Decode Civils CAShorts
Current affairs Open app
ExplainerPolityPrelimsGS2

Accessibility and assistive products under the RPwD Act, 2016

By CAShorts DeskPublished Sources: RPwD Act, 2016; Gazette of India; PIB; UNI; The Policy Edge; TeamLease RegTech; Verdictum; SCC Online; ICMR; WHO; UN DESA

Why in news: Draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2026, reported on 4 October 2026, propose standards for assistive products and invite objections within 30 days.

Accessibility and assistive products under the RPwD Act, 2016
Illustration (AI-generated)

Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 obliges the Centre to frame binding accessibility standards, carried in Rule 15 of the 2017 Rules. In Rajive Raturi (November 2024) the Supreme Court held Rule 15(1) ultra vires for offering only guidelines. Draft amendment rules now propose standards, repair and grievance redress for assistive products.

Syllabus: Prelims · Polity & Governance; GS2 · Government Policies; GS2 · Welfare of Vulnerable Sections

Why this matters for UPSC

GS2 social justice: Prelims can ask what Section 40 and Sections 44 to 46 of the RPwD Act, 2016 provide and what the WHO and ICMR assistive product lists contain; Mains, whether Rule 15 and the Rajive Raturi ruling make accessibility enforceable.

In short

Accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is the State's duty to remove barriers in buildings, transport, information and services; assistive products carry it to each person.

From guidelines to bindingstandardsSection 40Rule 15Ultra viresDraft 2026rulesEnforceablefloor

Accessibility needs a non-negotiable floor: binding Section 40 standards and certified, repairable assistive products, enforced through Sections 44 to 46, not voluntary guidelines.

Why it matters

A wheelchair user who cannot board a bus, or a deaf student whose hearing aid breaks with no repair shop nearby, loses school, work and independence. For years the law promised access, but the rules beneath it were advice, so builders and service providers could ignore them without penalty. Binding standards change that: a building can be refused its completion certificate, and, under the draft, a specialised device bought by the government would have to come from a certified maker. For assistive products the gap is also cost and upkeep: a family pays for a device once, then again for every repair. The larger issue is whether disability rights are treated as enforceable rights or as welfare handed out when budgets allow.

Prelims pointers

  • Section 44, RPwD Act, 2016: no establishment gets building permission or a completion certificate unless its plan follows the Centre's Section 40 rules.
  • Section 45: existing public buildings must become accessible within five years of the rules; Section 46 gives service providers two years.
  • Section 2(r): a person with benchmark disability has not less than 40 per cent of a specified disability, as certified by the certifying authority.
  • Section 74 of the Act lets the Central Government appoint the Chief Commissioner, assisted by two Commissioners, one of whom must be a person with disability.
  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 December 2006; Article 20 covers personal mobility and affordable mobility aids.
  • WHO Priority Assistive Products List (2016): 50 products chosen for need and impact; a model for national lists, not a restrictive one.
  • ICMR's National List of Essential Assistive Products holds 380 products; its 2023 priority exercise used four indicators: demand, burden, impact and cost-effectiveness.

Practise a UPSC-style question

Consider the following statements about the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:

1. Section 40 requires the Centre to frame accessibility rules in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission.

2. Section 45 requires existing public buildings to be made accessible within five years of the rules' notification.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. (a) 1 only
  2. (b) 2 only
  3. (c) Both 1 and 2
  4. (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Show the answer

Answer: (b) 2 only

Answer: (b) 2 only. Section 40 rules are framed with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, not the NHRC.

Statement 1: incorrect. Section 40 of the RPwD Act, 2016 has the Central Government consult the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Statement 2: correct. Section 45 allows a period not exceeding five years from notification of the rules, with case-by-case extensions for States.

Eliminate: Judge statement 1 first: the body consulted under Section 40 is the Chief Commissioner, so statement 1 is incorrect. Out: (a), (c).

Eliminate: Judge statement 2: Section 45 sets five years for existing public buildings. Out: (d).

Trap: Swapped attribution. The NHRC is a familiar rights body, but the Act names its own Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

Remember: Section 40 rules: Centre with the Chief Commissioner; buildings five years (S.45), services two years (S.46).

More Explainers

All Explainers

More Polity current affairs