Then, India's commitment to disability rights took a significant leap when New Delhi ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2006 globally, aligning its national legal framework with bringing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The 2016 Act is considerably more robust, rights-based legislation, shifting the debate from protecting rights to asserting them.

With the shift from 1995 to 2016, several aspects of India's disability law and policy framework were introduced and revised to ensure greater inclusivity. One significant change was replacing the earlier coordination committees with advisory committees at the central and state levels.

Advisory committees have been a vital feature of social legislation. Throughout the 1900s, several Indian laws introduced provisions for these boards, ensuring their consultation before enacting regulations on the legislation's objectives. Whether for laws affecting bidi makers, dock workers, homeless individuals, or others, these advisory bodies have played a crucial role in ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered in policy-making processes.

While the functions of the earlier coordination committees and the advisory board remain largely the same, the earlier committees were to serve as focal points for coordinating disability-related matters. In contrast, the new advisory committees gave this body a more consultative and advisory role to recommend steps to ensure accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and non-discrimination in services and built environment and ensure equal participation in social life as non-disabled bodies.

The rationale behind establishing such bodies lies in recognising the vast social issues that profoundly impact people's lives. Parliament alone cannot feasibly legislate on every nuanced aspect; much of the legislative and implementation responsibilities are delegated to the executive branch. This delegation grants the executive administrative authority, essential for effective governance beyond traditional realms like policing and taxation.

However, as the state enters policy-making, such bodies prevent unchecked discretion and ensure policy-making is informed and participatory.

The earlier and the current advisory bodies are composed of representatives from the state executive and legislature, experts on disability and rehabilitation, district-level representatives, persons with disabilities, and associations working on their rights. However, the new advisory body has notably enhanced its representation of persons with disabilities, increasing from five members to 10. Previously, only one woman was among the five members; now, half of the committee members are women.

Participatory policy-making for persons with disabilities

The critical responsibilities entrusted to central and state-level advisory bodies under the RPD Act 2016 ensure that all policies the state frames are informed by the lived realities of persons with disabilities and geared towards achieving the principles of accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. The bodies also monitor and evaluate the impact of such laws and policies on the lives of persons with disabilities.

In social legislation aimed at marginalised groups, it is crucial that these individuals, along with their lived realities, become integral parts of the political structure and actively engage in setting agendas and contexts. When policies are crafted about them without their input, the existing status quo perpetuates and reinforces their marginalisation. Ensuring inclusive participation empowers marginalised communities and leads to more equitable and effective policymaking. The provision for an advisory body advances the global disability call 'Nothing about us, without us'.

Dr Satendra Singh, advisor of the state commissioner of persons with disabilities, New Delhi, highlights the importance of such advisory boards: “Both Central and state advisory boards are the highest policymaking bodies in states, and the rules mandate an equal representation of all disabilities on a rotational basis in line with 'nihil de nobis sine nobis.' The 14 new disabilities are invisible in driving the policy agenda, but these boards can ensure their voices are heard.”

Advisory bodies present an opportunity to ensure inclusive and representative policy-making. The premise of disability justice lies in challenging abelists norms and practices that ignore the lived realities of persons with disabilities. The participation of persons with disabilities in policymaking is as crucial as

the resulting policies. This involvement not only democratizes the policy process but also highlights the specific types of support that are necessary and meaningful.

State of disability rights in Maharashtra

Recently, the Bombay HC, a division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, heavily criticised the Maharashtra state government. While hearing a matter of bollards on the footpath making accessibility for persons with disabilities an issue, the Court, on the last date of hearing, had asked for the status giving the details of the constitution of and nomination/appointment to the state advisory board of disabilities in terms of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the said Act. It also called for the meeting details to be constituted and the business to be transacted since its formation.

A report on another ongoing matter before the Supreme Court revealed that the States of Andhra Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Ladakh, and Rajasthan still need to constitute State Advisory Boards. While Maharashtra's Board was formed on February 27, 2018, it has been defunct since 2020 due to vacancies among non-official members.

The Bombay HC remarked that the absence of the advisory board deprives the disabled in the State of the benefits they are entitled to and noted: “However, the apathy shown by the state in filling up the vacancies in the board cannot be appreciated.[...]We will give you some more time than 15 days [...] For god's sake, do it by then. We direct that the advisory board shall be constituted and made functional within a month from today.”

According to a Maharashtra State Government report based on pooled data from the NSS 76th survey, persons with disabilities make up 1.9 per cent of the State, with 2.1 per cent in rural and 1.6 per cent in urban areas. Moreover, 6.3 per cent of those aged 60 and above are disabled, while only 64.8 per cent of persons with disabilities aged seven and above are literate.

Remarkably, eight years after the passage of the RPD Act, 2016, Maharashtra remains among the few states that still need to be notified of the required rules under Section 101.

The legislative framework of the RPD Act is designed such that several entitlements and rights can only be meaningfully effectuated when the State formulates and delineates them through these notifications. This prolonged delay hinders the full realisation of the Act’s intended benefits for persons with disabilities, underscoring an urgent need for action.

Despite being the first state to establish a separate ministry for persons with disabilities in 2022 and publishing draft rules in 2023, implementing the RPD Act in its full intent and spirit has been inconsistent.

A social justice organisation working on disability rights in Maharashtra recently held a stakeholder roundtable to address the implementation gaps in the RPD Act 2016 in Maharashtra. The participants voiced two main concerns: the absence of provisions for accessing rights enumerated under the RPD Act, such as legal services and representation (Section 12), and the non-implementation of processes where policy frameworks are already in place, such as disability certification (Section 57).

The absence of adequate rule notifications and the defunct status of bodies such as the state advisory board have left persons with disabilities in Maharashtra in a state of limbo. This starkly highlights the State Government's apathy toward ensuring the rights, dignity, and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in policy-making.

It is pertinent to revitalise the state advisory board, which can then significantly contribute to ongoing advocacy efforts for the notification of rules, ensuring that the voices and experiences of people with disabilities are central to the policy-making process in Maharashtra.

"In the absence of the state rules, advocacy on key issues becomes difficult as there is nothing to base on— no actionable rights, no knowledge of the grievance redressal system, no clarity on whom to reach out to," remarked an expert with a Maharashtra-based organisation working with children with disabilities.

The absence of notified rules and critical bodies like the advisory body highlights the poor implementation of the RPD Act in Maharashtra and the State's non-compliance with its statutory obligations.

The Bombay high court, in a recent directive, echoed an earlier Supreme Court judgment, emphasising: “It would be extremely unfortunate if the Governments concerned voluntarily and knowingly flout the provisions of law solemnly enacted by Parliament. We need say nothing more on this subject, except that laws solemnly enacted by Parliament cannot be insulted by putting hurdles in the effective functioning of these Commissions, such as by not appointing the Chairperson or Members.”

Shrutika Pandey is a lawyer and researcher specialising in access to justice. She engages in developing strategies to advance the rights of undertrial prisoners through legal representation, research, and advocacy. The views expressed are personal.