From Parks to Paperwork – Disability Rights in India Need a Cultural Push

Not long ago, I was speaking to a friend about how, as a blind person, even something as simple as going to the park for an evening walk feels like a privilege. The absence of tactile paths, human assistance and basic accessibility features turns a park – a symbol of leisure for many – into a space of exclusion. My friend, who is able-bodied, responded with genuine surprise, “I didn’t even think that could be a problem.” That remark, though innocent, points to something deeper. It reveals a structural ignorance embedded in our social consciousness that extends beyond conversation into policy, technology and institutions.

This ignorance was exposed in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, where two petitioners – a visually impaired person and an acid attack survivor – challenged the inaccessibility of digital KYC systems. Requirements like blinking for live photos or submitting handwritten signatures excluded them from essential services such as banking, telecom, pensions, insurance, and government schemes. These were not technical bugs – they were systemic barriers that violated fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities (PwDs).

The court recognised this for what it is – a denial of dignity in the digital age. It ruled that when digital access becomes essential to life and welfare, it must be made inclusive. It ordered sweeping changes: The Reserve Bank of India must allow alternative ways to verify “liveness”; thumb impressions must be accepted; paper-based KYC must remain available; and digital systems must comply with global accessibility standards.

The court also called for accessibility audits, involvement of disabled users in testing platforms, dedicated grievance systems, and disability sensitisation training for staff. In both scope and spirit, the ruling reinforces that inclusion is not charity – it is a constitutional obligation.

The real cultural problem

Yet, here lies the real problem. The law did its job. The judiciary demanded structural change. But enforcement continues to falter— not because the rules are unclear, but because we lack a regulatory culture that sees accessibility as essential.

This becomes stark when compared to how other sectors treat violations. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, companies can face penalties up to Rs 250 crore for breaches. The SEBI Act imposes fines up to Rs 25 crore for market manipulation. The Companies Act penalises financial irregularities in crores. The Environmental Protection Act fines industries Rs 15 lakh for pollution, with an added Rs 50,000 for each day the offence continues.

Now consider the RPwD Act – India’s primary disability rights law. It imposes only Rs 10,000 for first-time violations and caps fines at Rs 5 lakh even for repeat offences. Even a continued denial of accessibility can cost less than a missed compliance filing. What does this tell us? That disability rights are not viewed as essential. They are treated as optional, secondary to development goals rather than foundational to justice. It shows that institutions, even with the right legal tools, do not yet treat accessibility as a priority. But compliance does not come from rules alone– it comes from what we value.

A super law for the disabled

This brings us to a deeper question: What kind of law is the RPwD Act meant to be?

Justice R. Mahadevan, in a landmark ruling, called it a “super statute” – a law that, while legislative in form, deserves the status and seriousness of a constitutional principle. He emphasised that disability rights are not acts of welfare but expressions of equality, dignity and non-discrimination.

This idea echoes the work of legal scholars William Eskridge and John Ferejohn, who define a super statute as one that establishes a new public norm, gains lasting legitimacy and reshapes legal frameworks over time.

On paper, the RPwD Act checks many boxes. It creates a rights-based framework for disability, mandates reasonable accommodation – practical and tailored adjustments to ensure equal access – and aligns Indian law with international standards.

Yet in practice, it has not “stuck.” Implementation remains shallow. Penalties are minimal. Institutions rarely treat its objectives as core to their mission. The Act remains more of a promise than a force. Instead of transforming how systems work, it is too often reduced to a gesture of goodwill. Until the RPwD Act is taken seriously – not just in courts, but in schools, offices and design boards – it will remain a super statute in theory but a paper right in reality.

One time penalties do not change culture

Isolated legal victories have brought some relief to individuals, but they have failed to create widespread industrial shift. For instance, when ride-hailing app Rapido was taken to court over its inaccessibility, the Delhi high court ordered a thorough audit, revealing 170 accessibility issues in the application. While the court strongly directed Rapido to fix these within four months or cease operations, this action did not push other services like Uber to proactively adopt similar changes.

In fact, it took a separate legal battle and a settlement for Uber to agree to incorporate accessibility features after it discriminated against a disabled passenger. These parallel cases show that even companies within the same industry wait until they are sued before taking any action.

A similar pattern is visible in the entertainment industry. In a case against YashRaj films, the Delhi high court directed the production house to provide accessibility features like audio descriptions and subtitles, following a petition by visually and hearing-impaired users. The court also directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to issue binding standards for film accessibility. Neither have binding guidelines been notified, nor do platforms take the court’s directions seriously.

A Billion Readers’ study found that only 8% of TV serials have sign language captioning, and even public broadcasters like Doordarshan have failed to comply. Thus, one production house being sued does not translate into broader compliance, highlighting a fragmented and reactive approach to accessibility.

Yet another manifestation of this fragmented implementation was seen when about 155 government and private entities were taken to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) for the inaccessibility of their digital platforms. The CCPD imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on all the entities and asked them to undertake audits. But the compliance has been limited. And it can be said confidently that other platforms who were not before CCPD have barely even noticed that inaccessibility of their platforms is unconstitutional, illegal and has consequences.

This case-by-case enforcement, although legally significant, underscores a deeper issue: the lack of a culture of compliance with the RPwD Act across sectors. The repeated need for individuals to sue every platform, agency, or service provider separately reveals how disconnected and burdensome the enforcement process is for users with disabilites. 

This burden is that of time, money and inaccessibility. The KYC matter before the Supreme Court took four years to reach a logical conclusion, the matter against Yashraj went on for two years, the case against Rapido has been ongoing since 2023. With litigants cumulatively losing over Rs 80,000 crore in the process annually, this channel of reform is indeed heavy on the pocket.

Additionally, judicial processes are inaccessible and seemingly straightforward tasks ranging from filing matters to navigating courtrooms are challenging. In this backdrop, persons with disabilities should not be burdened with the responsibility to pray, plead and petition for the enforcement of the RPwD act, against one entity at a time, when the constitution as well as the law explicitly imposes this obligation on the “appropriate government.”

From law to culture

In my experience in litigating disability law matters and lobbying for equality and accessibility in my university, as well as workplace, I have realised that law has limitations. It is not enough to nudge the government to make proactive rules, policies and compliance standards to protect persons with disabilities. We need a cultural shift to ensure that those rules have real consequences – a culture that treats persons with disability as first class citizens and where the RPwD act is a matter of serious compliance instead of a voluntary act of charity. This shift is key to ensuring that from parks to paperwork, everything accommodates for the needs of PwDs.

Anchal Bhatheja is a Research Fellow at the Vidhi Center for Legal Policy and a Consultant at Mission Accessibility.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.