Over the years, India has been witness to series of legislations that have attempted to address the problems faced by the disabled. In the recent past, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995; The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992; The Mental Health Act, 1987; and The National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 have all been attempted solutions. Some of these measures have been bold, admirable steps; but the results are not visible yet. Of all these legislations, the Act of 1995 has often been considered to have special status: that of an overarching legislation, with supporting roles from the others. Moreover, most stakeholders agree that the PWD Act came about through a successful consultative process.

The Act fixes responsibility of the Central and State Governments and local bodies to provide services and facilities to people with disabilities, and to provide equal opportunities for participating as productive citizen. The Act even enlists certain rights and facilities that persons with disabilities would be entitled to and which are enforceable, actually providing for both preventive and promotional aspects of rehabilitation. Chapter IV lists out the preventive nature of the responsibilities of the bodies created under this statute. Accordingly, the Central Coordination Committee, the Central Executive Committee, and a Coordination and Executive Committee for each of the states are, among other things, responsible for surveys, investigations and research concerning the cause of occurrence of disabilities, promoting various methods of preventing disabilities, etc. The second and third chapters describe the functions and composition of these bodies. The Central Coordination Committee (CCC) is at the top of the pyramid of bodies that would attempt to realize the aspirations of this statute. It has a broad mandate, and the terms of members are for three years. Care was taken to ensure that there would be sufficient representation from NGOs and associations concerned with disability. Not only is it responsible for advising the central government on disability policy, it is also an advocacy organization and one that review the activities of the government and even monitor the implementation of policies. The Central Executive Committee implements CCC directives. However, it is to the post of Chief Commissioner of Disabilities, who will coordinate the work of Commissioners that the responsibility of implementing the Act falls to. In fact, the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners are also the agents of grievance redressal under the scheme, and an application may be moved to them.

The Act pays special attention to the specific aspects which require enhanced opportunities for the disabled: education and employment. Every child with disability should have access to free and adequate education till the age of 18. There is also a call to integrate students with disabilities into normal schools. At the same time, the government had to set up special schools in government and private sectors and equip these special schools with vocational training facilities. Chapter V also recognizes the need for non-formal education, training teachers for special schools, the removal of architectural and other barriers from schools and the promotion of research into assistive devices that could ensure equal opportunity. As far as employment is concerned, Chapter VI uses 3% reservation in Government jobs for people with disabilities along with incentives to employers in the private and public sectors to ensure that 5% of the workforce is composed of persons with disabilities.

There are also special provisions for affirmative action, and for non-discrimination. The former, in Chapter VII, exhorts the government to provide aids and appliances to persons with disabilities and land at concessional rates for allotment to persons with disabilities for housing, business, special recreation centres, special schools, research centres and factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities. The latter (Chapter VIII) is more significant in that it tries to create a environment where the disabled would not be disadvantaged for want of access. Within their capacity, all authorities have to provide auditory signals along red lights, crossings and constructions have to be designed for wheel chair users, and engraving on zebra crossing for blind people. Buildings and toilets shall be constructed with ramps and other features. Similarly, an employee’s service cannot be terminated if a disability was acquired during employment, and promotion may not be denied on account of disability alone.

However, the Act fell short when it came to implementation of many of its aspirations. A shortage of government servants attuned to the peculiar nature of disability is a definite setback for the Office of the Commissioner of Disability. Some State Coordination Committees and State Executive Committees have not yet been set up. Only a few people with disability are represented in the administrative bodies. This shows that the responsibilities of the government under the Act, particularly under Chapter IX, have been ignored, with no obvious results from any initiatives on research and manpower development.

The definition of a ‘person with disability’ under the Act has been criticized for its indeterminate nature. Section 2 (t) requires that a medical authority needs to certify that a person suffers not less than forty percent disability. Particularly for mental health problems such as cerebral palsy or autism, such a determination becomes difficult in the absence of any guidelines. It has also been criticized as a purely ‘medical understanding’ of disability. A better understanding would require disability to be seen from social as well as human rights perspectives.

Even though 3% jobs in the government are reserved for persons with disability, and a Special Employment Exchange has been created for the persons with disability, only 1,00,000 disabled persons have been employed since the first SEE was set up in Mumbai in 1955. Incentives promised to the private sector in the Act have also not worked too well. Only 0.4% of the employees of India’s top 100corporate houses are disabled (according to a 1999 study), much below the 5% envisaged in this well-intentioned legislation. This is a reflection of failure on two counts. Firstly, the emphasis placed by the legislation on the education and employability of the disabled has been lost. At the same time, the incentives for inclusion have not been juicy enough to bait the corporates.