The Hidden Profit in Accessibility: Why Smart Developers Should Embrace the Digital Curb Cut Effect

"It turns out 'building for the few' was just a clever disguise for accidentally making the product usable for the rest of us!"

Computers, Software, and Digital Interfaces

Imagine a developer building a feature to help a small group of users who cannot use a keyboard. The goal is modest: remove a barrier so that those users can interact with the computer. A few years later, the same feature becomes the preferred way millions of people send messages, dictate notes, and interact with their devices.

This story has repeated itself many times in the history of computing.

Features originally designed to assist persons with disabilities have quietly reshaped mainstream technology. Voice recognition, captions, predictive text, adjustable interfaces, and speech output systems all began as accessibility innovations. Today, they are everyday conveniences used by people who may never have heard the word “accessibility”.

This phenomenon is known as the curb cut effect.

In the first article of this series, we explored curb cuts in the built environment—those small ramps at street corners originally introduced to help wheelchair users navigate sidewalks. Urban planners soon discovered that the ramps also helped parents with prams, travellers with suitcases, delivery workers with carts, and cyclists. What began as a disability accommodation became a universal design improvement.

This article turns to the digital world—computers, operating systems, software applications, smartphones, and other digital devices. Here too, accessibility innovations have repeatedly produced design improvements that benefit everyone.

For developers and technology designers, this history carries an important lesson: accessibility is not merely about compliance. It is often the starting point for the next generation of mainstream technological innovation.

From Pavement to Processor: The Digital Curb Cut

Software development culture often prioritises functionality, speed, and aesthetics. Accessibility is sometimes treated as a secondary concern—something to be added later if time permits. Many development teams still assume that people with disabilities represent a small niche audience.

In reality, that assumption does not hold.

The World Health Organisation estimates that more than one billion people globally live with some form of disability. If temporary or situational limitations are included—such as injuries, ageing, fatigue, environmental constraints, or multitasking—the number of people who benefit from accessible design grows substantially.

Digital technologies interact with human abilities in complex ways. A user may rely on voice input while driving, captions in a noisy environment, or large text on a bright outdoor screen. Accessibility features therefore do not only assist persons with disabilities. They support a wide range of everyday situations.

Just as curb cuts improved the usability of city streets for everyone, accessibility features improve the usability of digital systems.

Why Developers Often Overlook Accessibility

Despite its benefits, accessibility frequently remains underrepresented in software development.

One reason is education. Many programmers receive little or no training in accessibility during their formal studies. Programming courses focus on algorithms, data structures, and software architecture, but rarely discuss inclusive interface design.

Another reason is the invisibility of accessibility barriers. Developers who rely on a mouse and a high-resolution display may never encounter the obstacles faced by users who depend on keyboard navigation, screen readers, voice input, or magnification tools. Without direct exposure, accessibility challenges remain abstract.

Project timelines also influence priorities. Agile development environments reward rapid feature delivery. Accessibility improvements may appear to slow development cycles, particularly if they are introduced late in the process. As a result, accessibility tasks are often postponed or removed from development roadmaps.

Yet this approach ultimately creates weaker products. When accessibility is incorporated early, developers often discover that their systems become more flexible, more robust, and easier to maintain.

Accessibility Innovation: A Brief Historical Perspective

Several important computing technologies originated in efforts to remove barriers for disabled users.

One early example is speech recognition. In 1952, researchers at Bell Laboratories created a system called Audrey that could recognise spoken digits. Although primitive by modern standards, the technology was explored partly as a way to help individuals who could not easily use keyboards or physical input devices. Over the decades, advances in machine learning and processing power have transformed speech recognition into the voice assistants and dictation tools now embedded in smartphones and operating systems.

Another example involves screen-reading technology. In the 1980s and 1990s, developers began creating software that could translate text displayed on a computer screen into synthetic speech. These systems allowed blind users to navigate operating systems and access digital information independently. Today, the same text-to-speech technology powers audiobooks, navigation systems, automated customer service, and digital assistants used by millions of people.

A third example comes from closed captioning. Captions were introduced to make television accessible to Deaf viewers. As digital video platforms emerged, captions became a standard feature across streaming services and social media. A large proportion of caption users today are not Deaf; they simply prefer watching videos silently in public spaces, noisy environments, or workplaces.

These examples illustrate a recurring pattern. Technologies created to remove barriers for specific users often evolve into mainstream tools that redefine how people interact with technology.

The Curb Cut Effect in Computing

The curb cut effect in computing occurs when accessibility solutions address broader human needs. Once introduced, these features often spread far beyond their original purpose.

Several widely used technologies illustrate this pattern.

• Voice Recognition and Voice Typing: Voice recognition systems were initially designed to assist individuals who could not use keyboards due to mobility impairments. Early systems were limited, recognising only small vocabularies or specific commands. Modern systems are vastly more powerful. Smartphones, laptops, and operating systems now include built-in dictation features that allow users to compose emails, messages, and documents through speech.  Outside disability contexts, voice input has become valuable for drivers, cyclists, chefs, journalists, and professionals working in hands-free environments. Many people now dictate messages rather than typing them.  A technology that began as an accessibility solution has become a mainstream interaction method.
• Closed Captions and Subtitles: Closed captions were originally introduced to enable Deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers to access television programming. Over time, legislation in several countries required televisions to include caption decoding capabilities. Today,y captions appear across video platforms, social media, and video conferencing tools.  Their use extends far beyond disability. People watch videos in noisy environments such as airports or public transport. Others view content silently in offices or libraries. Language learners rely on captions to improve comprehension. Captions demonstrate how accessibility features often solve broader communication challenges.
• Predictive Text and Autocomplete:  Predictive text systems were developed to assist users who experienced difficulty typing due to mobility impairments or dyslexia. By suggesting words or phrases, these systems reduce the effort required to enter text.  Today, our predictive algorithms appear everywhere: smartphone keyboards, search engines, email applications, and programming environments. Developers themselves benefit from advanced autocomplete tools embedded in code editors. These tools accelerate programming by predicting functions, variables, and code structures.  Once again, an accessibility-driven innovation has evolved into a universal productivity tool.
• Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard navigation is essential for users who cannot rely on a mouse. Accessible software, therefore, ensures that commands can be executed through keyboard input alone. Over time, keyboard shortcuts became indispensable productivity tools for expert users. Programmers, writers, and designers frequently rely on keyboard commands to perform tasks rapidly without interrupting their workflow. Shortcuts such as copy, paste, undo, and search have become so common that many users consider them fundamental aspects of computing.  
• Dark Mode and Display Customisation:  Display customisation options—such as dark mode, high contrast themes, and adjustable colour settings—were originally introduced to support users with visual impairments or light sensitivity.  Dark mode has now become one of the most widely requested interface features. Many users prefer darker interfaces during evening use or extended work sessions. On certain display technologies, dark themes can also improve battery efficiency. What began as a visual accessibility feature has become a mainstream design preference.
• Text-to-Speech Systems:  Text-to-speech systems convert written content into spoken audio, enabling blind and low-vision users to access digital information. Screen readers built upon these technologies allow users to navigate documents and applications through speech output.  Today, text-to-speech has expanded into many other domains. Audiobooks, voice navigation systems, language learning tools, and automated announcements all rely on similar technologies.  Increasingly, users listen to written content while commuting, exercising, or performing other tasks.
• Adjustable Fonts and Interface Scaling:  Operating systems now allow users to enlarge text, adjust spacing, and modify contrast settings. These features were initially designed for users with low vision.  Yet many others benefit from adjustable interfaces. Ageing populations, users reading on small mobile screens, and individuals working in bright outdoor environments all rely on larger text and improved contrast.  Flexible typography has therefore become a core principle of modern interface design.

Accessibility as a Business Opportunity

Developers sometimes assume that accessibility concerns a relatively small group of users. In reality, accessible design significantly expands the potential user base for digital products.  More than one billion people globally live with disabilities. Many more experience temporary or situational limitations—injuries, fatigue, ageing, environmental noise, or restricted mobility.  Products that accommodate diverse users reach broader markets. They also tend to perform better in unpredictable environments.

Accessible design can therefore produce competitive advantages. Applications that are easier to use attract wider adoption and stronger customer loyalty. Inclusive interfaces also reduce user frustration and support international adoption.  Major technology companies have begun to recognise this relationship. Accessibility is increasingly integrated into product development strategies rather than treated as an afterthought.

The Legal Landscape Is Changing

Accessibility is not only a design consideration. It is increasingly a legal requirement.  Several jurisdictions have extended disability rights legislation into the digital domain. In the United States, courts have interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act to apply to digital services and mobile applications. Similar regulatory frameworks are emerging across Europe.  India’s Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 201,6 recognises the importance of accessible information and communication technologies.

Public procurement policies are also evolving. Governments and large institutions often require software vendors to demonstrate accessibility compliance before purchasing digital systems.  For developers and organisations that ignore accessibility, the legal risks are growing. Litigation and regulatory enforcement actions are increasing, particularly in relation to inaccessible mobile applications and digital services.

Designing Technology for Human Diversity

The history of computing repeatedly demonstrates that accessibility innovations often lead to better technology.  By designing systems that accommodate diverse abilities, developers create interfaces that are more flexible, adaptable, and resilient. Applications that support multiple forms of input—keyboard, touch, voice—are better suited to real-world environments.  Accessibility also encourages designers to question assumptions about the “average user”. In practice, there is no such user. People interact with technology in many different contexts, with varying abilities and constraints.  When developers design for the edges of human experience, they often discover improvements that benefit everyone.

A Message to Developers

For developers and software designers, the lesson of the curb cut effect is clear.  Accessibility should not be treated as a specialised feature or regulatory burden. It should be integrated into the earliest stages of product design.  Developers who embrace accessibility gain an opportunity to build more innovative and widely usable technologies. Those who ignore it risk excluding millions of potential users while missing opportunities for design improvement.

In the physical world, curb cuts transformed the way cities function. In the digital world, accessibility continues to reshape the way we interact with computers.  The next major innovation in user interfaces may well emerge from the same place curb cuts once did: from the effort to remove barriers.

Resources and References

• Byrne-Haber, Sheri. Getting Developers to Care about Accessibility: Carrots and Sticks.
• Level Access. The Curb Cut Effect: How Digital Accessibility Improves UX.
• UsableNet Blog. Disability Pride Month: The Origins of Assistive Technology.
• Rev.com. The History of Closed Captioning.
• Nielsen Norman Group. Dark Mode: Best Practices.
• World Health Organisation. World Report on Disability.
• Apple Assistive Technology Demonstrations.
• World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
• Government of India. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Hidden Profit in Accessibility: Why Smart Builders Are Embracing the Curb Cut Effect

The 'Profit' of Progress: When one small ramp for a man becomes a giant leap for the delivery guy, the tourist, and the rest of the neighbourhood!

Construction shapes the cities where millions live, work and shop. Yet for many builders, features for people with disabilities seem like an extra burden – an unwelcome cost or a design headache. In reality, inclusive design pays off for everyone. The “curb cut effect” shows that when we build with disability in mind, all users benefit. In other words, ramps, lifts and wide doors aren’t just for a few – they make life easier for millions more. 

Designing this way is no fad; it’s a smart, long-term investment. India’s National Building Code (NBC) 2016 is actually built on these universal principles, making accessibility mandatory in every new building.

What Is the Curb Cut Effect?

The curb cut is that small ramp you see on a sidewalk corner. It was created so wheelchair users can easily move between the road and the pavement. But the moment it appeared, everybody started using it – parents pushing strollers, delivery workers with trolleys, travellers with suitcases, even kids on bicycles. This gave rise to the “curb cut effect”: a change intended for a minority (people with disabilities) unexpectedly helps a much larger group.

The curb cut effect reminds us that accessibility is a universal benefit. When we make even one small change – like adding a gentle ramp or an automatic door – it creates ripple effects. As one article puts it, “the curb cut effect” is where “accommodations and improvements made for a minority end up benefiting a much larger population in expected and unexpected ways”. Put simply: design with inclusion, and you make life easier for everyone. It’s not just a feel-good notion – it’s an everyday reality that even able-bodied people rely on every day (often without noticing).

For example, consider elevators. They were once installed primarily to help people who cannot climb stairs. Today, almost everyone uses elevators – parents with prams, the elderly, travellers with heavy bags, or simply tired employees. In fact, an elevator is only one of many curb-cut-style solutions. Automatic doors, audible traffic signals, Braille signage, touch-free dispensers – these all began for accessibility, but now assist many more users.

Universal Design Explained

This idea ties into universal design. Universal design means planning buildings and spaces to work for all people, regardless of age or ability. The NBC 2016 is based on universal design principles. It is the “Constitution” for India’s construction industry – mandatory for all buildings. Architects and engineers who apply universal design essentially build once and serve everyone. The same gentle slope that helps a wheelchair user will help a child with a tricycle; wide doors accommodate not just wheelchairs but also delivery carts and moving furniture. In short, universal design covers people of all life stages: families with infants and elders with walkers alike.

Universal design isn’t just about altruism. It’s about smart planning. A well-designed ramp or handrail might seem like a small item on the blueprint, but it transforms a step into a shared path. As one disability expert notes, “Design that works for everyone will work for you too – not only right now… but also when you are old”. It even matters in emergencies: features that aid evacuation (wider exits, smooth ramps) help everyone during a fire or earthquake. Good design also includes obvious things like non-slip floors (helping older people and movers alike).

In India’s booming cities, where footpaths are often uneven and crowded, the need is urgent. A lack of curb cuts, narrow lanes or blocked doorways can leave many people stranded. Making those paths smooth and ramped improves safety and flow for all pedestrians. Think of busy markets, railway stations or bus stops: removing a single barrier for one user type speeds up the line for everyone. Indeed, after installing ramps and tactile strips in metro stations or train platforms, passenger flow can improve dramatically – trains run on time, and fewer people miss their ride.

Real-World Examples

Builders may find these ideas abstract until they see them in practice. Across India, we find curb-cut effects at work. Consider some cases:

• Indian streets and footpaths: Cities like Chennai and Kolkata have been rebuilding sidewalks with wide pathways, ramps and shade. Initially driven by activists for wheelchair access, these upgrades now help countless others. Mothers pushing baby prams can move freely, delivery men roll carts easily, and senior citizens walk without stumbling over steps. Nearby shops report higher foot traffic (and even higher rents) once the pavements became accessible. In fact, it’s been observed that everyone – “parents pushing prams, commuters with wheeled bags… soon realised how much easier their lives had become”. An accessible footpath truly invites the community in.
• Public transport hubs: Railway stations and bus terminals that add ramps, lifts and tactile paving show the curb-cut effect clearly. For a wheelchair user, a ramp to the platform means independence – no porters required. For all passengers, clear signage and barrier-free lanes reduce confusion and crowding. Studies find that stations with universal design see faster passenger movement and fewer delays. For instance, when a metro added low-floor trains and ramped access, daily ridership climbed – families and the elderly could board as easily as anyone else. These changes often spur local business: better-access stations attract shops and hotels, boosting property values around them.
• Airports and big terminals: India’s major airports have adopted green, universal design. Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International and Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi airports boast ramps, wide corridors and accessible lounges. These features were installed for travellers with reduced mobility, but now everyone uses them. Parents glide through check-in with strollers, business travellers drag suitcases without bottlenecks, and cleaning crews push carts unimpeded. Not surprisingly, these airports have earned top green building awards and high accessibility ratings (Rajiv Gandhi Airport even gained ACI accessibility accreditation). The curb cuts here literally connect gates to runways for the disabled – and that seamless connection flows to all passengers, making travel smoother for thousands daily.
• Malls and workplaces: Commercial centres also reap huge rewards. Take Mumbai’s Phoenix MarketCity, which from day one included ramps to every floor, lowered counters and inclusive restrooms. Wheelchair users can reach every store, blind shoppers navigate via tactile flooring, and mothers with buggies roam freely. In the first year, the mall saw a double-digit rise in footfall and sales as word got out about the easier access. Likewise, Delhi’s Select Citywalk added ramps and automatic doors on popular sections; it found not only compliance with law, but also happier customers and tenants. In offices, the story is similar. Companies that ensure wheelchair access to lobbies and give adjustable-height desks to new parents end up with a more committed workforce. An office campus that installed lifts on every floor saw stair fatigue drop and overall productivity hold strong across diverse teams.

These examples share one trait: smart design attracts more users and revenue. Every time we’ve made a building more accessible, we’ve effectively opened it to an additional segment of society. Wheelchairs and baby buggies aside, these features help people carrying heavy loads, nerves on edge or just in a hurry – essentially, most users most of the time.

Legal Requirements: Comply and Thrive

Beyond good sense, law requires it. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) explicitly mandates barrier-free design. Section 44 makes it clear that no new building plan can be approved unless it meets the accessibility standards set by government rules, and no occupancy certificate can be issued otherwise. In practice, this means that any architect or developer in India must include ramps, lifts, grab-rails, wide doors (typically 1.8 m minimum) and other features in their plans. All of this is also spelt out in the harmonised guidelines (2021) and NBC 2016.

Failing to comply is risky business. Governments can impose fines, issue stop-work orders, or demand costly retrofits if a building is not accessible. A non-accessible design could even stall your project’s approval. By contrast, building to code yields immediate benefits: your project sails through inspections, qualifies for green-building incentives, and earns public goodwill. Some state programs even offer tax rebates or priority lending for universally designed projects. In short, complying with the law is simply another way of future-proofing your asset. When accessibility rules are followed from the start, inspectors smile – and so do long-term tenants and customers.

The Business Case and Long-Term Wins

Accessibility is not just an obligation or a cost – it is a sound business decision. Consider the marketplace: persons with disabilities make up roughly 10–15% of our population, plus a large and growing number of seniors and families. Serving this community without extra effort is like unlocking a massive new customer base. When none are left out, everyone else benefits, and a building enjoys fuller occupancy at all ages.

Moreover, retrofitting an existing structure is typically far more expensive than including a ramp or lift in the first place. Some estimates suggest that doing the job twice can cost 20–30% more over a building’s life. So by adding a couple of percentage points to your initial budget (for example, a ramp might add 1–2% to construction cost), you skip the headache and expense of later rework. It’s literally cheaper to build it right at the outset.

Other payoffs include brand value and market appeal. An accessible building stands out as modern and caring. Investors, tenants and shoppers prefer spaces that welcome everyone – from wheelchair-using employees to grandparents with grandchildren. In fact, buildings with good access often command higher rents and attract premium clients. They also tend to age well; as trends change, inclusive buildings remain relevant. (Imagine your project 20 years from now: India’s seniors will be a significant demographic by then. Universal design now means you won’t have to renovate again to meet their needs.)

Benefits at a glance: - Wider market: Families, the elderly, visitors and more. Everyone spends money.\

• Higher returns: More footfall and satisfied tenants mean better revenues and rental values.
• Cost savings: One build now avoids costly retrofits later.
• Positive image: Compliance shows quality and earns green/CSR awards.
• Full compliance: No budget held up by legal rejections or fines.

As Jo Chopra McGowan (an expert cited above) notes bluntly, adding inclusive features is not an extravagance – “it’s the cost of building”. In other words, if you omit a ramp, you’re actually short-changing your structure’s value.

Start Today

If you’re planning a new project, ask yourself: Can everyone use this space? If not, add that missing ramp or widen that doorway now. Check your floor plans against the RPwD Act and NBC guidelines. Talk to your clients about accessibility – reassure them that it’s a long-term win, not a sunk cost.

Accessible design is like good insurance: you may never feel the need, but you’ll never regret having it. Imagine needing a ramp someday yourself – you’d want that little slope in place. Better to build it and not need it than need it and not have it.

In the end, building with universal design is simply smart business. It gets you law-abiding approvals, opens doors to more customers, and creates spaces that stand the test of time. 

Resources 

• https://www.changeincontent.com/the-curb-cut-effect-disability-design/
• https://www.archdaily.com/1005564/the-curb-cut-effect-how-accessible-architecture-is-benefiting-everybody
• https://idronline.org/article/diversity-inclusion/universal-design-in-architecture-benefits-everyone/
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf

An Open Letter on Transgender Law Reform, Accessibility, and Constitutional Equality in India

 To:

Dr Virendra Kumar,
Hon’ble Minister
Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India
Room No. 201, C‑Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110001, India

Subject: Concern over Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 and related disability issues

Hon’ble Minister,

I  write as a disability rights advocate deeply concerned for the welfare of the transgender community. I applaud the government’s historic achievements: from the Supreme Court’s NALSA ruling recognising transgender persons’ rights, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 and recent welfare schemes such as the National Council for Transgender Persons and the SMILE scheme launched by your Ministry. These have been important steps towards inclusion. However, I am alarmed that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced by your Ministry, would require transgender individuals to obtain identity certificates only after approval by a designated medical board.

This medical‑board‑centred approach is deeply troubling from a human‑rights and disability‑studies perspective. Transgender people already face social stigma; subjecting them to intrusive examinations would reinforce a medical model of identity that depends on “certification” by doctors, instead of respecting the self‑perceived identity that the original Act had affirmed in line with NALSA. In effect, trans persons with disabilities would suffer a double burden: first, to prove their disability, often repeatedly, to access the 5 per cent reservation and other entitlements, and then to prove their gender identity as well. Nothing in disability rights law justifies such additional gates. Courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have repeatedly said that disability should not bar someone from education or employment unless it truly prevents them from performing essential duties; they have emphasised functional assessment and reasonable accommodation over rigid exclusions. By that logic, endless reassessments simply because a person is transgender or disabled violate both dignity and rights.

Real‑world experience from disability certification already shows the dangers of this model. NEET qualifiers with disabilities have been forced to travel across states for repeated assessments, even when they already hold permanent certificates and UDID cards. One visually impaired student, Lakshay Sharma, topped NEET but was told by a hospital board that he had “0 per cent” disability for quota purposes, until he went back for reassessment and finally regained recognition of 40 per cent disability after much effort and public scrutiny. Disability rights activists report that every year, persons with disabilities face unnecessary hassles, conflicting opinions from different boards and avoidable legal fights just to secure what the law already promises them.

Even interim guidance from the Supreme Court directions on NEET, requiring boards to focus on functional capacity and not use the 40 per cent benchmark as a blunt bar, is being ignored in practice. Reports and testimonies show wheelchair users being asked to walk, candidates cleared by one state being rejected in another, and young students being humiliated in the name of “fitness”. Expecting the same medical board system to handle transgender identity certificates will simply reproduce these insensitivities in a new context. As Dr Satendra Singh and many others have warned in the context of NEET, every additional medical or bureaucratic hurdle entrenches stigma, wastes years of people’s lives, and deters capable candidates. 

I must emphasise that none of this is to question the government’s intent. Protecting vulnerable persons from exploitation, including trafficking and forced procedures, is a worthy goal; stronger penalties for coercion are understandable. The aim of your Ministry’s welfare initiatives for transgender persons, including SMILE and the National Portal for Transgender Persons, is also commendable. My concern is that we must not confuse identity with a medical condition. Under the disability framework, the rules make it clear that once a disability certificate is issued by a competent authority, it is generally meant to be valid for all purposes, so that people can apply for schemes and benefits without facing constant re‑testing. The 2019 Transgender Persons Act similarly allowed self‑identification via a certificate from a District Magistrate; an administrative process, not a medical examination.

On paper, a uniform national procedure for transgender ID certificates might look like a way to ensure transparency. In practice, requiring all trans persons to go through state hospitals and medical boards risks recreating the very gatekeeping that the old, narrow, binary view of gender imposed on them. It will delay legal recognition of transgender identities and expose people to invasive questioning and examinations. Furthermore, I am worried that the proposed definition of a transgender person is becoming far too narrow. By focusing primarily on specific socio-cultural groups or those who have undergone medical procedures, we are effectively erasing transgender men, non-binary persons, and genderqueer individuals who do not fit a specific transfeminine stereotype. This looks less like broadening recognition and more like stripping it away from many who exist in India’s diversity.

I am also concerned about the introduction of vague offences related to "inducement" or "allurement" regarding how a person dresses or presents their gender. Without clear data or community consultation, such broad language risks arbitrary enforcement against the most vulnerable members of the community who are simply trying to live their lives.

My plea is that the Ministry rethink these provisions. I respectfully urge you to refer the Amendment Bill to a Standing Committee for deeper reconsideration. I request that you build further on the existing Act’s social‑rights framework: ensure that transgender persons can continue to self‑declare identity through a simple, accessible administrative process, and focus State energy on social support, non‑discrimination and access to services, rather than medical confirmation. Where genuine mischief, such as forced gender‑related procedures or trafficking, is a concern, existing criminal law and the stronger offences already proposed in the Amendment can and should be used; ordinary transgender people should not be treated as potential offenders or frauds because of these extreme cases. Inclusive policy should empower identity, not police it.

I hope it reaches your desk and prompts a careful reconsideration in Parliament. Our communities believe in dialogue and respect for evidence; many government documents and surveys already show broad public support for reducing stigma around disability and gender diversity.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Nilesh Singit

https://www.nileshsingit.org/

AI for All? An Open Letter to PM Modi on Disability Bias in India's AI Future

 In a compelling open letter dated February 24, 2026, to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, distinguished disability rights researcher Nilesh Singit challenges the notion of "AI for All" amid India's ambitious AI push. Referencing the India AI Impact Summit 2026's sign language AI demonstration and a recent Moneylife article on technoableism, Singit highlights how AI systems absorb societal biases, scaling exclusion for persons with disabilities through default designs that overlook diverse needs. He calls for proactive measures: embedding accessibility standards, conducting disability impact assessments, auditing datasets for bias, and including disability expertise in AI governance bodies. Drawing from lived experience and aligned with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and UNCRPD obligations, the letter urges structural inclusion over symbolic gestures to align technological leadership with social justice. For deeper insights into disability bias in AI, visit The Bias Pipeline. 

Click here to read the full letter.

Designing for Everyone Is Not a Slogan: What Recent Indian Developments Mean for the Built Environment

The Continuous Path: Systemic Inclusion in Modern Architecture

In recent years, conversations around accessibility in India have become more visible. Institutions speak of inclusion, new developments refer to universal design, and public discourse increasingly acknowledges that the built environment must respond to a wider range of users. Yet visibility alone does not transform experience. Many environments that claim to be inclusive remain difficult to use in practice.  The challenge before India is not whether accessibility should exist, but how it should be understood. If it continues to be treated as a matter of compliance or isolated provision, its impact will remain limited. If, however, it is recognised as a design condition — something that shapes how spaces are conceived — then accessibility can fundamentally improve how environments function for everyone.

Recent national discussions, including those that arose in connection with the Rajive Raturi proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the research initiative Finding Sizes for All developed by the Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR, have drawn attention to precisely this shift: accessibility must move from token provision to systemic thinking.

This is not a legal transition alone. It is a design transition.

The Limits of “Standard Solutions”

Accessibility is often reduced to a predictable set of features — a ramp, an accessible toilet, a lift, a designated parking space. These elements are necessary, but they are not sufficient. When treated as add-ons, they operate in isolation from the spatial logic of the building.

Consider a large institutional campus. A ramp may exist at the entrance, yet pathways between buildings involve uneven surfaces, long gradients, or unclear direction. A lift may be available, but reaching it requires navigating a confusing sequence of corridors. Facilities may technically meet dimensional standards, yet remain impractical because they are poorly located or disconnected from everyday movement patterns.

The difficulty lies not in the absence of features, but in the absence of continuity.

Standard solutions cannot address environments that are complex, layered, and heavily used. Accessibility must therefore be approached as an organising principle rather than a collection of components.

From Dimensions to Experience

Traditional approaches to accessibility focus on measurements: widths, heights, slopes, and turning radii. These are important, but they describe only the geometry of space, not how space is experienced.

Usability depends on factors that measurements alone cannot resolve:

• The distance a person must travel without rest or orientation.

• The clarity with which destinations are understood.

• The predictability of transitions between indoor and outdoor areas.

• The relationship between circulation routes and services.

• The ease with which assistance can be sought if required.

An environment may satisfy every prescribed dimension and still be exhausting, disorienting, or exclusionary.

Designing for everyone therefore requires moving beyond the question, “Does it comply?” to the more meaningful one, “Does it work?”

The Indian Built Environment: Scale and Diversity

India presents a uniquely demanding context for accessibility. Developments are often large, multi-functional, and intensely used. Educational campuses accommodate thousands of students; hospitals manage continuous public flow; transport hubs connect diverse populations across long distances.

In such environments, accessibility cannot be inserted retrospectively without creating fragmentation. Each addition risks becoming an isolated adjustment rather than part of a coherent system.

The work emerging from research such as Finding Sizes for All has emphasised that Indian environments must respond to variability — in body types, mobility patterns, climate conditions, and patterns of use. Designing for uniformity in such a context is ineffective; designing for range is essential.

Accessibility as a System, Not an Element

When accessibility is integrated early, it shapes how the entire environment is organised:

• Routes are planned as continuous networks rather than disconnected segments.

• Entrances align with natural movement rather than requiring detours.

• Facilities are placed where they are actually needed.

• Landscapes, buildings, and infrastructure function together.

• Wayfinding is embedded in spatial clarity rather than dependent on signage alone.

Such integration benefits all users, not only those who identify as persons with disabilities. Older persons, families with children, temporary injuries, and even those carrying luggage experience the environment differently when it is designed with range in mind.

Accessibility, in this sense, becomes synonymous with good planning.

Why Retrofitting Cannot Deliver the Same Outcome

Retrofitting remains necessary for older structures, but it is inherently constrained. Once a building’s structure, levels, and services are fixed, change becomes reactive rather than generative.

Retrofitted environments often reveal tell-tale signs:

• Secondary entrances used as accessible routes.

• External ramps added without integration into landscape design.

• Altered interiors that disrupt circulation.

• Facilities that meet standards but feel marginal.

By contrast, when accessibility informs the original design, it is invisible — not because it is absent, but because it is integral.

The Emerging Expectation: Inclusion as Normal Practice

What recent Indian discourse signals is not merely regulatory attention but a cultural expectation that public environments must anticipate diversity. Institutions and developers increasingly recognise that accessibility is tied to credibility, longevity, and public engagement.

Design teams are therefore being asked to think differently:
not how to correct exclusion after construction,
but how to avoid producing it in the first place.

This requires collaboration across disciplines — architecture, planning, engineering, and user experience — rather than delegating accessibility to a late-stage audit.

Designing for Range Rather Than Average

Much conventional design assumes an “average user.” Accessibility challenges this assumption by recognising that no such average exists. Human bodies, abilities, and interactions with space vary widely, and environments must accommodate that variability.

Designing for range does not dilute architectural intent; it strengthens it by making spaces more adaptable, resilient, and humane.

An accessible campus is easier to navigate.
An accessible hospital is less stressful to use.
An accessible transport system is more efficient for everyone.

These outcomes are not specialised benefits. They are indicators of quality.

A Shift in Professional Responsibility

The responsibility for accessibility cannot rest solely on enforcement or audit mechanisms. It must be internalised within design practice itself.

When architects and planners begin to treat accessibility as a parameter equal to structure, climate response, or safety, it ceases to be an external demand and becomes part of professional judgement.

India’s current moment of rapid construction offers an opportunity to make this shift deliberately rather than retrospectively.

Conclusion: From Awareness to Integration

Accessibility in India is no longer an unfamiliar concept. The task now is to translate awareness into environments that function seamlessly for diverse users.

Designing for everyone is not a slogan to be applied at the end of a project. It is a way of thinking that must begin at the first sketch — when decisions are still fluid and inclusion can be embedded without compromise.

If accessibility is considered early, it improves design.
If considered late, it attempts repair.

The choice between those approaches will shape how inclusive India’s future built environment truly becomes.

Suggested Reading

For readers interested in exploring these questions further:

• Built environment accessibility guidelines issued by Government of India ministries addressing planning and infrastructure.

• Research publications and design studies developed under the Centre for Disability Studies, NALSAR.

• International literature on universal design and inclusive spatial planning.

• Technical discussions on campus-scale accessibility and transport environment usability.

• Comparative studies examining lifecycle outcomes of integrated versus retrofitted accessibility approaches.

Accessibility Is Not a Retrofitting Exercise: It Must Begin at the Drawing Board

Across India, accessibility is still widely misunderstood as a corrective measure — something to be “added later” once a building is complete. A ramp is inserted near the entrance, a toilet is relabelled, a lift button is lowered, and the project is declared accessible. Yet anyone who has attempted to use such spaces knows that these adjustments rarely produce environments that are genuinely usable.

Accessibility cannot be retrofitted into a design that was never conceived with diverse users in mind. It must be embedded at the conceptual stage, when circulation, spatial hierarchy, services, and human interaction with the building are first imagined. When inclusion is postponed, it becomes expensive, technically compromised, and frequently symbolic rather than functional.

The Persistent Myth of Post-Construction “Fixes”

The belief that accessibility can be added later stems from two assumptions: first, that accessibility concerns only a small minority; and second, that it involves isolated physical features. Both assumptions are flawed.

Built environments are not experienced in fragments. A ramp that leads to a heavy manual door, followed by a narrow corridor, an inaccessible reception desk, and confusing wayfinding does not create access. It creates a sequence of barriers. Retrofitting often addresses one point of failure while leaving the rest of the journey intact — and exclusionary.

When accessibility is introduced after construction, designers must work against decisions already locked into the structure: plinth heights, column grids, service shafts, toilet layouts, fire exits, and level differences. At that point, meaningful change is constrained by what has already been built.

The Cost of Delay: Financial and Spatial

It is commonly believed that incorporating accessibility early increases project costs. In practice, the reverse is true.

During the design stage, inclusive planning usually involves adjustments in geometry, alignment, and specification — decisions that cost little to implement on paper. Once construction is underway, however, even minor corrections can require demolition, regrading, relocation of services, or structural alteration. What could have been achieved through thoughtful layout becomes a logistical and financial burden.

For example:

• Designing a step-free entrance at the outset requires alignment of site levels.

• Introducing it later may require external ramps, drainage reworking, and façade modification.

• Planning accessible toilets from the beginning affects partition placement.

• Attempting to enlarge them later disrupts plumbing, finishes, and circulation.

Early decisions shape the entire lifecycle cost of accessibility.

Accessibility as Spatial Logic, Not Equipment

Another reason retrofitting fails is that accessibility is treated as the installation of elements rather than the shaping of relationships between spaces.

True accessibility is about:

• How one arrives at a building.

• How one understands where to go.

• How easily one can move between functions.

• How independently one can use facilities.

• How safely one can exit in an emergency.

These are questions of spatial logic, not accessories.

If corridors are too long without rest points, lifts are hidden, signage lacks clarity, or transitions between buildings involve level changes, no amount of later modification can fully resolve the experience. Accessibility must therefore be conceived as an organising principle — a way of structuring movement and perception.

The Indian Context: Rapid Construction, Limited Integration

India is currently witnessing an unprecedented expansion of educational campuses, healthcare institutions, transport hubs, and commercial developments. Much of this growth is driven by tight timelines and standardised construction models. Accessibility is frequently introduced only when approvals, certifications, or complaints demand it.

This reactive approach produces environments that technically satisfy requirements yet remain difficult to use in practice. Large campuses often reveal discontinuities between buildings; transport interchanges provide access at entry but not at transition points; institutional spaces treat accessibility as an isolated compliance package rather than an integrated system.

The challenge is not absence of intent, but absence of early engagement.

Why the Drawing Board Is the Most Powerful Moment

The conceptual design phase offers a unique opportunity: nothing is fixed, yet everything is possible. Decisions taken here determine whether accessibility will be seamless or forced.

At this stage, designers can:

• Align entrances with natural pedestrian movement.

• Establish step-free circulation networks.

• Integrate vertical movement logically within building cores.

• Plan sanitary facilities where they are actually needed.

• Ensure gradients, surfaces, and transitions are inherently usable.

• Coordinate landscape and architecture to function as one system.

When accessibility informs these foundational choices, it disappears into the design — not because it is absent, but because it is naturally accommodated.

Moving From Compliance to Usability

Compliance frameworks are necessary, but they represent minimum thresholds. Usability asks a different question: can a wide range of people actually use this environment without assistance?

A compliance-driven retrofit may achieve dimensional correctness. A usability-driven design considers human diversity — mobility, ageing, temporary injury, sensory differences, and the simple unpredictability of everyday life.

Buildings that are usable tend also to be:

• Easier to navigate.

• Safer in emergencies.

• More comfortable for all occupants.

• More adaptable over time.

Thus accessibility, when planned early, strengthens overall design quality rather than constraining it.

Institutional Projects: The Multiplier Effect

Large institutions illustrate the importance of early planning most clearly. Universities, hospitals, and public facilities function as interconnected environments rather than single buildings. If accessibility is not embedded at the planning stage, barriers multiply across distances, levels, and services.

Retrofitting one building at a time cannot resolve systemic issues such as:

• Disconnected pedestrian routes.

• Inconsistent level management.

• Fragmented signage strategies.

• Transport drop-offs that do not relate to entrances.

• Variations in usability between old and new blocks.

Early accessibility planning allows such environments to function coherently as campuses rather than collections of structures.

The Role of Design Teams and Developers

Accessibility should not be viewed as an external audit imposed late in the project. It is most effective when design teams engage with it as part of their own decision-making process.

Developers increasingly recognise that inclusive environments:

• Enhance long-term asset value.

• Reduce later modification liabilities.

• Improve public perception and usability.

• Support demographic realities such as ageing populations.

When accessibility expertise is consulted during planning rather than after completion, it becomes a collaborative design tool rather than a corrective mechanism.

From Adjustment to Intention

Retrofitting will always remain necessary for older environments. However, new construction offers a choice: continue repeating patterns that require later correction, or shift towards intentional inclusion from the outset.

Designing access from the beginning does not require radical change. It requires a different sequence of thought — one that asks, early on, who the building is for and how it will actually be used.

When accessibility begins at the drawing board, it ceases to be a special feature. It becomes part of how architecture works.

---

Suggested Reading

Readers wishing to explore these ideas further may consult widely recognised guidance on inclusive design, built environment usability, and universal design approaches, including:

• National accessibility guidelines issued for built environment planning in India.

• Technical provisions within India’s building regulatory framework addressing access and circulation.

• International good practice documents on usability and universal design principles.

• Research literature examining the relationship between spatial planning and inclusive participation.

• Studies on lifecycle cost comparisons between early integration and post-construction modification.

Employment as Applause: When Disability Inclusion Becomes Institutional Self-Congratulation

I. Introduction: Locating the Vantage Point

Conversations on disability and employment in India are rarely short of intent. They are, however, persistently short of consequence. Policy documents, corporate diversity statements, and institutional reports repeatedly affirm the importance of including persons with disabilities in the workforce, yet the lived reality of employment remains fragile, episodic, and conditional.

This article proceeds from a specific vantage point: empirical and legal work emerging from the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) at NALSAR University of Law, including findings from the Finding Sizes for All (FSA) research. These findings do not claim to exhaust the field of disability and employment. Their value lies elsewhere. They reveal a recurring institutional orientation towards employment—one that treats inclusion as an achievement to be applauded, rather than a condition to be sustained.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), read together with India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), establishes employment as a matter of enforceable equality. Yet, in practice, employment for persons with disabilities continues to operate as a conditional benefit—extended, withdrawn, and re-extended at the discretion of employers and administrators.

This article argues that disability inclusion in employment has increasingly become a site of institutional self-congratulation. Hiring is treated as proof of virtue; retention is rendered optional. The result is a system that celebrates entry while normalising exit.

II. The Legal Architecture: Employment Is Not Aspirational

It is necessary to begin with the legal baseline, because discussions on disability and employment often proceed as though inclusion were merely a matter of good practice, ethical commitment, or managerial benevolence.

The RPwD Act, 2016, marks a decisive shift in Indian disability law from a welfare-oriented framework to a rights-based regime grounded in equality and non-discrimination. Several features of the Act are directly relevant to employment.

First, the Act explicitly prohibits discrimination in employment, including discrimination arising from the denial of reasonable accommodation. Discrimination is defined broadly, capturing not only intentional exclusion but also practices and conditions that have the effect of disadvantaging persons with disabilities. This aligns with the UNCRPD’s emphasis on substantive equality rather than formal parity.

Second, reasonable accommodation is framed as a statutory obligation. It is not positioned as a discretionary managerial tool or a charitable adjustment. Failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination under the Act. The legal implication is clear: accommodation is a precondition for equality, not a concession.

Third, the RPwD Act situates employment within a broader framework of dignity, autonomy, and participation in society. Employment is not an isolated policy objective. It is a gateway right. Failure in employment cascades into failures in social protection, independent living, and community participation.

The UNCRPD reinforces this architecture. Article 27 recognises the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others, in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive, and accessible. States Parties are obligated not merely to promote employment but to safeguard the conditions under which employment can be sustained, including through reasonable accommodation and protection against discrimination.

Taken together, these instruments establish a clear proposition: employment for persons with disabilities is not aspirational. It is justiciable.

III. What the Evidence Shows: Employment as an Episodic Event

Despite this legal clarity, findings emerging from CDS research, including the Finding Sizes for All study, reveal a persistent and troubling pattern.

Employment interventions for persons with disabilities overwhelmingly prioritise entry. Skill development programmes, certification initiatives, placement drives, and recruitment targets dominate both public and private sector approaches. Entry into employment is treated as the primary marker of success.

What remains weakly addressed is continuity.

Retention, career progression, workplace adaptation, and long-term security are rarely embedded into programme design or institutional accountability. Monitoring mechanisms often end shortly after placement. Enforcement mechanisms rarely extend beyond initial hiring.

When employment relationships break down—due to inaccessible work environments, withdrawal of accommodation, or hostile organisational cultures—the system offers little recourse beyond informal negotiation or exit.

From a legal standpoint, this represents a fundamental misreading of equality. The right to employment under the RPwD Act is not a right to be hired once. It is a right to participate in work on an equal basis over time.

The episodic nature of employment has direct implications for social protection. When employment collapses, responsibility for financial and care support shifts back to families, often without formal recognition or support. Social protection thus becomes privatised, gendered, and uneven.

This is not a failure of individual resilience. It is a structural design flaw.

IV. Reasonable Accommodation: Law in Text, Discretion in Practice

Perhaps the clearest illustration of the gap between law and lived reality lies in the treatment of reasonable accommodation.

Legally, reasonable accommodation is mandatory. Operationally, it remains discretionary.

Findings from Finding Sizes for All indicate that accommodation is frequently negotiated on an individual basis, dependent on managerial goodwill, budgetary flexibility, or organisational culture. Accommodations may be provided temporarily, informally, or conditionally. They may be withdrawn when personnel change or when financial priorities shift.

This produces a legally perverse outcome: a statutory right whose enjoyment depends on institutional mood.

When accommodation is treated as an exception rather than infrastructure, the burden of adjustment shifts back onto the disabled worker. Individuals are expected to compensate for inaccessible systems through personal resilience, improvisation, or silence. The workplace itself remains unchanged.

From a doctrinal perspective, this undermines the very purpose of reasonable accommodation. Accommodation is not meant to reward deserving individuals. It is meant to internalise equality into organisational design.

V. Social Protection After Failure: A Backward Logic

Social protection frameworks for persons with disabilities in India continue to operate largely as post-failure compensation mechanisms. Pensions, allowances, and family-based support systems are activated after employment has failed or become impossible.

The CDS findings expose the limits of this model. When employment collapses due to lack of accommodation or a hostile work environment, social protection addresses income loss but not the structural exclusion that produced the loss.

This approach inverts the logic of rights-based inclusion. Instead of stabilising employment through proactive support, the system compensates individuals after exclusion has already occurred.

Legally and normatively, this is backwards.

Social protection ought to be attached to employment continuity. It should support accommodation costs, protect workers from attrition caused by structural design failures, and ensure predictability rather than churn.

When social protection is decoupled from employment stability, the State meets its formal obligations while outsourcing the consequences of failure to families and civil society.

VI. Community Inclusion at Work: Beyond Cultural Framing

Community inclusion is often discussed in cultural terms—belonging, attitudes, and sensitivity. While these dimensions matter, they are insufficient from a legal standpoint.

In employment, community inclusion is about equal participation without penalty.

If disabled employees remain concentrated in limited roles, excluded from advancement, or evaluated against norms they were never accommodated to meet, inclusion has failed regardless of intent.

The RPwD Act does not require disabled workers to be inspirational. The UNCRPD does not require gratitude. What the law requires is equality in participation and opportunity.

Community inclusion that only survives during diversity days, leadership speeches, or pilot projects is not genuine inclusion. It is performance.

VII. From Goodwill to Governance: Three Legal Thresholds

It is therefore necessary to move beyond recommendations framed as best practices and articulate clear legal thresholds.

First, employment must be treated as a continuing right, not a placement outcome. Monitoring, enforcement, and accountability must extend beyond entry into employment.

Second, reasonable accommodation must be operationalised as enforceable infrastructure. It cannot remain discretionary in practice while mandatory on paper.

Third, social protection should be tied to employment continuity rather than compensating for its collapse. Protection must stabilise work, not merely respond to its failure.

These are not new ideas. They are already implicit in Indian law and international obligation. What is missing is institutional seriousness.

VIII. Conclusion: When Inclusion Flatters Institutions

Employment for persons with disabilities in India increasingly functions as a moral performance. Institutions congratulate themselves for hiring while leaving underlying structures intact. Inclusion becomes a certificate of good conduct rather than a condition of justice.

Employment, in such a system, is not offered as a right. It is offered as a reward—for the employer’s good behaviour.

That framing explains why so many inclusion efforts fail to endure.

And it brings us to the final reckoning.

If dignity at work survives only on being good,
Then justice has failed—exactly where it should.

A Rejoinder to "The Upskilling Gap" — The Invisible Intersection of Gender, AI, and Disability

 I have written a short rejoinder to @the_hindu’s article on women, AI, and the upskilling gap, to reflect on a question that often remains unaddressed: where do women with disabilities sit in this conversation?

As India debates skills, productivity, and the future of work, it may be worth pausing to examine how time, access, and design operate very differently for disabled women in an AI-mediated economy.

Read the full rejoinder here: click through to the main article → https://hosturl.link/2wnYLY

How Algorithmic Bias Shapes Accessibility: What Disabled People Ought to Know

 How Algorithmic Bias Shapes Accessibility: What Disabled People Ought to Know

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often described as a tool that shall make life easier, faster and more efficient. Yet for many disabled people, AI brings both promise and risk. When algorithms are trained on limited or biased data, or when designers fail to consider diverse disabled experiences, these systems may quietly reproduce old forms of exclusion in new digital forms. Accessibility, therefore, is not simply a technical feature but a matter of rights, dignity and equal participation.

Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), States Parties shall ensure accessible information, communication and technologies. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 carries this obligation into Indian law. Meanwhile, the European Union’s AI Act offers a regulatory model that treats disability bias as a serious risk requiring oversight. Bringing these frameworks together helps us understand why disabled persons ought to be vigilant about the role AI plays in everyday life.

How algorithmic bias affects accessibility

Algorithmic bias occurs when an AI system consistently produces outcomes that disadvantage a particular group. In the disability context, this may happen when data lacks representation of disabled people, or when models assume “typical” bodies, voices or behaviour. Such bias affects accessibility in very practical ways.

Speech-recognition tools may fail to understand persons with atypical speech. Facial-recognition systems may misclassify persons with facial differences. Recruitment algorithms may penalise gaps in employment history or interpret assistive-technology use as “unusual”. Navigation apps may not consider wheelchair-friendly routes because the training data assumes a walking user. Each of these failures reduces accessibility and reinforces the barriers the UNCRPD seeks to dismantle.

Crucially, these problems are rarely intentional. AI systems do not “decide” to discriminate; rather, they reflect the gaps, stereotypes and exclusions already embedded in data and design. This makes bias more difficult to detect, but no less harmful.

Why this matters for disabled people

Accessibility is not a favour. It is a right grounded in the principles of equality, non-discrimination and full participation. When AI systems shape access to employment, education, public services or communication, biased outcomes can have life-changing consequences.

For disabled people in India, the impact may be even greater. Digital public systems such as Aadhaar-linked services, online recruitment platforms, telemedicine and e-governance tools increasingly rely on automated processes. If these systems are inaccessible or biased, disabled persons may be excluded from essential services by design.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities has warned that AI can deepen inequality if disabled persons are not part of design, testing and oversight. Disability rights organisations must therefore engage proactively with AI governance, insisting on meaningful participation and accountability.

What rights and safeguards exist

The UNCRPD provides a clear rights-based framework: States shall ensure accessibility of ICTs, prohibit discrimination and guarantee equal opportunity. The RPwD Act mirrors these obligations within India. While neither document was written specifically with AI in mind, their principles apply directly to automated systems that determine or mediate access.

The EU AI Act, although external to India, demonstrates how regulation can address disability bias explicitly. It prohibits AI systems that exploit vulnerability due to disability and classifies several disability-related systems as high-risk, subject to strict obligations. Importantly, it permits the use of disability-related data for the purpose of detecting and mitigating bias, provided strong safeguards are in place.

Taken together, these instruments show that accessible AI is not merely a technical ideal; it is a regulatory and human-rights requirement.

What disabled persons and advocates ought to do

Disabled users and organisations shall insist on the following:

1. Inclusive and representative data

Developers must ensure that disabled persons are represented in training datasets. Without such inclusion, AI systems will continue to misrecognise disabled bodies, voices and patterns of interaction.

2. Accessibility-by-design

Accessibility must be built from the outset, not added as an afterthought. This includes compatibility with assistive technologies, multiple input modes and recognition of diverse communication styles.

3. Transparency and oversight

System owners shall explain how AI models work, what data they use and how they address disability bias. Automated decisions affecting rights or access ought to have a human review mechanism.

4. Participation of disabled people

Persons with disabilities must participate directly in design, testing and policy-making processes. Without lived experience informing design, accessibility will remain superficial.

5. Accountability and redress

When AI systems harm or exclude disabled users, there must be clear pathways for complaint, rectification and accountability. Disability rights bodies in India shall integrate AI harms into their oversight.

Moving towards accessible and fair AI

AI can expand accessibility when designed with care: speech-to-text tools, captioning systems, image-to-speech applications and digital navigation aids all hold transformative potential. However, potential alone is insufficient. Without deliberate attention to disability rights, AI may reinforce the very inequalities it claims to solve.

India stands at a critical point. With rapid digitisation and a strong disability-rights framework, it has the opportunity to lead in disability-inclusive AI. Policymakers, designers, researchers and civil-society actors must ensure that systems deployed in public and private sectors respect accessibility, transparency and fairness.

AI shall not decide the terms of accessibility; human judgement, accountability and rights-based governance must guide its development.

Click here to read longer article

Nilesh Singit

https://www.nileshsingit.in/

An Open Letter to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology: A Critique of the India AI Governance Guidelines on the Omission of Mandatory Disability and Digital Accessibility Rules

 To:

The Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)

Government of India, New Delhi

Email: secretary[at]meity[dot]gov[dot]in

I. Preamble: The Mandate for Accessible and Inclusive AI

The recently issued India AI Governance Guidelines (I-AIGG) assert a vision of “AI for All”  [Click here to view document] and commit India to inclusive technology, social goods optimisation, and the avoidance of discrimination. However, the guidelines have failed to operationalise mandatory and enforceable disability and digital accessibility rules – a legal and ethical lapse that undermines both national and international obligations. As a professional engaged in technology policy and disability rights, and in light of the Supreme Court's Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) judgment, this letter outlines why voluntary commitments are insufficient and why robust, mandatory accessibility standards are immediately warranted.​​

II. The Policy Paradox: Aspirational Promises versus Legal Obligations

The I-AIGG framework advances “voluntary” compliance, elevates inclusive rhetoric, and references “marginalised communities” in its principles. However, it neither defines “Persons with Disabilities” (PwDs) nor mandates conformance with domestic accessibility rules, as legally required by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). This introduces a regulatory gap: aspirational principles supplant the non-negotiable legal floor guaranteed to persons with disabilities. Such dilution is legally unsustainable given India’s obligations under the UNCRPD and under Sections 40, 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the RPwD Act.​​

III. The Rajive Raturi Judgment: Reinforcing Mandatory Compliance

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajive Raturi (2024) unambiguously directed the Union Government to move from discretionary, guideline-based approaches to compulsory standards for accessibility across physical, informational, and digital domains. The Court found that reliance on non-binding guidelines and sectoral discretion violated statutory mandates, and it instructed the creation of enforceable, uniform, and standardised rules developed in consultation with persons with disabilities and stakeholders.​​

This is particularly relevant to digital and AI governance, where exclusion can be algorithmic, structural, and scaled, denying access to education, employment, health, and social participation. The judgment refutes the adequacy of sectoral or voluntary approaches – digital accessibility is a fundamental right and non-compliance amounts to denial of rights for PwDs in India.​​

IV. The EU Benchmark: Legal Mandates, Not Discretion

The European Union’s AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and its general accessibility directives establish mandatory, rights-based compliance for digital accessibility. The EU Act:

• Explicitly enforces accessibility as a legal obligation, not a voluntary commitment, anchored in the UNCRPD and Universal Design principles.​​
• Mandates that all high-risk AI systems comply with technical accessibility standards by design, with legal penalties for non-compliance.​​
• Classifies systems impacting education, employment, healthcare, and public services as high-risk, subjecting them to strict regulatory scrutiny.​​
• Prohibits any AI deployment that exploits or discriminates against persons with disabilities, addressing historical and algorithmic bias at source.​​

Thus, the EU approach demonstrates enforceable protection for PwDs, with stakeholder consultation, technical linkage to sectoral accessibility standards, and mechanisms for remediation and complaint.

V. Critique of I-AIGG: Core Deficiencies and Recommendations

1. Absence of Disability-Specific Provisions:
   The term “marginalised communities” is insufficiently specific. India’s legal framework demands explicit protection for PwDs, including reasonable accommodation, accessible formats (such as ePUB, OCR-based PDF), and compliance with domestic (GIGW, Harmonised Guidelines 2021) standards.​

2. No Accessibility-By-Design Mandate for AI:
   While the I-AIGG insists on “Understandability by Design,” it fails to require “Accessibility by Design.” Systems that are explainable but not operable by PwDs remain discriminatory.​​

3. Inadequate Response to Algorithmic Bias:
   AI bias mitigation in the I-AIGG does not extend to underrepresented disability data or to systemic exclusion caused by inaccessible training sets. The EU model, by contrast, mandates active audit and correction for disability-related data bias.​​

4. Weak Grievance Redressal Mechanisms:
   Voluntary or generic redress measures neglect the diversity of disability and the necessity for robust, accessible remedies in every sector where AI is used.​

5. Non-compliance with Judicial Mandate:
   Above all, the approach bypasses the Supreme Court’s explicit instructions to operationalise compulsory rules – an omission that is both ultra vires and constitutionally indefensible.​​

VI. Policy Prescription: Steps Toward Compliance

• Draft and Notify Mandatory AI Digital Accessibility Standards:
  MeitY must codify and enforce AI digital accessibility standards as binding, not optional, rules. These must reference existing Indian standards (GIGW/HG21), adopt international best practices (WCAG), and be technology-agnostic.​​

• Classify High-Risk AI Systems with Disability Lens:
  Mandate Disability Impact Assessments, mirroring the EU approach, for all AI systems deployed in health, education, employment, and public services.

• Institutionalise Disability Rights Expertise:
  Add disability rights experts and diverse PwD representatives to the AI Governance Group and the Technology Policy Expert Committee, to ensure continued compliance monitoring and gap correction.​​

• Mandate Dataset Audits and Privacy Protections:
  Require dataset bias audits for disability, establish anonymisation protocols for disability-rights data, and ensure representation in AI datasets.

• Create Enforceable, Accessible Grievance Redress Channels:
  Grievance and remedy processes must be designed for operability by all 21 disability categories, in multiple formats and languages, with offline options for digitally marginalised users.​​

VII. Conclusion and Urgent Appeal

Presently, the I-AIGG’s disability approach is aspirational, not enforceable; voluntary, not mandatory. This is contrary to the Supreme Court's directive, India's legal obligations, and international best practice. To prevent algorithmic exclusion and rights denial, MeitY must urgently revise the I-AIGG:

• To operationalise mandatory disability accessibility safeguards across all AI and digital systems;
• To implement Disability Impact Assessments as standard in high-risk domains;
• To establish permanent, consultative mechanisms with DPOs and subject-matter experts.
• Failure to act will perpetuate digital exclusion, legal non-compliance, and undermine the promise of “AI for All.” India’s technology policy must embrace enforceable accessibility, both as a legal imperative and a standard of global leadership.

Yours faithfully,

Nilesh Singit

https://www.nileshsingit.in/

---

References

• Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 8 November 2024.​​
• India AI Governance Guidelines: Enabling Safe and Trusted AI Innovation, MeitY, 2025.​​
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and associated Rules.​
• Finding Sizes for All: Report on Status of the Right to Accessibility in India, for facts on digital exclusion.​
• European Union, AI Act 2024 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), especially Recital 80, Article 5(1)(b), Article 16(l).​​
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW).

 

• Open letter references and scope: blog.nileshsingit.org/open-letter-to-niti-ayog-ai-disability-inclusion.​