Answer

Introduction

Disability in India has long been shaped by constitutional silences and welfare-oriented interpretations. In this context, assessing whether the Constitution views disability as charity rather than a rights claim particularly through Article 41 and recent judicial trends reveals deeper structural biases and evolving correctives.

Body

The Constitution Views Disability Through a Charity Lens

• Article 41’s Welfare Framing: Article 41 groups disability with sickness, and old age, projecting disability as a condition requiring support, not rights
• Placement in State List Entry 9: Disability is clubbed with the “unemployable,” reinforcing stereotypes of disabled persons as unproductive beneficiaries.
• “Valid Discrimination” Allowed: Constitutional provisions permit removal from office due to “infirmity of mind or body”, normalising discrimination.
  Eg: Disability remains a ground for constitutionally sanctioned exclusion.
• Medical Model Governance: Earlier laws like the 1995 PWD Act relied heavily on medical certification, reducing disability to a doctor-determined deficit.
  Eg: Absence of criteria for disability percentage leaves vast discretion with doctors.
• Selective Judicial Sympathy: Courts valorise only ‘ideal’, nationalist-aligned disabled citizens, mirroring a patronising charity mindset.
  Eg: Omkar Ramchandra Gond (2024) praises “shining sons and daughters” but Saibaba and Stan Swamy receive no institutional empathy despite severe disability.

The Constitution Does Not Entirely View Disability Through a Charity Lens

• Expanding Rights-based Interpretations by Courts: Post-RPWD Act, judiciary has delivered increasingly disability-affirming judgments
• Growing Subaltern Constitutional Engagement: Disabled groups today assert rights-based claims, reshaping interpretation beyond charity.
  Eg: The Deaf and Dumb Society petitioned the Constituent Assembly seeking affirmative action, showing early rights discourse.
• Modern Constitutionalism Enables Critique: The Constitution empowers marginalised groups to participate in meaning-making, enabling reinterpretation toward rights.
  Eg: Book Assembling India’s Constitution shows disabled people as constitutional actors engaging in rights advocacy.
• RPwD Act 2016 Reflects Shift to Social Model: The 2016 Act reflects a constitutional modernisation towards equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
• Public Discourse Now Challenges Ableism: Constitutional ableism is increasingly being called out, indicating a shift to rights-driven discourse rather than charity-based silence.

Way Forward

• Constitutional Reframing of Disability: Shift disability from welfare provisions to enforceable rights guarantees.
  Eg: Replace Article 41’s welfare grouping with equality-based protections.
• Removal of Ableist Clauses: Review provisions permitting exclusion based on “infirmity of mind or body”.
• Uniform Social-Model Governance: Ensure laws/schemes recognise barriers, not impairments, as the problem.
• Non-selective Judicial Sensitivity: Courts must protect all disabled persons, not only celebrated achievers
• Institutionalised Disabled Voices: Involve disabled groups in drafting laws and policies.
  Eg: Avoid repetition of Constituent Assembly neglect of the Deaf and Dumb Society’s demands.

Conclusion

Inclusive governance demands moving beyond welfare paternalism to a rights-centred constitutional vision. Recognising disability as a question of justice, not charity, strengthens equality, expands democratic participation, and ensures that India’s constitutional order evolves toward genuine dignity, autonomy, and substantive citizenship for persons with disabilities.

DOWNLOAD PDF