Law Guide · Inclusion

The RPwD Act for the Social Sector

A plain-English guide to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: what it demands of your organisation as an employer, as a service provider, and as an advocate.

RPwD Act 2016 UNCRPD-aligned Employers · Programme designers · DPOs

Not legal advice. This is an educational explainer. Accessibility standards and state rules vary in detail, so verify current requirements with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities and your State Commissioner's office.

specified disabilities recognised: up from 7 under the 1995 Act

40%

of a specified disability is the minimum for "benchmark disability", which opens reservations and certain entitlements

4% / 5%

reservation in government jobs / higher-education seats for benchmark disabilities

Every

private establishment, NGOs included, must have an Equal Opportunity Policy

Section 01

From charity to rights, and why NGOs are covered

The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the 1995 disability law to bring India in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Its central idea is that disability arises when an impairment meets a barrier that society has built, whether of attitude, of the physical environment or of information. Rights, accessibility, and reasonable accommodation replace charity as the organising ideas.

Two things make it directly binding on social-sector organisations. First, the Act defines "establishment" to include private establishments, which covers a company, firm, society, trust, institution or other organisation, so an NGO has employer duties. Second, most development programmes are exactly the services (education, health, livelihoods, relief) where the Act demands non-discrimination and accessibility. An inaccessible training venue or an application form that screens out blind candidates is a barrier of the kind the Act exists to remove, and refusing to accommodate it can amount to discrimination under section 2(h).

Section 02

The Act in six points

21 specified disabilities. The list includes blindness and low vision, deafness and hard of hearing, locomotor disability, intellectual disability, autism spectrum, mental illness, specific learning disabilities, speech and language disability, thalassemia, haemophilia, sickle-cell disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, acid-attack victims, and dwarfism. Certification yields a disability certificate, valid across the country (section 58), and the UDID card.
Rights and non-discrimination. Equality, non-discrimination in employment, community living, protection from cruelty and exploitation, accessible voting and justice, and legal capacity. Discrimination on grounds of disability is prohibited unless the act is shown to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Reasonable accommodation is a legal obligation. Section 2(y) defines it as "necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case", so that a person with a disability can enjoy rights equally with others. Examples are screen readers, sign interpretation, flexible schedules, accessible formats and modified duties. Section 2(h) treats denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination.
Accessibility is mandated with standards and deadlines. Section 40 requires the Central Government to make rules setting accessibility standards for the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, and other facilities and services provided to the public. Section 44 bars building permission, completion certificates and occupation for an establishment whose building does not follow those rules. Existing public buildings must be made accessible within five years of the notification of the rules (section 45), and service providers, public or private, must provide services in accordance with them within two years (section 46), with extensions possible. Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules lists standards, among them the Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India 2021 for public buildings, the Bus Body Code, the Indian Government website guidelines and IS 17802 for ICT, with sector guidelines added in 2023 and 2024. On 8 November 2024 the Supreme Court held Rule 15(1) ultra vires the Act because several of those guidelines are recommendatory, and directed the Union to frame mandatory rules under section 40 (Rajive Raturi v. Union of India). On 29 July 2026 the Court recorded that the built-environment rules awaited final approval and the ICT rules were at the draft stage, and ordered the non-negotiable norms to be issued within six months. The ICT draft is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2026 (S.O. 3962(E), 16 July 2026). It would replace Rule 15(1)(c) with mandatory requirements built on IS 17802 and remains a draft until notified.
Benchmark disability is the threshold for affirmative measures. A person with benchmark disability (not less than 40 per cent of a specified disability, or a disability defined in measurable terms in the Schedule, as certified) gets 4% of vacancies in government establishments (section 34) and 5% of seats in government and government-aided higher-education institutions (section 32), plus scheme entitlements. Private employers have no quota. Section 3(3) bars discrimination on the ground of disability, and section 2(h) counts denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination.
Enforcement machinery exists and is usable. The Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities can inquire into deprivation of rights, on a complaint or on their own motion, in matters for which the Central or State Government is the appropriate Government (sections 75 and 80). Special courts try offences (section 84). Section 89 fines a contravention of the Act or its rules, up to Rs 10,000 for a first contravention and Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh for each later one. Section 92 punishes atrocities, such as intentionally insulting or intimidating a person with a disability to humiliate them in public view or assaulting them with intent to dishonour, with imprisonment of six months to five years and a fine.

Section 03

Your three hats under the Act

Employer · every NGO with staff

Publish an Equal Opportunity Policy (Rule 8(1)), display it on your website where possible and otherwise at conspicuous places in your premises, and register a copy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be (section 21). Every establishment must keep records of employees with disabilities, their employment and the facilities given to them (section 22). With 20 or more employees, the policy must also cover the matters in Rule 8(3), including the facilities for staff with disabilities, the posts suitable for them and a Liaison Officer for recruitment, and Rule 9 sets out the particulars the records must carry. Provide reasonable accommodation and do not discriminate in recruitment, promotion or conditions of work.

Service provider · every programme you run

Programmes open to the public must be accessible: venues, materials, digital platforms, communication. Disability-disaggregated data (the Washington Group questions are the field standard) is how you find out whether your "universal" programme actually reaches the 2.21 per cent of Indians counted as disabled in Census 2011. A MEL system that does not collect this information cannot show whether it does.

Advocate and ally · with, not for

The Act gives campaigners concrete hooks: accessibility deadlines, scheme entitlements, UDID access and complaints to the Commissioners. The disability movement's rule is "nothing about us without us", which means designing and reviewing programmes together with organisations of persons with disabilities (OPDs).

Section 04

Organisational checklist

0 of 8 steps done

Adopt and publish an Equal Opportunity Policy; register a copy with the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, as the case may be, and name a Liaison Officer if you have 20 or more employees. Audit recruitment end-to-end for barriers, where ads run, application formats, interview logistics, medical-fitness clauses that exclude without saying so. Create a reasonable-accommodation procedure with a named owner and budget line, so requests aren't handled ad hoc. Run an accessibility audit of offices and frequent venues against the Harmonised Guidelines; fix the cheap items now and schedule the rest. Make digital assets accessible: website and forms to WCAG standards, alt text, captions on videos, accessible PDFs and training decks. The draft amendment rules of 16 July 2026 would make IS 17802 compliance mandatory, with an Accessibility Conformance Report, for websites, apps and digital documents offered to persons in India. Check whether they have been notified. Add disability-disaggregated data (Washington Group short set) to programme MEL, and set participation targets. Train staff on disability etiquette, the 21 disabilities (many are invisible), and the accommodation duty. Partner with OPDs in design and review, and support participants to obtain disability certificates and UDID cards where wanted.

Saved locally in your browser only: nothing is uploaded.

Section 05

Gray areas practitioners argue about

How much accommodation is "disproportionate burden"?

The Act limits accommodation to what does not impose a "disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case", and it gives no rupee figure for that. For a small NGO, a sign-language interpreter for every event may be disproportionate; refusing a screen-reader-compatible PDF is unlikely to be. Document the analysis when you decline an accommodation: cost, alternatives considered, and what you offered instead.

Invisible and psychosocial disabilities

Mental illness, learning disabilities, and chronic blood disorders are specified disabilities, but an employee may not want to disclose one, and not every employee holds a certificate. Some specified disabilities are not visible. The duty to accommodate does not wait for a certificate. It arises from the person's need, and the Supreme Court held in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (11 February 2021) that it is not limited to persons with benchmark disability.

Certification and UDID friction

Rights keyed to "benchmark disability" depend on a certificate from a certifying authority (sections 2(r) and 58), and a person with a disability may not hold one or a UDID card. A programme that requires a certificate for participation can exclude people who have none. One approach is to accept self-identification for participation and to support certification where an entitlement depends on it.

Old buildings, rented offices, field venues

Section 45 requires existing public buildings to be made accessible within five years of the notification of the accessibility rules. Section 2(w) defines a public building to include a private building used or accessed by the public at large, workplaces among them, so a rented office or a panchayat bhavan training venue can be one. The five years run from notification of the rules, and the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment directed the Union to prescribe mandatory rules. A sensible approach is to treat venue selection as your own decision and to reduce the barriers in premises you inherit.

Section 06

Frequently asked questions

We're a 12-person NGO. Which employer duties actually apply to us?

The Equal Opportunity Policy applies to every establishment (section 21 and Rule 8(1) and (2)). The detailed policy contents in Rule 8(3), including a Liaison Officer, and the records in Rule 9(1) apply from 20 employees. A smaller establishment's policy must still set out the facilities and amenities it will provide to staff with disabilities (Rule 8(4)), and section 22 still requires it to keep records of employees with disabilities. Section 3(3) bars discrimination on the ground of disability, and section 2(h) counts denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination. The government-job reservation does not apply to private employers at any size.

Are we required to hire persons with disabilities?

There is no private-sector quota. The Act bars discrimination on the ground of disability and counts denial of reasonable accommodation as discrimination (sections 3(3) and 2(h)). Section 35 directs governments, within their economic capacity, to give private employers incentives to reach a workforce of which at least 5 per cent are persons with benchmark disability. The section is addressed to governments and creates no quota for an employer. An NGO can set a voluntary target.

Do our workshops legally need sign-language interpretation and accessible venues?

Public-facing services must be accessible (section 46), and reasonable accommodation must be provided to the extent it does not impose a disproportionate or undue burden (section 2(y)). Rule 3(4) of the 2017 Rules bars an establishment from making a person with a disability pay for it. The defensible baseline: ask about access needs at registration, choose accessible venues when you control the choice, and budget for accommodations rather than treating each request as a crisis.

What can happen if we ignore all this?

A person aggrieved by discrimination can complain to the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner, and Rule 3(3) of the 2017 Rules requires the complaint to be disposed of within 60 days. A Commissioner has the powers of a civil court to summon witnesses and require documents, and can take a matter up with the appropriate authorities for corrective action (sections 75, 77, 80 and 82). A contravention of the Act or its rules is punishable under section 89 with a fine of up to Rs 10,000 for a first contravention and Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh for each later one. Where a company commits an offence, section 90 (which counts a firm or other association of individuals as a company) makes the people in charge of its business liable too, unless they show they did not know of it or took all due diligence. Offences such as intentionally insulting or intimidating a person with a disability to humiliate them in public view, assaulting them with intent to dishonour, or denying food or fluids to a person in your charge or control are prosecuted under section 92, with imprisonment of six months to five years and a fine.

How does the RPwD Act interact with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017?

They overlap deliberately: mental illness is a specified disability under RPwD, while the MHCA governs mental-health care, advance directives, and rights within treatment. Organisations in mental-health programming need both: RPwD for inclusion and accommodation, MHCA for service standards and consent.

Suggested citation

ImpactMojo (2026). "The RPwD Act for the Social Sector." ImpactMojo Law Guides. Retrieved from https://impactmojo.in/law-guides/rpwd-act-social-sector.html

Spotted an error or a change in the law?

If a rule, standard, or judgment has changed something on this page, tell us and we'll fix it.

Report a correction →

Judgments that shaped this law

The judgments below are the ones that changed what this law requires in practice. Summaries are editorial orientation, not legal advice; the linked judgment is what is authoritative.

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (accessibility standards)

Supreme Court of India · 8 November, 2024 · still good law

Held. On 8 November 2024 the Court held that several of the guidelines in Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017 are recommendatory guidelines under the garb of mandatory rules, and that Rule 15(1) is ultra vires the scheme and legislative intent of the 2016 Act, which creates a mechanism for mandatory compliance. It directed the Union to delineate mandatory rules, as required by section 40, within three months, while progressive compliance with the standards in the existing Rule 15(1) continues, and adjourned the petitions to 7 March 2025 for a report on compliance.

What changed. Until the Union prescribes mandatory rules, compliance with the standards in the existing Rule 15(1) continues progressively. Once mandatory rules are prescribed, the Court directed the Union, States and Union Territories to implement the consequences in sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the 2016 Act for non-compliance, including holding back completion certificates and imposing fines. This entry stops at the judgment of 8 November 2024. Whether mandatory rules have since been notified is not confirmed here, so check the current orders and the Gazette.

Read the judgment

State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph

Supreme Court of India · 28 June, 2021 · still good law

Held. Under the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, a person with benchmark disability is entitled to be considered for reservation in promotion in posts identified for persons with disabilities, even where the service rules provide no such reservation and even where the employee did not enter service through the disability quota. The Court dismissed Kerala's appeal and directed the State to identify the posts and provide reservation in promotion within three months.

What changed. The route of entry into service does not decide eligibility. What counts is that the employee has the disability when promotion is considered. The Court noted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 now deals with reservation in promotion.

Read the judgment

Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission

Supreme Court of India · 11 February, 2021 · still good law

Held. The Court held that the appellant, who has writer's cramp, a chronic neurological condition listed in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 but below the 40% benchmark, is entitled to a scribe for the Civil Services Examination and any other competitive selection conducted under government authority. It held that reasonable accommodation is an individualised duty and that a person should not be expected to be 'disabled enough' to claim it. It directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to frame scribe guidelines in consultation with persons with disabilities within three months.

What changed. A candidate with a specified disability under Section 2(s) of the 2016 Act who falls short of benchmark disability can claim a scribe for the Civil Services Examination and other competitive selections under government authority. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment issued Office Memorandum F.No.29-6/2019-DD-III on 10 August 2022. In Gulshan Kumar v Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (3 February 2025, 2025 INSC 142) the Court directed the Ministry to revisit that memorandum, remove the restrictions and re-notify it within two months, so that scribe and compensatory time reach all candidates with disabilities.

Read the judgment

Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 15 December, 2017 · still good law

Held. On 15 December 2017 the Supreme Court directed that every higher education institution covered by Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which reserves not less than five per cent of seats for persons with benchmark disabilities, must comply with it in admissions each year. Each such institution must submit to the Chief Commissioner or State Commissioner a list of the disabled persons admitted in each course every year. Law colleges must also inform the Bar Council of India, other institutions must notify compliance to the UGC each year, and the UGC was to constitute a committee on accessibility and pedagogy and complete the exercise by 30 June 2018.

What changed. The Chief Commissioner and the State Commissioners must enquire whether covered institutions have met the Section 32 quota. The Court said appropriate consequential action under Section 89 of the 2016 Act and other provisions shall be initiated against defaulting institutions.

Read the judgment

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 15 December, 2017 · still good law

Held. On 15 December 2017 the Supreme Court gave eleven directions on accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and listed the matter for directions after three months, so the petition was not disposed of. The directions include a time frame of August 2018 for Central Government buildings, retrofitting of identified buildings in the national and State capitals by December 2018, and constitution of Central and State Advisory Boards by all States and Union Territories within three months. For railways, Government buses, websites and public documents, and sign language interpreters, the Union or the competent authority was to file an assessment, plan or affidavit within three months stating the dates by which the work could be done.

What changed. On 8 November 2024, in the same writ petition, a three-judge bench held Rule 15(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 ultra vires the Act and directed the Union Government to delineate mandatory rules as required by Section 40 within three months. It adjourned the petitions to 7 March 2025 for the Union to report compliance. An organisation seeking accessible premises can cite both the 2017 timelines and the 2024 direction.

Read the judgment

Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 12 May, 2016 · still good law

Held. On 12 May 2016 the Supreme Court held that SpiceJet's decision to de-board Jeeja Ghosh, a passenger with cerebral palsy, without interacting with her or summoning a doctor violated Rule 133-A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, the DGCA's CAR 2008 guidelines and her human dignity. It awarded her Rs 10,00,000 as damages, payable by SpiceJet within two months, and directed the DGCA and the Government to consider within three months the listed aspects, and any others that deserve attention, for incorporation in the civil aviation requirements.

What changed. An airline that de-boards a passenger with a disability without interacting with the passenger or taking medical advice risks breaching Rule 133-A of the Aircraft Rules and the DGCA guidelines, and the Court held that a private airline can be made to pay damages for violating the passenger's dignity. The Disabilities Act, 1995 that the Court applied was later repealed and replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Read the judgment

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration

Supreme Court of India · 28 August, 2009 · still good law

Held. A three-judge bench held that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21. It set aside a High Court direction to terminate the pregnancy of an adult orphaned woman with mild mental retardation (the judgment's term) who had expressed willingness to bear a child, holding that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 requires her consent and that the State's guardianship could not be mechanically extended to decide termination.

What changed. For an adult woman with intellectual disability, termination of pregnancy needs her own consent, because the Act's exception for guardian consent covers minors and persons with mental illness, which the Court distinguished from mental retardation. A State or institution acting as guardian cannot treat its guardianship as consent to termination. Check the current text of the Act, which this judgment applied as it stood in 2009.

Read the judgment

See the full Development Law Docket →