When a government employee with visual impairment requests screen-reading software to perform their duties, should this be seen as a necessary provision or an “undue burden” on their employer? While the answer might seem obvious, the reality in India’s workplaces is far more complex.
Such reasonable accommodations, vital for fostering an inclusive work environment, often remain aspirational rather than mandatory. As highlighted in the Supreme Court’s 2024 Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), this perception is a significant barrier to realizing disability rights. These accommodations are frequently treated as a “nice-to-have” by businesses and public institutions, rather than an essential “must-have.”
The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) recently issued a circular on September 22, 2025, urging government departments to provide high-quality assistive devices to employees with disabilities. This directive aims to counteract “concerns over bias” that lead some departments to shy away from entrusting significant responsibilities to PwDs, fearing productivity limits. This isn’t a novel instruction; a similar circular was released in February 2024. According to S. Govindaraj, Commissioner in the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), New Delhi, both circulars merely reinforce existing provisions aligned with the “principle of reasonable accommodation” enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This Act notably mandates a 4% job reservation for PwDs in both government and private sectors. However, the repeated issuance of such directives underscores a persistent disparity between policy and actual implementation.
Understanding Legal Frameworks for Reasonable Accommodations
Under Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, 2016, a reasonable accommodation is defined as “any necessary and appropriate modification and/or adjustment” that empowers individuals with disabilities to fully exercise their rights on an equal footing with others, provided it doesn’t impose a “disproportionate or undue burden.” This legal clause clarifies that these provisions are not about offering preferential treatment, but rather about addressing structural and infrastructural shortcomings in workplaces that are not inherently designed for inclusivity. Arman Ali, Executive Director of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), hails this as a “game changer” for disability rights, a principle well-captured in the latest government circular.
Pradeep Raj, a Delhi-based disability rights activist and para-athlete, notes that reasonable accommodation, as a foundational principle, embodies ‘substantive equality.’ This ensures that PwDs are not compelled to conform to existing norms at the expense of their valuable contributions, aligning with the Supreme Court’s accepted interpretation outlined in its Handbook.
Defining ‘Reasonable’ Accommodations in Practice
The scope of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation is extensive and highly individualized, as stipulated by the RPwD Act. It encompasses a wide array of provisions, including the creation of accessible workspaces, offering flexible working hours, integrating assistive technologies, modifying job responsibilities, and/or providing specialized training to meet specific needs.
Mr. Ali emphasizes the crucial distinction between general accessibility and reasonable accommodation. For instance, providing entrance exam papers in accessible formats to a visually impaired student is a basic accessibility measure. However, offering that same paper specifically in Braille upon request becomes a reasonable accommodation, addressing an individual need where general measures might not suffice. The Supreme Court’s Handbook further clarifies that the underlying objective of such additional support is not to grant an unfair advantage but to create a truly level playing field for PwDs.
The Human and Financial Costs of Implementation Gaps
The recent September circular also clarifies budget allocation for these provisions: departments can approve devices up to ₹10 lakh every three years with secretary-level approval, with DEPwD involvement only required for higher amounts or urgent replacements. These allocations are intended for high-quality, need-based provisions determined through individual assessments, steering away from one-size-fits-all solutions.
Despite these guidelines, Commissioner Govindaraj acknowledges persistent delays in executing approved requests. During such periods, necessary job modifications are made to optimize available resources and workforce capabilities. While this move is a positive step, it inadvertently exposes a deeper societal issue: the prevalence of an ableist perspective. The circular explicitly mentions “concerns over bias” among departments, who hesitate to assign significant responsibilities to PwDs due to perceived productivity limitations. Chennai-based social rights activist Deepak Nathan points out that this language reveals how departments continue to view accommodations primarily through a cost-burden lens, rather than recognizing their alignment with an individual’s capabilities and potential contributions.
Mr. Raj further explains that employees already navigate complex procedural obstacles and the emotional toll of constantly justifying their needs. They often bear the brunt of a lack of attitudinal adjustments, which, unlike physical accommodations, incur no financial cost. This highlights a critical need for a cultural shift alongside policy implementation.
Navigating the Fine Line: Accommodation vs. Undue Burden
The Supreme Court, in its landmark 2021 ruling in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Others, clarified that some complications are an inherent part of providing accommodations. Only a “disproportionate or undue burden” can justify a denial, explicitly stating that mere additional effort or complexity is not an acceptable excuse for non-compliance.
In alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the assessment of “undue burden” must consider a broad spectrum of factors. These include financial costs, available resources, the size of the accommodating entity, the impact of the modification, any third-party benefits, potential negative effects on others, and reasonable health and safety requirements.
However, this remains a distant ideal in many workplaces, particularly within the public sector, where accommodations are often dismissed as optional. Mr. Nathan notes that liaison officers frequently lack adequate training on assistive devices and proper accommodation protocols. He suggests that clearer departmental Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and mandatory sensitisation programs could significantly improve this situation. Furthermore, while penalties of up to ₹1 lakh exist, more rigorous and actionable enforcement mechanisms are urgently needed to ensure compliance.
The intent of these policies is robust, and the principle of reasonable accommodation is legally firm. The real challenge lies in transforming these intentions into tangible realities through streamlined processes and robust accountability systems, ensuring that “nice-to-haves” are universally recognized and implemented as the fundamental rights they truly are.