Mon Nov 03 08:20:01 UTC 2025: ## India Grapples with Implementing Disability Rights in the Workplace
New Delhi – November 3, 2025 – Despite legal mandates and government directives, ensuring “reasonable accommodation” for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in the Indian workplace remains a significant challenge. A recent circular from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) reiterates the need for government departments to provide high-quality assistive devices to employees with disabilities, aiming to address lingering bias and perceived productivity limitations.
The circular, following a similar one issued in 2024, emphasizes the “principle of reasonable accommodation” as enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This act mandates a 4% job reservation for PwDs in both government and private sectors. Reasonable accommodation, according to the Act, refers to necessary modifications and adjustments that enable PwDs to enjoy their rights equally, without imposing an “undue burden” on employers.
Experts emphasize that these accommodations are not special treatment but are intended to level the playing field in workplaces often designed without inclusivity in mind. This includes accessible workspaces, flexible working hours, assistive technologies, and modified job duties.
The latest circular also clarifies budget allocations, allowing departments to approve assistive devices up to ₹10 lakh every three years with secretary-level approval.
However, despite the positive intent, experts and activists point to persistent attitudinal barriers and implementation gaps. Chennai-based activist Deepak Nathan highlights the ableist language within the circular, exposing how some departments still view accommodations as a cost-burden rather than an investment in diverse talent. The lack of training for liaison officers and absent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) further hinder effective implementation.
The Supreme Court has clarified that complications arising from accommodations are inevitable and only a “disproportionate or undue burden” justifies denial. The test of undue burden should consider a broad range of factors, including financial costs, available resources, and potential impacts on others.
While penalties for non-compliance exist, advocates are calling for stronger and more actionable enforcement mechanisms. They argue that simplified processes, improved accountability, and mandatory sensitisation programs are crucial to transforming “nice-to-haves” into fundamental rights for PwDs in the Indian workforce.
First Piper 