Thu Feb 27 03:00:00 UTC 2025: ## Disability Rights Activists Challenge India’s Data Protection Act
**New Delhi, February 27, 2025** – Disability rights activists are urging the Indian government to amend or remove a key provision in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, arguing it undermines the autonomy of adults with disabilities. The provision, Section 9(1), mandates that consent for the use of personal data of adults with disabilities who have legal guardians must be obtained from the guardian, effectively treating them as incapable of making their own decisions.
While the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is concluding public consultations on the Act’s draft rules by March 5th, concerns remain about the practical implications of Section 9(1). Although the government has attempted to narrow the scope of the provision, activists and experts contend that significant implementation challenges persist.
The Act aims to balance individual data protection rights with the need for lawful data processing. However, critics argue that Section 9(1), by grouping children and adults with disabilities, wrongly assumes all individuals with guardians lack decision-making capacity. This contradicts the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which emphasizes supporting, not supplanting, the autonomy of individuals with disabilities.
A recent report by policy thinktank PACTA and Saksham Disability highlights the issue. Their survey of 91 individuals with disabilities revealed that while many have legal guardians, the reality often sees guardians managing all aspects of their lives, regardless of whether guardianship is limited or full. This practice, the report argues, conflicts with the UNCRPD and denies individuals their autonomy.
Further complications arise from the different types of guardianship under Indian law. The National Trust Act provides for full guardianship, while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act offers limited guardianship, designed to provide support for specific decisions. The lack of clarity on how Section 9(1) interacts with these different guardianship types causes significant confusion.
Activists also point out that the Act fails to address the intersectionality of disability and gender. For instance, a woman with a disability might be unable to purchase sanitary products online due to the requirement for guardian consent.
Nipun Malhotra of the Nipman Foundation, leading the advocacy efforts, criticizes the government’s attempts to clarify the issue through the draft rules, stating that the revised definitions have only increased confusion.
The activists’ primary concerns include the legal obligations of guardians, implementation of the consent clause in light of the UNCRPD, and whether guardians can opt out of consenting for specific platforms. Additionally, the report raises concerns about the collection and storage of disability data by platforms, even when a guardian is not involved.
The ongoing debate underscores the need for a nuanced approach to data protection legislation that respects the rights and autonomy of individuals with disabilities. The lack of accessibility in many digital platforms further exacerbates the challenges faced by this community.
First Piper 