India’s long and luminous civilizational story finds one of its highest moral tests in the

measure of how it treats those, who are most often cast to the margins. Ancient Indian
customs typically viewed disability through the concepts of karma and the soul. It was
frequently perceived as a consequence of previous actions (“parāparāda”): a divine
punishment or destiny stemming from karma or sin. In contrast, the philosophy of the
Upanishads highlighted the enduring self (Ātman) that transcends the physical form. For
instance, the Aitareya Upanishad emphasizes that the loss of speech, sight, hearing, or limbs
does not signify the end of life – only the cessation of breath does. It asserts, “A person
continues to exist even after losing his speech, after losing his sight, after losing his hearing,
and even after his arms and legs are severed, as we observe in such individuals.” This
excerpt suggests a fundamental human essence that remains intact regardless of physical
disabilities. Our scriptures, which are in existence since centuries, also believed and equally
treated person with disability as like abled- bodied individuals. But with the evolutions and
changes, people started overlooking, disregarding and neglecting the rights of person with
disabilities, believing them to be less- fortune and physically impaired to do a task. However,
since the last two decades, India has moved from an attitude of paternalistic charity to one of
rights-based partnership with persons with disabilities. Disability is not merely a medical
condition; it is a complex interplay of physical, social, cultural, and institutional barriers that
hinder full participation of individuals in society. It is not a condition of limitation, but of
unequal opportunity. This shift is not merely legalistic or administrative; it is civilisational,
and it springs from the recognition that equality is not achieved by pity, but by removing
barriers such as physical, attitudinal, informational and institutional, so that the dignity and
participation may flourish. It is termed as civilisational change because, the greatest example
of mixture of respect and moral interpretation of disability lies in our great epic that is the
Mahabharata. In the Mahābhārata, King Dhṛtarāṣṭra, who was born blind, ruled the Kuru
kingdom effectively and was praised for his might (he was famously said to have “the
strength of a hundred elephants”) despite blindness. His example suggests inclusion: his
physical impairment did not bar him from kingship. In sum, the ancient Indian texts showed
and carried a seed of inclusion, as many scriptures and traditions insisted that disability did
not define a person’s true self.
Globally, more than 1.3 billion people (one in six) live with a disability. The recorded
number of persons with disabilities in 1981 was about 13.6 million. In 1991, it grew to 16.3
million. The number of persons with disability was 21.9 million in the 2001 and 26.8 million
as per the 2011 Census. This is a substantially high population. Although the 2002 NSSO
data places that rate of disability at 1.83% in India, the actual rate is much higher given that
the WHO places the world average at 10%. Numbers are not cold abstractions when they
represent citizens denied education, work, or dignity. The most widely cited official snapshot
in India comes from Census 2011, which recorded approximately 21.9 million persons with
disabilities — roughly 2.21% of the population — a figure that both quantified need and
exposed the limitations of conventional counting methods. India’s global commitments
towards its accession to international human-rights instruments, alignment with Sustainable
Development Goals, and domestic law and policy initiatives, all together constitute an
evolving promise, to make the nation truly inclusive, accessible and empowering for all its
citizens.

The cornerstone of the international legal framework/architecture that changed national

disability policy is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD). The convention emphasizes a social model of disability rather than a medical
model, focusing on removing societal barriers. India took the initiative to put that promise on
the treaty register, by signing the CRPD in March 2007 and ratifying it on October 1, 2007,
committing to ensuring accessibility, eradicating discrimination, and aligning domestic
legislation with the Convention's rights-based approach. This ratification marked a shift in
norms from welfare to rights, necessitating tangible changes in domestic laws and policies.
Another, essential international legal framework, beyond the CRPD is the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable development. The incorporation of disability in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, along with the key SDG commitment to “leave no one behind,” creates an
ethical and statistical obligations. Developmental outcomes must be broken down to ensure
that people with disabilities are acknowledged in national progress reports and financial
plans. Consequently, the SDG framework enhances the demand for data that is disaggregated
by disability, promotes inclusive service delivery, and advocates for targeted policies that
adhere to the principle of prioritizing to those who are furthest behind. An accurate,
disability-disaggregated data is essential to translate global commitments into targeted
entitlements and to monitor whether the promise of “leave no one behind” is being honoured.
The other contributory frameworks that aim and work for the change of national disability
policies are- World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons, 1982; Standard
Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, 1993; Incheon
Strategy to “Make the Right Real” for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific
(2012–2022). Thus, India has significantly obligated to adopt progressive measures under
this international architecture for accessibility, social inclusion, and empowerment of persons
with disability.

But ironically, if observed, the India’s constitutional vision, its jurisprudential underpinnings,
and its indigenous traditions reveal that the nation had long conceptualized inclusivity,
accessibility, and empowerment for persons with disabilities well before such ideas became
codified in international law. When the Constitution of India was enacted in 1950, the global
discourse on disability rights was still in its infancy. The use of broad and inclusive terms
such as “all persons” and “citizens” placed India’s framework ahead of its time, especially
when compared to international legal instruments that were evolving in the mid-20th century.
When compared to the trajectory of international disability rights, India’s foresight becomes
clearer. While the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons came only in 1975,
India’s constitutional provisions of 1950 had already embedded protection and welfare. The
International Year of Disabled Persons (1981) galvanized global attention, but India had
already enshrined directive principles obliging the State to address disablement three decades
earlier. Thus, India’s delay in implementation must be understood not as lack of normative
clarity but as an outcome of socio-economic challenges.

India’s global pledges translate into national law and policy. The flagship Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016 was passed to “give effect” to the UN CRPD. It
came into effect from June 2017. It replaced the old 1995 law.,. i.e. Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which was the
first comprehensive legislation following India’s adoption of the World Programme of
Action, 1982. The 2016 framework reframes disability as a matter of civil rights and social
justice. Notably, the RPwD Act, 2016 expanded the definition of disability from 7 conditions
to 21 categories (adding autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, speech/language
disorders, mental illnesses, chronic conditions like thalassemia and HIV/AIDS, acid/burn
victims, etc.). It explicitly mandates equality and non-discrimination, including in
employment and education, and introduces affirmative measures. For instance, the Act raised
the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities from 3% to 4% in government jobs
and established a 5% hiring target in the private sector. Additionally, all government entities
must appoint accessibility and grievance officers to ensure compliance. The salient legal
obligations under the RPwD Act include: admitting children with disabilities in schools
“without discrimination”, making campuses physically accessible, and providing individual
supports and reasonable accommodations. Section 16 of the Act requires educational
institutions to retrofit buildings, ramps, handrails and learning materials (Braille, sign
language etc.) for disabled students, and to recruit trained special-education teachers.
Similarly, Section 20 forbids employment discrimination in government establishments and
requires reasonable accommodations and barrier-free environments. No employee can be
denied promotion or terminated solely for acquiring a disability, and those who become
disabled on the job must be redeployed or kept on alternative roles. In effect, the law treats
disability inclusion as a rights issue. Beyond the RPwD Act, the Constitution’s Directive
Principles and fundamental rights – such as Article 14, 15(1), 16, 21 & 41, also underpin
disability rights, though these are not disability-specific.

The lack of an explicit reference to “disability” in the Constitution of India under chapter III,
that is fundamental rights can be attributed to two reasons- firstly, (Universality of Rights
Terminology) The designers aimed for constitutional rights to be inherently inclusive.
Specifying categories such as “disability” could have led to the misconception that only
those explicitly mentioned were afforded protection. By utilizing terms like “citizen” and
“all persons,” the Constitution embraced a comprehensive framework of rights that
inherently included individuals with disabilities. Secondly, (Integration over Segmentation)
In contrast to many Western systems of that era that often-separated individuals with
disabilities, the Indian Constitution sought to avoid establishing a distinct rights framework.
The intent was to promote integration—individuals with disabilities were to be recognized as
equal contributors to society, rather than as recipients of special or limited rights.

The salient provisions listed under the Constitution of India, specifically under Part III &
Part IV of it, which deals with the fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State
Policies, respectively, are- article 14, 15(1), 16, 21 & 41. Article 14 of the COI, envisages