suitable posts which could be reserved for disabled people suffering from benchmark disability, and the identified posts have to be periodically reviewed within a period of three years. 

Moreover, every government establishment has to reserve a minimum of 4% of vacancies in favor of people suffering from benchmark disabilities. The Act also provides that the appropriate government shall incentivise the private organizations to employ persons suffering from benchmark disabilities.

Social Security and Healthcare

Chapter V of the Act makes special provisions for disabled people with respect to social security and healthcare. 

Section 24 of the Act imposes an obligation on the appropriate government to frame necessary schemes for improving the living standard of the disabled persons and to provide them with an independent living. The government may formulate the schemes keeping in view its economic capacity. 

While framing the schemes, the government has to consider the age, economic and social status, nature of disability, and gender of the disabled people. Section 24 also provides a list of matters with respect to which the government may frame welfare schemes. The government should set up community centers to provide adequate counseling, guidance, safety, and medical care to disabled people. The government should also provide support to disabled people during natural disasters and help  disabled children who have been abandoned or have no family or shelter. The government should also frame policies for providing unemployment allowances to disabled people who have been unable to get any gainful employment for a period of 2 years or more.

Section 25 of the Act provides that the appropriate government should take the necessary steps to ensure that disabled people get access to free healthcare, particularly in rural areas. Disabled people must be given priority in treatment and should be provided with barrier free access to all private healthcare organisations.

Duties and responsibilities of the appropriate government as laid down in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Chapter VIII of the Act prescribes the duties and responsibilities of the appropriate government. The appropriate government has to organize awareness and sensitization campaigns in order to ensure that the rights of the disabled people as provided under the Act are secured. The government has to consider the Chief Commissioner or the state commissioner in organizing the awareness campaigns. 

Under Section 41 of the Act, the appropriate government has to take appropriate steps to ensure that the modes of transport, such as railways, buses, and airports, are made accessible to disabled people. The ticketing procedure, toilets, and parking must be designed keeping in mind the needs of disabled people. The appropriate government should ensure that the roads are also accessible to disabled people. 

The government must also promote the development and distribution of consumer goods that are generally used by disabled people. The government must take the necessary steps to ensure that technology, communications, and information, including print and electronic media, are made accessible to disabled people.

Section 48 mandates that the appropriate government must perform a social audit of the welfare schemes to ensure that they fulfill the needs of disabled people and do not have an adverse effect on them. This would also enable the government to make the necessary modifications to the schemes to ensure that they fulfill the object of this Act.

Registration of institutions for people with disabilities

Chapter IX of the Act provides the procedure through which institutions for disabled people may be registered. The component of authority for the registration of the institutions has to be appointed by the state government.

Under Section 50, the component authority will be responsible for delivering the certificates to the institutions that are established for disabled people. The manner in which the application for registration is to be made has to be prescribed by the state government. Upon receiving a registration application, the competent authority may conduct such enquiry as he considers necessary to ensure that the applicant has met all the essential conditions of the Act; upon being satisfied, the competent authority shall issue a certificate. If the competent authority is not satisfied, then he may refuse to issue a certificate of registration.

Section 52 of the Act authorizes a component authority to revoke a registration certificate if he reasonably believes that the certificate holder has breached any of the conditions on which the registration certificate was issued or has produced false material. An appeal against the order of the component authority may be preferred under Section 53.

Advisory Board and District Level Committee

Chapter XI of the Act provides for the establishment of Central and State Level Advisory Boards as well as District-level Committees. These advisory boards are responsible for advising the government on matters, programs, and policies related to disabled individuals. The advisory boards also coordinate and review the activities of the various departments engaged in matters relating to disabled people. 

Central Advisory Board

Composition

Section 60 of the Act provides for the composition of the Central Advisory Board. The Mister in charge of the Department of Disabled Persons is the ex officio chairman of this board.  The Vice Chairman is the Minister of State in charge of the department of disabled persons. Other than the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson, the Central Board consists of three members of Parliament, two of whom are elected by the lower house and one by the Rajya Sabha. 

Disqualification

The members of the Central Advisory Board are appointed for a term of three years. The members can be removed from office before the expiry of their term by the Central Government. The members can also submit their resignation to the central government. A casual vacancy will be filled by a fresh nomination, and the person so nominated will hold the office for the remainder of the term.

Under Section 62, an insolvent person, a person of unsound mind, or a person who has been convicted of an offense is disqualified from being a member of the advisory board.

Functions

These advisory boards are responsible for advising the government on matters, programs, and policies related to disabled people. The advisory boards also coordinate and review the activities of the various departments engaged in matters relating to disabled people.

State advisory board

Composition

The state advisory board report consists of five members with expertise in matters relating to disabled people and rehabilitation. The state government also appoints five other members to represent the various districts. Ten other members are appointed to represent the NGOs and other associations dealing with matters relating to disable people. These 10 persons may preferably be the persons suffering from disabilities. Other than this, three members may be appointed to represent the state chamber of trade and commerce.

Disqualification

The members of the state advisory boards are also appointed for a term of three years. The members can be removed from office before the expiry of their term by the Central Government. A person convicted of an offence, a person of sound mind or an insolvent person who has failed to pay his debts is disqualified from being appointed as a member of the state advisory board. 

Section 67 provides the terms and conditions of the service of the members. A member may be removed from office before the expiry of his term by the state government after giving him a reasonable show cause notice. A member may also submit his resignation to the state government. A casual vacancy is filled by a fresh nomination, and the person so appointed will hold the office for the remainder of the term. 

Functions

These advisory boards help in continuously evolving a comprehensive policy for safeguarding the rights of disabled people. They advise the concerned state government in framing appropriate policies and programmes for the empowerment of  disabled people. They coordinate and monitor the functioning of all the state departments and government as well as non-government organizations working for the welfare of the disabled. 

District Level Committees

Section 72 of the Act provides for the establishment of district level committees. The District- level Committees are responsible for redressing local level grievances of the people suffering from disabilities. The state governments prescribe the rules for the constitution and functioning of these committees.

Chief commissioner and state commissioner 

Chapter XII of the Act deals with the Chief Commissioner and the state commissioner. The Chief Commissioner is appointed by the Central Government, and the Central Government may also appoint two additional commissioners to help the Chief Commissioner. One of the commissioners must be a disabled person.

Section 77 of the Act provides the powers of the Chief Commissioner. The chief commissioner has the power to summon the witnesses and enforce their attendance, order the production of documents, and examine witnesses and documents.

The State Commissioners are appointed by the respective state governments. Only those people are eligible to be appointed as State Commissioners who have special knowledge in relation to matters of rehabilitation. The powers of the State Commissioner are defined under Section 82. State commissioners have the power to summon witnesses, order the production of documents, receive affidavit evidence and issue commissions for document examination.

Special Courts

The special courts are set up by the state government in concurrence with the Chief Justice of the concerned high court. Section 84 provides for the setting up of special courts in each district for the speedy disposal of cases relating to violations of the rights of persons suffering from disabilities. 

National and State Funds

Section 86 provides for the setting up of a national fund for disabled persons, and Section 88 provides for the setting up of state funds for disabled persons. The government is required to maintain proper accounts and records of these funds. It would be utilized to provide financial support and relief to disabled people. 

Punishment

Under Section 89, persons contravening the provisions of the Act will be punishable with a fine up to Rs. 10,000 for the first offense and every subsequent offense will be punishable with up to Rs. 5,00,000.

Section 92 provides that the offense of committing atrocities on disabled people will be punishable with up to 5 years of imprisonment along with a fine. 

The Act also points out that unfairly availing the benefits of the provisions aimed at the welfare of people suffering from benchmark disability will be punishable with up to two years of imprisonment or up to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 or both.

Landmark judgments surrounding Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service (2021)

In the landmark case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021), the appellant, who suffered from writer’s cramp, was denied scribe during the civil services examination. The appellant had applied for a disability certificate at the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi, but the certificate was refused. The appellant then appealed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed. The appellant then approached the Delhi High Court and, in the meantime, obtained the disability certificate. The appellant then approached the Apex Court, and the Court directed AIMS to constitute a board and submit a report on the appellant’s condition. The report stated that the appellant was a person with a disability, but he did not suffer from a benchmark disability. 

The primary contention of the appellant was that he was entitled to a scribe due to his medical condition.

Observations of the Supreme Court

• The Court primarily noted that, as per government guidelines, only people suffering from benchmark disability are entitled to have a scribe during an examination. However, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which is the nodal agency for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, recognised that there might be other medical conditions which could hinder the writing ability of the candidate and hence, left it at the discretion of the examination agency to decide on the grant of scribe or other such facilities. 
• Thus, the existence of benchmark disability was not a precondition to the grant of scribe, extra time or other similar facility. 
• The golden triangle, comprising Articles 14, 19, and 21 provides protection to disabled people. The Constitution promises full and complete citizenship to disabled persons and the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 merely operationalizes this promise. 
• It is essential but not sufficient to merely ensure that disabled people are not subjected to discrimination. Additional support and facilities must also be provided to disabled people.
• The Court then referred to the principle of reasonable accommodation and stated that the State has a positive obligation to provide additional facilities to disabled people to ensure that they enjoy full participation in society.
• The Court noted the judgment of V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019), where the Apex Court upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment, stating that a person suffering from more than 50% visual or hearing impairment would not be eligible to be considered for the post of a judicial officer. The Court observed that the Surendra Mohan judgment was based on the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and did not consider the principle of reasonable accommodation. Thus, the Surendra Mohan judgment could not be a binding precedent. 
• The Court thus concluded that since the appellant suffered from a disability which made it difficult for him to write, denying him a scribe would defeat the purpose of the Act. 

State Of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021)

In the case of State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph (2021), the issue arose before the Apex Court that whether the disabled persons were entitled to reservation in promotion. The Court interpreted the provisions of the 1995 Act and 2016 Act while deciding the issue. The Court held that disabled people are entitled to reservation in promotion under the scheme of the 1995 Act. 

The Court further noted that while it is easier to enact legislation, changing the social mindset of people to give effect to the good intentions of the legislation in the true sense is a difficult task. The intention of the 1995 and 2016 Acts is to ensure that disabled people are provided with equal opportunity, and such an opportunity can be provided only by granting them reservation in promotion as well. Section 20(2) of the Act mandates every government establishment to provide “reasonable accommodation” and a conducive environment for disabled people. 

The Court concluded that disabled people are entitled to reservations in promotion. 

Disabled Right Group v. Union Of India (2017)

In the case of Disabled Right Group v. Union of India (2017), a public interest litigation was filed before the Apex Court to look into the non-implementation of reservation provisions for disabled people, to ensure that full access was provided to people suffering from orthopedic disability so that they can move freely throughout the educational institutes and to ensure that effective steps are taken to provide adequate pedagogy facilities to the disabled students. 

The Court commented on the fundamental premise of the 2016 Act and said that the Act was based on the idea that there are barriers and hindrances created by society which impede the disabled persons’ progress. The Act aims at ensuring that disabled people are provided with sufficient opportunities to enable them to realize their full potential. In order to achieve this objective, it is essential to provide fruitful education to the disabled persons by making the buildings, libraries, labs and other facilities accessible to them. 

The Court noted that the 1995 Act provided for a minimum of 3% reservation for disabled persons in government aided educational institutions. The 2016 Act only widened the scope of the welfare provisions, and Section 31 provides for the free education of disabled children from 6 to 18 years of age. This right is wider in scope as compared to the right granted under the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Disabled people not only have the right to have a minimum education but also the right to higher education. 

The Court thus ordered that all educational institutions must comply with the reservation provisions of the Act. The UGC and the Bar Council of India (in case of law schools) were directed to conduct inspections to ensure that the educational institutions comply with the reservation provisions. 

Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind (2013)

In the landmark case of Union of India & Anr v. National Federation of the Blind (2013), the Supreme Court made several important observations with regards to the reservation for disabled persons. The Court made the following observations:

• Employment is essential to provide full participation, empowerment, and inclusion of disabled people. The primary reason for the joblessness of disabled people is not functional disability but the artificial social barriers that hinder their growth. 
• The 50% ceiling limit on reservations set by the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment applies only to reservations in favor of Other Backward Castes and not in case of reservations for disabled persons. 
• The Central Government and the state governments are under an obligation to provide welfare measures for disabled persons. This obligation is based on the Constitutional provisions as well as the international treaties to which India is a party. 

Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2021)

In Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency (2021), the primary contention of the petitioner was that she was entitled to reasonable accommodation as she had been diagnosed with 40% permanent disability and suffered from dysgraphia and thus fell within the criterion of benchmark disability. However, when she appeared for the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET), she was denied the relaxation that she was entitled to in terms of the Guidelines on Written Examinations which are issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. 

The Court observed that the National Testing Agency (NTA) was bound to follow the Guidelines on Written Examination. The appellant was not provided with the statutory facilities because the designated examination center was unaware of the provisions of the Act. It was the responsibility of the  NTA to ensure that all the designated centers were aware of the provisions made for disabled people. The Court further observed that the right to equality and reasonable accommodation cannot be denied to disabled people by treating the existence of benchmark disability as an essential prerequisite. 

Where the rights have been conferred on disabled people by the statute, they cannot be diluted. The Court thus concluded that the reasonable accommodation provisions provided in the Act are mandatory and form the pillar of equality and non-discrimination. The provisions with respect to disabled people must be published in the NEET bulletin. A higher threshold for benchmark disability cannot be used to deny the statutory rights to the disabled persons. 

Drawbacks and suggestions for Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for the appointment of limited guardians to help the disabled persons in taking legal decisions. At the same time, the Act also includes mental disability within its scope. Yet, there is no provision to address a situation where a person suffers from a psychiatric disability and does not have proper insight. In such a situation, the disabled person might be vulnerable to the influence of the guardian. It might also be difficult to implement joint decision making which is the aim of limited guardianship. 
• Section 9 provides that a child suffering from a disability is to stay with his parents unless the court is of the opinion that separation from parents will be in the child’s best interests. Even in those cases where the court believes that the parents are incapable of taking proper care of the child, the child has to be placed with near relatives. 
• However, Section 13(3) provides that where any conflict arises between the disabled person and the person who is supporting the disabled person with respect to any economic, property, or finance-related matter, then the person providing the support will have to mandatorily withdraw their support. This might lead to situations where a willing and bona-fide family member might be prevented from helping and assisting the disabled person. This is probable in cases where the disabled person suffers from mental disability and is deprived of sound judgment. 
• The Act tries to protect the disabled person from any sort of coercion or threat. However, it does not take into consideration that where a disabled person suffers from mental disability and is a threat to himself, family members might have to use force for the interest of the disabled person. However, even such protection by family members can be coloured as a criminal act due to the stringent provisions of the Act. 
• While the Act intends to promote inclusive education, this goal might be difficult to achieve considering the existing shortage of teachers in schools. Promoting inclusive education would require trained teachers and the requisite infrastructure. Furthermore, children who suffer from severe disabilities would require greater support and a targeted approach as they might not be able to meet the needs of regular schools. 
• A major setback for disabled people can be the lengthy certification process. The Central Government has issued the guidelines that the various state governments need to follow for the certification of disabled people. The state government has to constitute a three member medical board consisting of at least one specialist in the field of disability for which the certification needs to be granted. This means that disabled people will have to take several appointments with specialists before they can finally secure a certificate. The lengthy process might lead to the denial of several rights to disabled people. Children and those who require immediate assistance would be the worst affected. A multi-member medical board should be required only where there are multiple disabilities under consideration. For a single disability, a single specialist should suffice. Another solution to this problem could be decentralization of the certification process and enabling the various states to formulate their own certification guidelines on the basis of the available resources.

Conclusion 

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is certainly a progressive legislation. It marks a paradigm shift from charity based statute to a rights based statute. In many cases, the ill-treatment meted out to the disabled person etches into their heart, causing immense psychological damage. The aim of the Indian Constitution is to ensure social and economic justice. The rights guaranteed by the Act secure social justice for disabled people, and the special provisions with respect to education and employment guarantee economic justice to disabled people. 

While the government and the judiciary have adopted a right based approach with respect to disabled people, the implementation of the Act would require regular monitoring. Even after the Act came into force, several statutory rights have been denied to disabled people, and the judiciary needs to take a proactive approach in ensuring that the provisions of the Act are implemented in their letter and spirit. 

Frequently Asked Questions

How many countries are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

There are 82 signatories to the Convention.

What are the different models of disability?

1. Social model of disability: This model emphasizes that it is not the impairment but rather the social barriers that disable people. The artificial and environmental barriers lead to the social construction of disability, which affects people. It is not the functional disability that denies disabled people equal participation in society, but rather the social setting of discrimination and stigmatization is the root cause of their disability. 
2. Economic Model of Disability: This model points out the faults in the economic system that provides low pay work to disabled people, thereby pushing them to a lifetime of perpetual dependency. Instead of providing them with vocational training and 
3. Medical model of disability: This model views disability as a purely medical problem which needs to be curated. It emphasizes the physical and mental limitations of disabled people and focuses on the setting up of special institutions such as special schools, transport, etc., for disabled people. 
4. Rights based model of disability: This model treats disability as a normal phenomenon in human society and emphasizes that disabled people are entitled to equal rights as others. 

References 

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_364_18 
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5419007/
• https://www.rgics.org/wp-content/uploads/RPWD-Act-Review-Paper.pdf 
• https://www.ijpn.in/article.asp?issn=2231-1505;year=2018;volume=15;issue=2;spage=61;epage=65;aulast=Gupta 
• https://thehansfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FINAL-Handbook-on-the-RPWD-Act-2016-ENGLISH.pdf  

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.