<p>2024 will be remembered as a pivotal year for disability rights in India. The year was replete with significant developments – such as the opening of Miti Café in Rashtrapati Bhavan – that helped further the theme in popular discourse. Even the infamous Puja Khedkar controversy, which sparked heated debates about ableism and inclusivity in public life, underscored the centrality of disability rights in the national conversation. Among these developments, three important judgements stand out, each marking a significant stride towards the realisation of a more inclusive society.</p>.<p>Making cinema accessible: The first quarter of 2024 brought a crucial victory for persons with disabilities in Akshat Baldwa v. Yashraj Films and Ors. This case revolved around the accessibility of films for the visually and hearing impaired. The Delhi High Court delivered its judgement on March 15, directing the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to formulate strict accessibility standards within a time-bound manner. The government was required to draft these standards by July 15, and impressively, they were released on March 15 itself. Under the new guidelines, films released in multiple languages were mandated to include at least one accessibility feature – such as audio descriptions or captions – for the visually and hearing impaired by September 15. Audio description refers to the visual aspects of the film, such as a fight scene, being described in audio form for those who cannot see it. Captions refer to the auditory aspects of the movie – such as the sound of a bottle falling down, being conveyed textually for those who cannot otherwise hear it. Moreover, the guidelines stipulated that all films must incorporate such features across the board within two years.</p>.<p>While this judgement was celebrated as a step in the right direction, the guidelines are far from perfect. They fail to adequately address the need for Indian Sign Language in accessible films. Additionally, the monitoring committee responsible for ensuring compliance is yet to establish its presence meaningfully.</p>.<p>Accessibility across sectors: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India broadened the scope of accessibility standards to encompass all sectors. Delivered by the Supreme Court on November 8 – one of the outgoing CJI D Y Chandrachud’s last judgements – this judgement mandated the formulation of non-negotiable accessibility standards for public infrastructure and services. The Court underscored the need to impose penalties and withhold clearances for non-compliance, aiming to establish accessibility as the default in all new infrastructure projects. If implemented sincerely, this judgement has the potential to ensure that future infrastructure is accessible by design. However, a crucial caveat accompanies this optimistic vision. The process of drafting and implementing these standards must be collaborative and inclusive. For the community to benefit, personal ambitions and egos must be set aside in favour of collective progress.</p>.<p>Breaking barriers in medical education: The final instalment in this trilogy of judgements came in Omkar Gond, Om Rathod and Anmol., a set of cases addressing systemic biases against students with disabilities in medical education. Historically, these students have faced significant barriers to admission in MBBS courses, often being perceived more as patients than as potential doctors.</p>.<p>In these landmark decisions, the Supreme Court, building on previous progressive precedents, emphasised the need for disability-affirming assessments. It directed the involvement of doctors with disabilities as domain experts in evaluating the suitability of candidates with disabilities for MBBS programmes. Moreover, it called for the National Medical Commission (NMC) to adopt more flexible and inclusive guidelines for admission.</p>.<p>While these judgments signal progress, the real challenge lies in their implementation. Accessibility standards, whether for cinema, infrastructure, or medical education, must be enforced rigorously to translate judicial intent into tangible benefits. Historically, well-intentioned judgements have often faltered in execution, undermined by bureaucratic inertia or lack of political will. The judgements of 2024 offer a renewed opportunity to confront these challenges head-on. They call for persistent advocacy, robust monitoring, and sustained collaboration between the government, civil society, and the disability community.</p>
<p>2024 will be remembered as a pivotal year for disability rights in India. The year was replete with significant developments – such as the opening of Miti Café in Rashtrapati Bhavan – that helped further the theme in popular discourse. Even the infamous Puja Khedkar controversy, which sparked heated debates about ableism and inclusivity in public life, underscored the centrality of disability rights in the national conversation. Among these developments, three important judgements stand out, each marking a significant stride towards the realisation of a more inclusive society.</p>.<p>Making cinema accessible: The first quarter of 2024 brought a crucial victory for persons with disabilities in Akshat Baldwa v. Yashraj Films and Ors. This case revolved around the accessibility of films for the visually and hearing impaired. The Delhi High Court delivered its judgement on March 15, directing the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to formulate strict accessibility standards within a time-bound manner. The government was required to draft these standards by July 15, and impressively, they were released on March 15 itself. Under the new guidelines, films released in multiple languages were mandated to include at least one accessibility feature – such as audio descriptions or captions – for the visually and hearing impaired by September 15. Audio description refers to the visual aspects of the film, such as a fight scene, being described in audio form for those who cannot see it. Captions refer to the auditory aspects of the movie – such as the sound of a bottle falling down, being conveyed textually for those who cannot otherwise hear it. Moreover, the guidelines stipulated that all films must incorporate such features across the board within two years.</p>.<p>While this judgement was celebrated as a step in the right direction, the guidelines are far from perfect. They fail to adequately address the need for Indian Sign Language in accessible films. Additionally, the monitoring committee responsible for ensuring compliance is yet to establish its presence meaningfully.</p>.<p>Accessibility across sectors: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India broadened the scope of accessibility standards to encompass all sectors. Delivered by the Supreme Court on November 8 – one of the outgoing CJI D Y Chandrachud’s last judgements – this judgement mandated the formulation of non-negotiable accessibility standards for public infrastructure and services. The Court underscored the need to impose penalties and withhold clearances for non-compliance, aiming to establish accessibility as the default in all new infrastructure projects. If implemented sincerely, this judgement has the potential to ensure that future infrastructure is accessible by design. However, a crucial caveat accompanies this optimistic vision. The process of drafting and implementing these standards must be collaborative and inclusive. For the community to benefit, personal ambitions and egos must be set aside in favour of collective progress.</p>.<p>Breaking barriers in medical education: The final instalment in this trilogy of judgements came in Omkar Gond, Om Rathod and Anmol., a set of cases addressing systemic biases against students with disabilities in medical education. Historically, these students have faced significant barriers to admission in MBBS courses, often being perceived more as patients than as potential doctors.</p>.<p>In these landmark decisions, the Supreme Court, building on previous progressive precedents, emphasised the need for disability-affirming assessments. It directed the involvement of doctors with disabilities as domain experts in evaluating the suitability of candidates with disabilities for MBBS programmes. Moreover, it called for the National Medical Commission (NMC) to adopt more flexible and inclusive guidelines for admission.</p>.<p>While these judgments signal progress, the real challenge lies in their implementation. Accessibility standards, whether for cinema, infrastructure, or medical education, must be enforced rigorously to translate judicial intent into tangible benefits. Historically, well-intentioned judgements have often faltered in execution, undermined by bureaucratic inertia or lack of political will. The judgements of 2024 offer a renewed opportunity to confront these challenges head-on. They call for persistent advocacy, robust monitoring, and sustained collaboration between the government, civil society, and the disability community.</p>
