REENA BANERJEE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disability represents a fundamental aspect of human diversity that transcends medical definitions to encompass critical questions of constitutional democracy and social justice. The concept of disability exposes the gap between constitutional promises and lived reality. When legal systems treat disability as a medical problem requiring accommodation rather than a form of human diversity deserving equal participation, they expose their own weaknesses and limitations. Rather than viewing disability as a deficit requiring correction, the law must recognise it as a lens that reveals the true nature of legal, social, and institutional frameworks, illuminating whether they embrace human diversity or create barriers that exclude certain members of society, i.e., those who have been discriminated against by providence or those who have suffered the disability factor during their lifetime.

(2.) The experiences of persons with disabilities demonstrate whether democratic institutions genuinely serve all citizens or whether they are designed around narrow assumptions about human capacity and participation. The principle of accessibility and reasonable accommodation emerges as a fundamental constitutional principle, not merely a technical requirement, but a measure of democratic inclusivity that determines whether all citizens can exercise their constitutional rights meaningfully. When physical spaces, digital platforms, information systems, procedural frameworks, and public hiring lack accessibility, they effectively deny constitutional guarantees of equal participation to persons with disabilities. The absence of accessible design in public institutions, judicial processes, educational systems, and civic spaces constitutes a systemic barrier that transforms constitutional rights into hollow promises. When systems fail to prioritise accessibility from their inception, they reveal fundamental flaws in their conception of citizenship and equality.

(3.) The jurisprudential understanding of disability rights in India and around the world has evolved beyond traditional medical models to the social model, encompassing broader questions of equality, accessibility, and institutional design that strike at the heart of constitutional governance. The lived experiences of persons with disabilities within legal systems serve as a litmus test for constitutional democracy, raising questions if our institutions are structured to facilitate meaningful participation by all citizens or whether they maintain barriers that effectively deny constitutional rights to persons with disabilities.