Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities in India

The 2025 report by Pacta, a Bengaluru-based law and policy think tank, marks critical gaps in data and systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities in India’s justice system. Despite progressive laws, the police, prisons, courts, and legal aid services remain largely inaccessible. The report stresses the urgent need for reliable data, inclusive policies, and better implementation to ensure equity and accountability.

Data Gaps and Accountability

The justice system lacks consistent and detailed data on persons with disabilities. This absence hinders accountability and reform efforts. Without disability-disaggregated data across police, prisons, judiciary, and legal aid, policymakers and institutions cannot track compliance or design effective interventions. Reliable data is essential for moving beyond anecdotal evidence to precise policymaking.

Physical and Digital Inaccessibility

Many courts, police stations, and prisons remain physically inaccessible. Basic infrastructure fails to accommodate wheelchairs or assistive devices. Digital platforms also lack accessibility features. This creates hostile environments, limiting participation and access to justice for millions of persons with disabilities.

Systemic and Attitudinal Barriers

Beyond infrastructure, procedural complexities and negative attitudes further exclude persons with disabilities. Lack of awareness, sensitivity, and training among police, judiciary, and legal aid workers exacerbate these barriers. Such systemic issues demand comprehensive disability rights integration in institutional training and culture.

Underrepresentation in Justice Sector Jobs

Persons with disabilities are largely absent from justice sector employment. Despite mandated reservation quotas, implementation is poor. The report urges the judicial Collegium to adopt inclusive appointment practices. Proactive identification and recommendation of qualified candidates with disabilities can enhance representation and inclusivity.

Recommendations for Inclusion

Key recommendations include mandatory collection of disability-disaggregated data across all justice pillars. Public accessibility audits and transparent reporting on reasonable accommodations are vital. Integrating disability rights into training curricula will improve awareness and responsiveness. These measures collectively aim to transform the justice system into a more humane and accessible institution.

The Curb Cut Effect

The report draws on the ‘curb cut effect’ to illustrate how disability-friendly design benefits all users. Measures like accessible filing systems and disability sensitisation improve overall institutional functioning. Inclusive systems raise societal expectations and create participatory justice environments that serve everyone better.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss in the light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in accessing the Indian justice system.
2. Critically examine the role of data collection and management in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.
3. Explain the concept of the ‘curb cut effect’ and discuss how inclusive design principles can improve public service delivery in India.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the importance of representation of marginalized groups, including persons with disabilities, in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss in the light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in accessing the Indian justice system.

1. The Act mandates non-discrimination and accessibility but implementation remains weak across police, courts, prisons, and legal aid.
2. Physical barriers – many justice institutions lack wheelchair ramps, accessible toilets, or assistive technologies.
3. Procedural challenges – complex legal processes and lack of reasonable accommodations hinder participation.
4. Attitudinal barriers – lack of disability sensitisation among police, judiciary, and staff leads to exclusion and discrimination.
5. Data gaps – absence of disability-disaggregated data results in poor policy targeting and accountability.
6. Underrepresentation of persons with disabilities in justice sector jobs limits their voice and empowerment within the system.

2. Critically examine the role of data collection and management in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.

1. Reliable, disaggregated data enables evidence-based policymaking and targeted interventions.
2. Data gaps obscure the scale and nature of exclusion, hindering reform efforts.
3. Transparency in data encourages public trust and allows civil society and courts to hold institutions accountable.
4. Systematic data collection helps track compliance with legal mandates and reservation policies.
5. Without data, anecdotal evidence dominates, limiting effective monitoring and resource allocation.
6. Integrating disability data across all pillars of justice promotes inclusive institutional culture and planning.

3. Explain the concept of the ‘curb cut effect’ and discuss how inclusive design principles can improve public service delivery in India.

1. The ‘curb cut effect’ shows that disability-friendly designs (e.g., ramps) benefit a wider population (strollers, elderly, luggage carriers).
2. Inclusive design enhances accessibility, usability, and convenience for all citizens, not just persons with disabilities.
3. Examples include accessible filing systems, digital platforms with assistive features, and barrier-free infrastructure.
4. It raises overall societal expectations and institutional responsiveness, making services more humane and participatory.
5. Inclusive design reduces systemic exclusion and encourages equality in accessing public services.
6. Promotes sustainable development goals by ensuring no one is left behind in service delivery.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the importance of representation of marginalized groups, including persons with disabilities, in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

1. Representation ensures diverse perspectives, leading to fairer, more empathetic decision-making.
2. Persons with disabilities in justice roles can better identify and address accessibility and discrimination issues.
3. Mandated reservation quotas exist but are poorly implemented, causing underrepresentation.
4. Inclusive appointments enhance institutional legitimacy and public confidence in justice delivery.
5. Examples – Judicial Collegium’s proactive identification of qualified disabled candidates can improve inclusivity.
6. Representation encourages empowerment and social integration of marginalized communities within governance structures.