The Criminal Justice System And The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities In India - A Critical Analysis
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Criminal Law
Published:
Updated:
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN INDIA: A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
Maven V K, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University).
ABSTRACT
The intersection of the Criminal Justice System and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in India exposes a longstanding gap between constitutional guarantees and actual reality faced by the disabled people. Despite the protections under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A of the Constitution, and the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, persons with disabilities continue to face systemic exclusion at every stage of criminal proceedings, starting from arrest and investigation to trial, incarceration, and rehabilitation. Procedural safeguards are undermined by inaccessible infrastructure, inadequate accommodations, attitudinal biases and societal stigma. Judicial pronouncements such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, and Patan Jamal Vali v.
State of Andhra Pradesh have affirmed the importance of reasonable accommodation and the need for inter-sectional sensitivity, yet implementation remains fragmented and inconsistent. The neglect of disabled prisoners, epitomized in the case of Father Stan Swamy, further reveals the failures of custodial institutions to uphold dignity under Article 21. This paper goes on to show that ensuring meaningful access to justice for PwDs requires embedding reasonable accommodation within the procedural fabric of criminal law, strengthening institutional accountability, and adopting a rights-based approach consistent with India’s obligations under the UNCRPD. Comparative perspectives from jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom highlight the need for systemic reform through legislative clarity, infrastructural accessibility, and sustained sensitization.
Finally, this research paper contends that equal justice for persons with disabilities is not a matter of charity or discretion but a constitutional and moral imperative. Keywords: Persons with Disabilities, Criminal Justice System, Reasonable Accommodation, RPwD Act 2016, Disability Rights, Prison Reform.
A. INTRODUCTION
Imagine having to navigate the intricacies of India’s criminal justice system without being able to hear, see, or fully comprehend crucial information. For millions of persons with disabilities (PwDs), this is not a hypothetical scenario but a daily reality marked by barriers, silence, and systemic neglect. The intersection of disability rights and the criminal justice system in India presents a complex and evolving legal landscape. 1Despite constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, PwDs continue to encounter significant obstacles within a system designed primarily without consideration for the needs of the minority groups. According to the 2011 Census, India is home to over 26. 8 million persons with disabilities, many of whom face unique challenges when seeking justice.
2 While India has affirmed its international commitments through instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)3, equal access to justice for PwDs in India remains more aspirational than real. This paradox reflects a persistent gap between normative ideals and institutional practice. The enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20164 marked a pivotal moment in India’s commitment to recognize and protect the autonomy and dignity of PwDs. However, challenges such as inaccessible infrastructure, procedural hurdles, societal stigma, and a lack of sensitization among stakeholders underscore the pronounced divide between law and practice. As Robert M.
Hensel observed, “There is no greater disability in society, than the inability to see a person as more”5, rightfully captures the attitudinal barriers that lie at the heart of systemic exclusion within the criminal justice system. The justice system, which ought to embody fairness and equality, becomes a place where the failure to accommodate disability is most starkly visible. Such failures result in indirect discrimination that not only undermines the rights of persons with disabilities but also erodes the legitimacy of the criminal justice system as an institution committed to equality before the law.
Procedural safeguards often prove inadequate, reasonable accommodations are routinely denied, and administrative convenience is frequently allowed to prevail over the substantive rights and dignity of persons with 1 Kavya Srinivasan, Disability Rights and the Criminal Justice System, 2 White Black Legal Law Journal 20 (Mar. 2024). 2 Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Measurement of Disability through Census National Experiences: INDIA.
3 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
4 The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
5 Robert M. Hensel, Quotes About Disability, A-Z Quotes.
disabilities. Against this backdrop, this paper critically analyses the statutory framework, constitutional guarantees, landmark judicial pronouncements, and the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in each stage of the criminal justice system. The study highlights the persisting legal vacuum by identifying gaps and limitations and suggests pathways for building a more inclusive and equitable justice system in India.
B. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Constitution of India provides the foundational guarantee of equality and dignity to all persons, including those with disabilities. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of laws, which extends to persons with disabilities as a mandate against both direct and indirect forms of discrimination. Read with Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the constitutional framework has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with dignity, autonomy, and freedom from arbitrary treatment. This interpretation is of particular significance to persons with disabilities who, owing to structural and attitudinal barriers, remain vulnerable to rights violations within the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, Article 39-A directs the State to ensure equal access to justice by providing free legal aid and promoting a justice system that is not denied to any citizen by reason of disability or economic incapacity. Thus, the constitutional scheme, although not disability-specific in its text, establishes a broad normative foundation for inclusive justice. The statutory framework supplements these constitutional commitments through legislative enactments. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) marks a significant legislative advancement, aligning domestic law with India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The Act not only broadens the definition of disability but also explains rights relating to accessibility, equality, and reasonable accommodation.
Crucially, Section 12 of the RPwD Act 6specifically addresses access to justice by requiring appropriate governments to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy effective participation in legal proceedings, whether as complainants, witnesses, accused, or victims. It obliges authorities to put in place suitable facilities, such as accessible courts,
6 The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 12, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
procedural accommodations, and trained personnel, thereby recognizing that equal participation requires more than formal equality. The Act further clarifies the nature of reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y)which is defined as the necessary and appropriate modification and adjustment, without imposing a disproportionate burden. 7 This helps in ensuring that persons with disabilities can enjoy or exercise rights on an equal basis with others. This conceptual shift from a medical to a social model of disability is crucial in the context of criminal justice, where procedural flexibility and accommodations such as sign language interpreters, braille documents, and simplified communication formats are essential.
Moreover, Section 7 imposes a duty on governments to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from abuse, violence, and exploitation, a provision of particular significance in custodial settings where the risk of abuse is acute. 8 The obligations of police and judicial authorities are further reinforced in Section 139, which mandates that appropriate governments establish designated authorities to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities and ensure their effective enforcement. When read alongside Section 12, this provision creates a statutory duty on law enforcement agencies and judicial institutions to guarantee procedural fairness through accommodations and accessible practices. However, the absence of detailed rules and effective monitoring mechanisms has resulted in uneven implementation, leaving many of these guarantees aspirational.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) contains provisions that intersect with disability rights. For instance, procedural provisions concerning examination of witnesses, recording of statements, and cross-examination mandate accommodations for persons who are unable to communicate in the conventional manner. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012) 10underscored the importance of ensuring that testimony of speech- or hearing-impaired witnesses is recorded in a manner that preserves both accuracy and fairness. Similarly, the BNSS continues provisions for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses through audiovideo means, a mechanism particularly relevant for persons with disabilities.
Yet, the absence of mandatory training for judicial officers, prosecutors, and police in dealing with disability-
7 The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 2(y), No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
8 The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 7, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
9 The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 13, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
10 Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh(2012) AIR 2012 SC 1973
related accommodations dilutes the effectiveness of these provisions. India’s international obligations further reinforce the domestic constitutional and statutory framework. By ratifying the UNCRPD in 2007, India undertook a binding commitment to respect, protect, and fulfil the rights of persons with disabilities, including equal recognition before the law (Article 12)11 and equal access to justice (Article 13)12. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has consistently emphasized that access to justice is not limited to physical accessibility but encompasses the provision of procedural accommodations and the dismantling of attitudinal barriers within the justice system. In this sense, the constitutional and statutory framework reflects an aspirational vision of inclusion and equality for persons with disabilities.
The absence of a disability-sensitive criminal justice infrastructure, coupled with lack of accountability in implementing the RPwD Act and related provisions, underscores the need for a deeper inquiry into how persons with disabilities navigate arrest, investigation, trial, and incarceration. It is within this context that the subsequent sections of this chapter examine the specific vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities at each stage of the criminal process.
C. PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AT THE STAGE OF ARREST AND INVESTIGATION
The arrest and investigation stage constitutes one of the most critical junctures in the criminal justice process, where procedural safeguards are designed to protect liberty and prevent arbitrary abuse of power. For persons with disabilities, however, this stage often becomes a site of systemic exclusion and heightened vulnerability. Despite constitutional protections under Articles 14, 21, and 22, and statutory mandates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the actual experience of disabled persons in police custody reveals a persistent denial of due process, reasonable accommodation, and dignified treatment. One of the primary barriers arises at the point of registration of First Information Reports (FIRs).
For individuals with hearing, speech, or intellectual disabilities, accessing police stations and effectively communicating their grievances is fraught with difficulties. The absence of trained personnel or sign language interpreters frequently results in incomplete or inaccurate recording of complaints. Although Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
11 INDIA CONST. art. 12.
12 INDIA CONST. art. 13.
Sanhita, 202313 requires that FIRs be recorded in a manner comprehensible to the complainant, this mandate is rarely enforced for disabled persons. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh (2012)14 recognized the necessity of interpreters for recording testimony of hearing-impaired witnesses, but this recognition has yet to translate into systemic reforms at the police level. Custodial settings further illustrate the vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities. Several reports, including those by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), document instances where disabled detainees have been subjected to neglect, abuse, and even custodial deaths. Judicial pronouncements have attempted to address some of these lacunae. In Vikash Kumar v.
Union Public Service Commission (2021)15, the Supreme Court held that denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination, grounding this principle in the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality. While the case dealt with examination accommodations, its reasoning applies equally to criminal law: the failure to provide procedural adjustments such as interpreters, accessible documents, or medical support during arrest and interrogation is not an administrative lapse but a violation of fundamental rights. More recently, in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025)16, the Madras High Court reiterated the duty of the State to ensure accessibility and accommodations for prisoners, thereby implicitly extending these obligations to earlier stages such as arrest and investigation. The absence of disability-segregated data compounds the invisibility of these issues.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not collect statistics on arrests, detentions, or custodial deaths of persons with disabilities. This omission prevents evidence-based policy-making and allows systemic neglect to persist unchecked. By contrast, jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom maintain detailed disability-segregated data on persons in conflict with the law, which has enabled targeted reforms in arrest protocols and custodial safeguards. Another dimension that exacerbates vulnerability is the intersection of disability with caste, class, and gender. Studies have shown that Dalits and women with disabilities face heightened risks of violence and custodial abuse, as structural discrimination intersects with disabilityrelated neglect.
For instance, sexual violence against women with intellectual disabilities often goes unreported or inadequately investigated because police officers lack the training or
13 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 173, 2023 (India)
14 Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh(2012) AIR 2012 SC 1973
15 Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370
16 L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) INSC 844
inclination to engage with disabled survivors as credible complainants. This reflects a deeper structural bias that denies equal recognition before the law, as mandated by Article 12 of the
UNCRPD.17
To summarize, the stage of arrest and investigation exposes the gap between formal legal protections and practical realities. Despite statutory guarantees under Sections 7 and 12 of the RPwD Act, which impose duties on authorities to prevent abuse and ensure effective participation in legal proceedings, persons with disabilities continue to encounter systemic neglect and discrimination. The absence of trained police personnel, failure to provide interpreters or assistive devices, and lack of disability-sensitive custodial practices collectively erode the constitutional promise of equality before the law. Judicial pronouncements have begun to articulate a framework for reasonable accommodation, yet without structural reforms in policing, training, and accountability, these protections remain largely aspirational.
D. PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AT THE STAGE OF TRIAL AND SENTENCING
The trial stage is the place where constitutional guarantees of equality, fair procedure, and due process are tested most directly. For persons with disabilities, however, trials frequently become exclusionary spaces where the absence of reasonable accommodation undermines their ability to participate meaningfully. Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)18, requires that legal processes must be just, fair, and reasonable. When applied to disability rights, this principle demands that trials adapt to the needs of persons with disabilities rather than compel them to conform to rigid procedural norms. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly Section 12, obliges authorities to ensure effective participation of persons with disabilities in legal proceedings, whether as accused, victims, or witnesses.
This includes providing procedural accommodations such as sign language interpreters, assistive technologies, and accessible documentation. 19 However, in practice, courts often lack both the infrastructure and the trained personnel to implement these obligations. Proceedings are typically conducted in inaccessible buildings, with limited availability of interpreters or real-time transcription services, thereby excluding many disabled
17 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 12, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
18 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
19 Maddie Hosack, Access to Justice Means Access for All Abilities, IAALS Blog (July 30, 2024)
participants from full engagement in their own trials. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018)20 is pivotal in this regard. Recognizing India’s obligations under international human rights law, the Court emphasized that equality rests not only on the principle of non-discrimination but also on reasonable differentiation. It held that discrimination arises from the arbitrary denial of opportunities for equal participation and that equality requires both the prevention of discrimination and positive measures to remedy systemic exclusion. Applied to criminal trials, this means that persons with disabilities must be provided with accommodations that enable their effective participation; otherwise, formal equality before the law becomes an empty promise.
The reasoning in Rajive Raturi thus reinforces that denial of accommodations such as interpreters, accessible formats of documents, or modified courtroom procedures constitutes discrimination, not mere administrative inconvenience. The absence of specialized mechanisms, sustained training, and institutional accountability means that the promise of reasonable accommodation is rarely translated into practice. As a result, the justice system treats persons with disabilities as passive subjects rather than recognizing them as equal agents entitled to full participation and fairness.
E. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
The conditions of prisons and correctional institutions present perhaps the starkest illustration of how the criminal justice system marginalizes persons with disabilities. While incarceration is intended as punishment consistent with the rule of law, for disabled prisoners it often amounts to disproportionate suffering due to the absence of basic accommodations. Despite statutory protections under Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which obliges governments to protect persons with disabilities from abuse and exploitation, prison environments frequently remain inaccessible, medically ill-equipped, and administratively indifferent to their needs. The tragic case of Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old undertrial with Parkinson’s disease, epitomizes this systemic neglect.
His repeated requests for a sipper cup and essential medical support were initially denied, revealing both the insensitivity of prison administration and the failure to recognize disability accommodations as rights rather than privileges. His death in
20 Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413.
custody ignited national debate on whether India’s prison system is capable of upholding the constitutional guarantees of dignity under Article 21 for prisoners with disabilities21. Similarly, in L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Madras High Court held that denial of necessary accommodations to a disabled prisoner violated not only the RPwD Act but also the fundamental right to life and dignity. The Court emphasized that incarceration does not divest a person of their constitutional rights, and the State bears a continuing duty to ensure accessible infrastructure and medical facilities within prisons. 22 The Supreme Court has also recognised the broader institutional failures that underlie such neglect. In Jeeja Gosh v.
Union of India (2016),23 the Court underscored that mere theoretical adherence to international norms such as the UNCRPD is insufficient unless backed by tangible, inclusive practices. The judgment highlighted the deficiencies in infrastructure, training, resources, and institutional sensitivity required to facilitate equal participation of persons with disabilities. Though the case arose in the context of air travel, its reasoning applies with even greater force to prisons, where systemic barriers in accessibility and lack of trained personnel compound the suffering of disabled inmates. The Court’s emphasis on institutional training and infrastructure reform provides a constitutional mandate for prison systems to move beyond token compliance and implement meaningful structural changes.
Despite these judicial interventions, the prison system continues to function largely on a medical model of disability, wherein the needs of prisoners with disabilities are viewed as medical inconveniences rather than rights-based entitlements. The absence of disabilitysegregated data within prison records further perpetuates invisibility, preventing targeted reforms or policy interventions. Internationally, best practices such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules)24 stress that prisoners with special needs must receive treatment that respects their inherent dignity and India must follow the same. Therefore we understand that, prisons and correctional institutions exemplify the gulf between constitutional guarantees and the actual reality.
Judicial pronouncements in Jeeja Ghosh and Muruganantham provide strong normative guidance, but without structural
21 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, India: Death in Custody of Priest Stan Swamy Is
Devastating, OHCHR (July 15, 2021),
22 L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) INSC 844
23 Jeeja Gosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761
24 United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), G.A. Res. 70/175, U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/175 (2015).
reforms in infrastructure, medical care, training, and data collection, the rights of prisoners with disabilities remain unfulfilled.
F. INTERSECTION WITH CASTE, CLASS AND GENDER
Disability does not operate in isolation; it intersects with other axes of identity such as caste, class, and gender, creating compounded layers of vulnerability within the criminal justice system. As Susan Wendell rightfully observed, “Disabled women struggle with both the oppression of being women in male-dominated societies and the oppression of being disabled in societies dominated by the able-bodied. ” 25This dual burden is especially visible in the Indian context, where patriarchal norms, caste hierarchies, and economic marginalization intensify the disadvantages experienced by women with disabilities. The Supreme Court addressed this reality in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021)26, a case involving the rape of a visually impaired woman who also belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
The accused challenged his conviction by discrediting the victim’s testimony, arguing that her disability rendered her unreliable as an eyewitness. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, delivering the judgment, rejected this argument and instead underscored the importance of recognizing inter-sectionality in legal adjudication. The Court acknowledged that the victim occupied a uniquely disadvantaged position, as her gender, disability, and caste status intersected to magnify her vulnerability. Although the conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was overturned due to lack of caste-based motive, the Court upheld the conviction for rape under Section 37627 of the Indian Penal Code.
More importantly, Justice Chandrachud emphasized that courts must remain vigilant against perpetuating stereotypes and stigma by undervaluing the testimony of disabled victims. He highlighted that disability cannot be grounds for discounting credibility and that judicial institutions bear a responsibility to dismantle attitudinal biases against persons with disabilities. This case represents a significant judicial step in removing further marginalization of PwDs in India based on caste, class, gender within the criminal justice system. It illustrates how the law must account for the compounded disadvantage faced by women with disabilities, rather than
25 Susan Wendell, The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability 75 (1996).
26 Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 1.
27 Indian Penal Code § 376, Act No. 45 of 1860 (India).
treating each axis of marginalization in isolation. Yet, despite this progressive judicial recognition, systemic barriers persist. Studies continue to reveal how women with disabilities, particularly those from marginalized caste or class backgrounds, encounter heightened risks of sexual violence, barriers in accessing police stations, and reluctance from law enforcement to record their complaints. Many are denied effective legal aid, and stigma surrounding both disability and sexual violence often silences their pursuit of justice. Hence, it is important to note that without institutionalized safeguards such as specialized training for law enforcement and judges, provision of accessible complaint mechanisms, and community-level sensitization, women with disabilities will continue to remain among the most invisible victims in the criminal justice system.
G. JURISPRUDENTIAL CONCERNS ON FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND JUSTICE
Judicial interpretation has played a central role in shaping the rights of persons with disabilities within India’s criminal justice system. Courts have consistently been called upon to reconcile the principles of fairness, equality, and agency with the realities of structural exclusion and institutional neglect. While the constitutional text provides broad guarantees under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A, it is through judicial pronouncements that these provisions have been given substantive meaning for persons with disabilities. A recurring concern in this jurisprudence is the recognition that formal equality is insufficient without reasonable accommodation. In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018)28, the Supreme Court clarified that equality entails not only non-discrimination but also proactive measures to remedy systemic exclusion.
This principle is of particular importance in criminal proceedings, where procedural rigidity often renders persons with disabilities passive subjects rather than equal participants. The Court’s reasoning establishes that denial of accommodations such as interpreters, accessible documentation, or procedural adjustments constitutes discrimination, not mere administrative inconvenience. The jurisprudence has also confronted issues of credibility and agency of disabled victims and witnesses. In Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), the Court rejected attempts to discredit the testimony of a visually impaired woman survivor of rape, affirming that disability cannot be grounds for doubting reliability. 29Justice Chandrachud’s observations on
28 Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413.
29 Shivangi Prasad, The Testimony of a Prosecutrix With a Disability Cannot Be Considered Weak or Inferior – Supreme Court, POSH at Work
inter-sectionality further advanced the discourse by recognizing that the compounded disadvantages of gender, caste, and disability require heightened judicial sensitivity. This marked an important departure from earlier tendencies where testimony of disabled persons was undervalued, thereby strengthening the agency of persons with disabilities within the justice process. The case of Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016)30 further highlighted the structural dimension of fairness, emphasizing that abstract commitments to international norms such as the UNCRPD are meaningless without real institutional reforms in infrastructure, training, and service delivery.
Although the case arose outside criminal law, its insistence on systemic preparedness has direct implications for the functioning of police stations, courts, and prisons, where disabled persons continue to encounter physical and attitudinal barriers. In the custodial context, L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 31extended the jurisprudential principle that incarceration does not extinguish constitutional rights. The Court recognized that denial of accommodations to prisoners with disabilities violates both statutory and constitutional guarantees, reaffirming the centrality of dignity in criminal justice. Together with the national outcry over the neglect of Father Stan Swamy, this case underscored the systemic disregard for fairness and humanity in correctional institutions. Yet, despite these advances, jurisprudence remains reactive rather than proactive.
Courts have responded to individual cases of injustice but have not succeeded in institutionalizing reforms through continuous monitoring or enforceable guidelines. Moreover, the lack of disabilitysegregated data and the persistence of infrastructural barriers dilute the impact of progressive judgments. Consequently, while judicial interpretation has articulated strong principles of fairness, equality, and agency, its transformative potential has been constrained by weak implementation. A fair criminal justice system is not sufficient if it merely provides equal treatment; it must also be able to provide equal and appropriate treatment tailored to individual needs, as mandated by the CRPD and progressive legal principles. 32
30 Jeeja Gosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761
31 L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) INSC 844
32 Fahri Hidayatullah & Eko Soponyono, Protection of Persons with Disabilities in a Comparative Legal Context, 8 Int’l J. Soc. Sci. & Human Res. 6015
H. CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF IMPLEMENTATION GAPS
The evaluation of India’s constitutional and statutory framework of the RPwD Act demonstrates that while the country has laid down a progressive foundation for the rights of persons with disabilities, the criminal justice system continues to falter in translating these promises into actual results. The gap between law and practice remains wide, with structural deficiencies and institutional inaccessibly undermining the promise of equality before the law. Despite the recognition of substantive equality and reasonable accommodation in both domestic statutes and judicial pronouncements, implementation has been inconsistent and fragmented. Accessibility continues to be one of the most pressing concerns. Court complexes, police stations, and prisons frequently remain inaccessible, both physically and psychologically.
Architectural barriers such as the absence of ramps or tactile signage exclude individuals with physical impairments, while the lack of interpreters, assistive technologies, or alternative communication methods limits participation for persons with sensory and intellectual disabilities. The Supreme Court in Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India underscored that mere rhetorical adherence to international obligations like the UNCRPD is inadequate unless accompanied by tangible measures in training, infrastructure, and institutional preparedness. Yet, reforms in this direction remain sporadic and reactive, dependent largely on judicial intervention rather than proactive administrative planning. Another dimension of the implementation gap lies in attitudinal biases and the absence of systematic training among actors within the criminal justice process.
Police officers, prosecutors, and even legal aid lawyers often lack the sensitization required to engage effectively with persons with disabilities. This not only impairs access to justice at the investigative stage but also affects the fairness of trials, where disabled persons may be denied the accommodations necessary for meaningful participation. Although judgments such as Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Rajive Raturi v. Union of India have emphasized that credibility, fairness, and equality demand a disability-sensitive approach, these principles are yet to become embedded in the everyday functioning of the system. The most visible failures emerge within custodial institutions. The neglect of Father Stan Swamy and the directions issued in L. Muruganantham v.
State of Tamil Nadu highlight how prisons remain structurally and medically unprepared to meet the needs of disabled prisoners.
Despite the mandate of Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, which requires the State to protect persons with disabilities from abuse and exploitation, correctional environments often operate on a medical model of disability, treating accommodations as optional conveniences rather than enforceable rights. This approach results in the systematic denial of dignity and compounds the punitive nature of incarceration for disabled individuals. Taken together, these concerns reflect that the gaps within the criminal justice system are not incidental but systemic. They stem from the persistence of physical, procedural, and attitudinal barriers, coupled with weak institutional accountability.
While judicial pronouncements have laid down a robust normative framework, the absence of institutional mechanisms, coordinated policy measures, and a culture of inclusion has prevented meaningful implementation. The result is a justice system that continues to marginalize persons with disabilities, reducing constitutional guarantees and statutory rights to aspirational ideals rather than enforceable protections.
I. CONCLUSION
“Recognizing and respecting differences in others, and treating everyone like you want them to treat you, will help make our world a better place for everyone. Care... be your best. You don’t have to be handicapped to be different. Everyone is different!” 33These words capture the essence of the challenge that confronts the Indian criminal justice system in its treatment of persons with disabilities. Despite constitutional guarantees and statutory protections, the system continues to marginalize persons with disabilities, reflecting a persistent gap between normative commitments and institutional practice. Addressing this divide requires comprehensive reform that combines legislative clarity, institutional awareness, and attitudinal change. A critical priority is embedding disability rights into the procedural fabric of the criminal
process. Criminal procedure codes and prison manuals must move beyond generalized protections to include explicit mandates for reasonable accommodation, accessibility, and tailored adjustments for accused persons, victims, and witnesses with disabilities. While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides a strong foundation, its implementation within the justice system has been inconsistent. Legislative amendments that align the new
33 Kim Peek, Quoting Excellence: Words from Celebrities with Special Needs, Deron School.
criminal codes with the principles of the RPwD Act and the UNCRPD would create greater coherence and prevent disability from being treated as an afterthought. Custodial institutions reveal the starkest failures, remaining among the most exclusionary spaces for persons with disabilities. Prisons must be equipped with accessible infrastructure, medical care, and assistive technologies to ensure dignity and safety for disabled inmates. Without systematic monitoring and accountability, the rights of prisoners remain largely illusory. At the same time, inter-sectional vulnerabilities particularly those faced by disabled women from marginalized communities demand targeted interventions such as specialized legal aid and victim support services. To conclude, ensuring justice for persons with disabilities is both a constitutional mandate and a moral imperative.
Legislative reform, institutional training, and inter-sectional sensitivity are essential to move beyond symbolic recognition and towards substantive equality. The challenge lies not in the articulation of rights but in their consistent and humane application. Only through such measures can the criminal justice system genuinely transform into an institution of justice for all, including those whose voices have too often been silenced.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CONSTITUTION
1. INDIA CONST. art. 12.
2. INDIA CONST. art. 13.
3. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
4. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
5. INDIA CONST. art. 39A.
STATUTES
1.Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (India). 2.Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 173, 2023 (India) 3.Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India). 4.The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 12, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016). 5.The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 2(y), No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016). 6.The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 7, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016). 7.The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, § 13, No. 49 of 2016, INDIA CODE (2016).
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT
1. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3, art.
2.United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), G.A. Res. 70/175, U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/175 (2015).
CASE LAW & JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (INDIA)
1. Jeeja Gosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761
2. L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2025) INSC 844
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
4. Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 1
5. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413
6. Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh, AIR 2012 SC 1973
7. Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 370
SCHOLARLY LITERATURE
1. Sumbul Akhlaque Khan, Criminal Justice and Advocacy Services for Persons with
Disabilities, 2 Int’l J. Res. in Special Educ. 13 (2022).
2. Ashaika Pandey, Disabity & Work Place Inclusion in the Private Sector: A Critical Legal
Analysis of RPWD ACT, 2018, A IN1TJ.L, MOMT. & HUMAN, 605 (2021)
3. Adya Jha & Jasel Mundhra, How Accommodating Is Reasonable Accommodation:
Analysing India's Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 16 NUJS L. REV. 449 (July- September 2023)
4. S. Jayavardhini & Golla Madhu, Protecting the Unseen Prisoner: Disability Rights in
India’s New Criminal Justice Era, 3 INT’L J. LEGAL STUD. & SOC. SCI. 455 (2025)
5. Maddie Hosack, Access to Justice Means Access for All Abilities, IAALS Blog (July 30,
2024)
6. Fahri Hidayatullah & Eko Soponyono, Protection of Persons with Disabilities in a
Comparative Legal Context, 8 Int’l J. Soc. Sci. & Human Res. 6015
WEB SOURCES / NEWS / DICTIONARIES
1. Kavya Srinivasan, Disability Rights and the Criminal Justice System, 2 White Black Legal
Law Journal 20 (Mar. 2024).
2. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Measurement of Disability
through Census National Experiences: INDIA.
3. Robert M. Hensel, Quotes About Disability, A-Z Quotes.
4. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, India: Death in Custody of Priest
Stan Swamy Is Devastating, OHCHR (July 15, 2021)
5. Susan Wendell, The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability 75
(1996).
6. Shivangi Prasad, The Testimony of a Prosecutrix With a Disability Cannot Be Considered
Weak or Inferior – Supreme Court, POSH at Work