The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 promises a 4 percent job reservation and accessible infrastructure, but the Supreme Court’s Rajive Raturi judgment held that the law’s accessibility chapter was being treated as a discretionary favour. Examine.
Subtopic: Social Justice · Mechanisms, laws and institutions for protection of vulnerable sections
How to structure your answer
Introduction: The RPwD Act 2016 is the Indian implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India on 1 October 2007, and the Rajive Raturi v. Union of India ruling on 8 November 2024 declared accessibility a fundamental right under Article 21.
Body: Three dimensions — (i) Statutory architecture: 21 specified disabilities, social model definition, 4 percent reservation in government jobs (Section 34), 5 percent in higher education (Section 32), Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners as quasi-judicial enforcers; (ii) Implementation gap: only 8.73 percent of buses accessible per the Centre's own Rajive Raturi compliance affidavit; Sugamya Bharat Phase 1 targets missed; Census 2011 enumerates only 2.21 percent disabled against WHO's 16 percent global estimate; (iii) Compliance hearing on 11 February 2026 — the Court refused the Centre's plea to defer mandatory accessibility rules; vacancies in DEPwD and State Commissions persist.
Way forward / Conclusion: Notify enforceable accessibility rules under Section 40 with penalties, conduct a disability-inclusive Census 2027 with the Washington Group Short Set, fill commissioner vacancies and audit the 4 percent reservation backlog.
Written within the word limit
132 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Introduction: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, India's implementation of the UNCRPD ratified 1 October 2007, was strengthened by Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (8 November 2024), declaring accessibility a fundamental right under Article 21.
Body: Three dimensions examine the gap between text and practice. First, statutory architecture — 21 disabilities, social-model definition, 4 percent reservation under Section 34, 5 percent in higher education under Section 32, and Chief and State Commissioners as enforcers. Second, implementation deficit — only 8.73 percent of buses are accessible per the Centre's Rajive Raturi affidavit; Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan Phase 1 targets missed; Census 2011 records 2.21 percent disabled against WHO's 16 percent estimate. Third, compliance — on 11 February 2026 the Court refused the Centre's plea to defer mandatory accessibility rules.
Conclusion: Notify enforceable accessibility rules under Section 40 with penalties, conduct a disability-inclusive Census 2027 using the Washington Group Short Set, and audit reservation backlog.
What an examiner expects to see
- RPwD Act 2016 — 21 specified disabilities under Section 2(zc), social model, Schedule of conditions
- Section 34 — 4 percent reservation in government jobs; Section 32 — 5 percent in higher education
- UNCRPD ratified 1 October 2007; India a State Party
- Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (8 November 2024) — accessibility a fundamental right under Article 21
- Census 2011 — 2.21 percent disabled population, against WHO global estimate of about 16 percent
- Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan (Accessible India Campaign) launched December 2015
- Only 8.73 percent of buses accessible per Centre's compliance affidavit (February 2026 hearing)
- Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and State Commissioners are quasi-judicial under Section 75
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024, 2024 INSC 858)
- Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) on reasonable accommodation in exams
- Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan
- Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD)
- Unique Disability ID (UDID) portal