Introduction

“Person with disability” is not merely a descriptive tag in Indian law; it is the legal threshold that activates a bundle of constitutional guarantees, statutory entitlements and procedural accommodations. Identification as a “person with disability” determines access to inclusive education, employment reservation, disability pensions, healthcare entitlements, reasonable accommodation and protection against discrimination. For litigators, administrators and policy drafters the definition dictates who qualifies for relief, how disability is proved, and what remedies can be enforced — making the term central to litigation strategy and administrative practice.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statute
– Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): the RPwD Act is the nodal statute. The Act expressly distinguishes between a “person with disability” and a “person with benchmark disability” and provides the substantive, procedural and remedial architecture for disability rights in India.
– Definitions: See Section 2 of the RPwD Act. In particular, the Act defines a “person with benchmark disability” as a person with not less than forty per cent (40%) of specified disability, as certified by the specified medical authority. The list of “specified disabilities” (extending and updating the older 1995 Act) is placed in the Schedule to the Act and covers physical, sensory, intellectual, mental and multiple disabilities (including autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, acid attack victims, blood disorders, specific learning disabilities, etc.).
– Rights and entitlements: The Act consolidates non‑discrimination and affirmative provisions across education, employment, social security, accessibility, and legal capacity. The chapters dealing with rights, prevention of discrimination and accessibility establish statutory duties on State and private actors and create enforcement mechanisms including complaint redress.
– RPwD Rules, 2017 and assessment guidelines: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules notified under the RPwD Act and the Government’s guidelines for assessment and certification (issued under those Rules) prescribe the procedure for medical certification, composition of medical boards, formats and the scheme for assessment of percentage disability. These Rules operationalise the “benchmark” threshold and the format of the disability certificate.
Complementary statutes and instruments
– Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15 and 16 (equality, non‑discrimination and equal opportunity in public employment), Article 21 (right to life and dignity), Article 41 and Article 46 (Directive Principles on social welfare and special care for the infirm and the disabled) form the constitutional foundation that the RPwD Act operationalises.
– Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: governs rights, capacity, advance directives and guardianship issues for persons with mental illness; intersections with the RPwD Act occur where psychosocial disabilities are concerned.
– Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE): statutory duties on schools for inclusive education and non‑discrimination of children with disabilities.
– Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, and relevant disability welfare schemes: regulate professionals and rehabilitation services.
– International obligation: India’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) influences statutory interpretation — courts repeatedly direct that domestic law be read to honour the Convention’s rights‑based approach.

Practical Application and Nuances

Who qualifies: benchmark vs. non‑benchmark disability
– Practical distinction: The RPwD Act’s “benchmark” threshold (≥40%) matters because many entitlements (reservation in public employment/education, certain social security and benefits) are expressly tied to benchmark status. However, protection from discrimination and the right to reasonable accommodation apply to persons with disabilities even if the disability is below the 40% benchmark. Practitioners must therefore test which remedy the client seeks and ensure the complaint targets the correct statutory threshold.
Evidence and certification
– Medical certificate is central: For almost all administrative entitlements and for many judicial remedies, a valid disability certificate issued by the designated medical authority/medical board (as per RPwD Rules) is decisive evidence. Certificates typically show the nature(s) of disability, percentage and validity (some certificates are for life; some require periodic reassessment).
– Functional assessment: Courts and administrative bodies increasingly look beyond the mere percentage number to functional limitations. A certificate alone that lists a diagnosis without functional detail (impact on mobility, cognition, hearing, speech, stamina, need for assistive devices or for personal assistance) weakens a claim for reasonable accommodation.
– Interim relief: For urgent matters (exams, travel, admission), seek interim orders directing temporary reasonable accommodation on production of prima facie evidence (previous certificate, treating doctor’s note, affidavits) pending formal certification or reassessment.
Reasonable accommodation and procedural adjustments
– Scope: Reasonable accommodation is fact‑sensitive — e.g., extra time and a scribe in examinations; assistive devices; accessible exam formats; structural changes; flexible workplace practices; alternate communication formats in courts and government services.
– Burden: The duty to provide accommodation is on the public authority or employer. Private entities that offer services to the public similarly have obligations. Courts have ordered interim and permanent relief requiring accommodations that do not impose disproportionate burden.
Accessibility and compliance proof
– For public interest litigation and service litigation, lawyers must deploy accessibility audits, photographs, independent expert reports, and statutory notifications (e.g., building plans versus current state) to demonstrate non‑compliance with accessibility standards (built environment and digital accessibility).
Employment and reservations
– Claims for reservation under the RPwD Act require (i) proof of benchmark disability, (ii) compliance with eligibility and selection criteria and (iii) evidence of denial of benefit. If a person is removed from consideration on grounds of disability, challenge both the material basis for the decision and the absence of reasonable accommodation.
Mental capacity, guardianship and legal agency
– Capacity is assessed functionally. For decisions on guardianship or support arrangements, practitioners must rely on psychiatric, rehabilitation and social work reports; litigation may require appointment of limited guardianship under statutory schemes rather than plenary removal of legal capacity.
Criminal law and vulnerable witnesses
– Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, may be vulnerable witnesses. Seek use of witness protection and procedural safeguards — video link testimony, assistance of intermediaries, court directions to use simple language, etc. Evidence Act rules on competency are relevant; courts often allow corroborative evidence and expert testimony on the reliability of the disabled person’s testimony.
Social entitlements and public schemes
– Many social schemes require documents beyond the disability certificate (income proof, domicile). Counsel must prepare complete applications with statutory forms, insist on timelines under the Rules, and use writ remedies when administrative delay frustrates statutory benefits.
Common factual scenarios and practical examples
– Education: A student with dyslexia is denied admission to a professional course because of a percentage cut‑off. Strategy: obtain a functional assessment and request relaxed eligibility criteria and reasonable accommodation (extra time, use of computer), seek interim admission pending final orders and rely on RTE and RPwD Act for inclusive education obligations.
– Competitive exams: Visually impaired candidate denied a scribe in a competitive exam. Strategy: produce previous concessions, disability certificate and file urgent writ/PIL seeking immediate arrangement and long‑term directive for reasonable accommodation based on NF Blind jurisprudence (see landmark decisions).
– Airline refusal (travel): Deaf passenger refused boarding or assistance. Strategy: raise constitutional/delictual claim for discrimination, statutory breach of RPwD Act, seek damages and direct the airline to adopt inclusive SOPs; seek interim orders for transport and assistive measures.

Landmark Judgments

(Brief summaries of influential decisions and principles; verify citations when citing in pleadings)
– Jeeja Ghosh v. SpiceJet Ltd. — Principle: Non‑discrimination and dignity in access to services. Courts have held that denial of carriage or discriminatory conduct toward a person with disability attracts constitutional and statutory remedies, including compensatory damages for violation of dignity and non‑discrimination. The decision underscores private carriers’ duties and that “service providers” cannot refuse accommodation on specious safety grounds without objective evidence.
– National Federation of the Blind (and similar cases) v. Union of India / UPSC — Principle: Reasonable accommodation in examinations and selection processes. Courts have emphasised that procedural accommodations (scribes, extra time, alternate formats) are not an unfair advantage but a means to ensure substantive equality; administrative bodies must have clear SOPs and cannot adopt blanket exclusions.
– Broader constitutional jurisprudence: Multiple Supreme Court rulings interpreting Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 have extended the equality and dignity framework to persons with disabilities — directing positive State action for educational inclusion, accessibility and anti‑discrimination measures. Post‑RPwD Act decisions repeatedly interpret the statute through the rights‑based lens of the UNCRPD, favouring functional assessments and reasonable accommodations.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

Framing the relief
– Choose the right vehicle: Writ petitions for systemic or public law violations; service petitions and employment litigation for denial of reservation; consumer/product liability or tort for denial of a paid service (airlines, hospitals); criminal remedies where discrimination involves offense or violence; PIL for systemic accessibility failures.
– Relief mix: Combine declaratory relief (recognition of disability), mandatory relief (order to provide accommodation), and compensatory relief (damages for dignity, loss and humiliation). Seek an enforcement mechanism and periodic reporting in structural relief cases.
Evidence strategy
– Build a compact evidentiary bundle: disability certificate(s), functional assessment, treating doctor affidavits, expert reports (rehabilitation specialists, occupational therapists), audio‑visual evidence of inaccessibility, prior communications requesting accommodation, and witness statements from family or employers.
– Use experts prudently: A concise functional report that links diagnosis to days‑to‑day limitations is often more persuasive than voluminous medical ledgers. For workplace accommodations, an ergonomic/rehabilitation specialist can suggest reasonable, low‑cost measures.
Administrative first, judicial next
– Exhaust statutory grievance redress where reasonable: complaints to the designated Commissioners (State and National), rehabilitation authorities, exam authorities and public information officers. Courts favour remedies that show administrative avenues were used unless delay is unreasonable.
Pitfalls to avoid
– Overreliance on diagnosis without functional detail: Courts require how disability impairs specific tasks — e.g., whether dyslexia impairs ability to take a timed written test and what accommodative measures are needed.
– Missing the 40% point: If claiming reservation/benefits tied to “benchmark” status, ensure the certificate quantifies percentage or obtain re‑assessment. For interim accommodation, demonstrating functional limitation often suffices.
– Failing to articulate “reasonableness”: When seeking accommodation, quantify burden on the respondent and explain why the accommodation is reasonable and proportionate. Preempt counter‑arguments about operational hardship by offering low‑cost alternatives.
– Ignoring intersectionality: Disability often intersects with gender, caste, and poverty — remedy framing should address multiple axes of disadvantage.
Practical drafting tips
– Plead statutory sections and rule/regulation numbers precisely and annex relevant portions of the RPwD Rules and assessment guidelines.
– Pray specific interim directions (e.g., “respondent to provide scribe within 48 hours subject to identification process”) rather than vague obligations.
– Ask for individualized orders and periodic compliance reports in structural cases.

Conclusion

“Person with disability” under Indian law is a legally consequential identity: it determines eligibility, entitlements and the type of judicial relief. Practitioners must combine statutory literacy (RPwD Act, Rules and assessment guidelines), robust evidentiary preparation (disability certificates plus functional assessments), and tactical use of interim relief to secure immediate accommodations. Courts will look for functional impact, reasonableness of accommodation and the proportionality of the burden placed on service providers. Litigation succeeds when it translates diagnosis into disablement‑in‑context and pairs legal argument with pragmatic remedial proposals that are enforceable and proportionate.