Justice Beyond Sight; Critical Look At Courts & Law Schools Accessibility Through Lens Of Visually Impaired Law Student
The hallowed halls of justice are meant to be a refuge of equality, where the law's promise of fairness is manifest for all. Yet, for many persons with disabilities, these very halls represent a formidable gauntlet of barriers, both visible and invisible. The paradox of a legal system that champions rights while often failing to provide a truly accessible environment is a reality that I, as...
The hallowed halls of justice are meant to be a refuge of equality, where the law's promise of fairness is manifest for all. Yet, for many persons with disabilities, these very halls represent a formidable gauntlet of barriers, both visible and invisible. The paradox of a legal system that champions rights while often failing to provide a truly accessible environment is a reality that I, as a visually impaired law student, navigate daily. My personal journey has revealed that even in the highest echelons of the judiciary, the gap between the law's intention and its practical application is worlds apart. This reality is a constant reminder that while the law may provide the vision for an inclusive society, the on-the-ground awareness about the basic needs of persons with disabilities is almost non-existent.
India has a robust legal framework, anchored by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), a progressive law that aims to secure the rights and dignity of over 21 million citizens. Section 40 of this Act mandates accessibility in public buildings, and Section 46 requires electronic and print media to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The judiciary itself, through a series of landmark judgments, has unequivocally affirmed that the right to digital access and a barrier-free environment are integral to Article 21 of the Constitution—the fundamental right to life. Yet, as recent rulings have shown, the law on paper and its application on the ground remain worlds apart.
The Foundational Failure: Law Schools as the First Barrier
The challenges we face in courts are not isolated incidents but rather a continuation of a systemic problem that begins at the very source of legal education: the law school. While these institutions are meant to be the breeding grounds for a just and equitable legal fraternity, they often fall short in providing a truly accessible environment for students with disabilities. Many law schools lack accessible infrastructure and technology. More critically, the faculty, staff, and even fellow students are often not sensitized to the specific needs of students with low vision or hearing impairments. This lack of awareness can lead to a hostile academic environment where asking for reasonable accommodations becomes a constant, exhausting struggle.
It is disheartening when professors, who are tasked with teaching justice and rights, are unaware of the provisions of the RPwD Act themselves, particularly those concerning educational institutions. If our own academic institutions fail to uphold the law and create an
inclusive atmosphere, how can we expect the legal profession and the courts to be any different? This systemic failure in law schools is the foundational barrier that a person with a disability must overcome before even entering the legal world.
Physical and Informational Barriers: A Lived Reality
As a law student with low vision, my day-to-day interactions in district courts across India have exposed the stark reality of this systemic neglect. The most immediate challenge is the sheer inaccessibility of information. Display boards announcing case listings and court numbers often feature small, low-contrast text that is impossible to read from a distance. Court documents, filed in small font sizes with faded ink, present a monumental challenge. This is not just an inconvenience; it is a fundamental denial of the right to information.
Beyond visual barriers, there are auditory ones. The lack of a proper microphone system in many courtrooms is a significant barrier for persons with hearing impairments, as well as for those like me who rely on auditory cues. This issue extends to attitudinal barriers. Many judges and court staff speak in a low tone, making it difficult to follow proceedings. While many are not intentionally uncooperative, a widespread lack of awareness means they are not familiar with the simple accommodations that could make a world of difference.
The Digital Gap: From Inclusivity to Exclusion
The challenge of accessibility in Indian courts is a multi-faceted one, a labyrinth of interconnected physical, digital, and attitudinal barriers that render the legal system a difficult terrain for persons with disabilities. The judiciary's push for digitalization, while commendable, has often failed to prioritize accessibility. The recent Supreme Court judgment in Amar Jain v. Union of India, 2025i, correctly identified the "Right to Digital Access as part of Right to Life under Article 21" and laid down a detailed set of directions to rectify this. The court recognized the right to accessible e-KYC for persons with face disfigurement and visual impairment. It also mandated that government websites and digital platforms must adhere to WCAG 2.1 and other national standards. However, the true test of this landmark ruling lies in its implementation. Currently, e-filing systems are often not screen-reader compatible, and court notices are not consistently available in accessible formats. This oversight creates a new form of discrimination, where digital tools, meant to democratize access, end up creating another barrier for persons with disabilities.
The Judiciary as a Protector: Striking Down Discrimination
While the challenges on the ground persist, it is crucial to appreciate the active role of the higher judiciary in striking down discriminatory rules. In a recent landmark ruling in the Sravya Sindhuri v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, 2025ii, the Supreme Court demonstrated its commitment to ensuring judicial service examinations are inclusive. The Court intervened in a case where a 2018 Uttarakhand government notification effectively barred persons with blindness and other specified disabilities from applying for judicial service exams, even in the general category. Calling the rule "absurd," a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan immediately stayed its operation. The Court's order was a decisive statement, clarifying that all candidates with specified disabilities must be allowed to appear in the preliminary test, with reasonable accommodations like a scribe and extra time.
This recent case builds on the foundation laid by previous judgments, such as In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Servicesiii, where the Supreme Court struck down a similar rule by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court's consistent position highlights its role as the final check against regressive state-level regulations that violate the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities. These judgments underscore that while implementation remains a challenge, the judiciary's intent is unequivocally in favor of an inclusive and accessible system. The life of Justice Zakeria "Zak" Yacoob, a former blind judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, serves as a powerful testament to what is possible when the right to access is secured. His journey shows that when institutional barriers are removed, a person with a disability can not only succeed in the legal profession but can also reach the pinnacle of the judiciary, shaping jurisprudence for all.
From Policy to Practice: The Way Forward
The challenge is not a lack of legal mandates but an absence of enforcement and awareness. To build a truly inclusive judiciary, we must focus on a few key areas.
Sensitization and Reasonable Accommodations
The judiciary and its staff, from court masters to judges, need comprehensive and mandatory training on disability awareness. They must be educated on the unique needs of individuals, such as a person with albinism who requires a cap to enter a courtroom. This awareness would also lead to simple but crucial procedural accommodations, such as granting a few extra moments for a lawyer with low vision to read a document or ensuring microphones are used
consistently. As the Supreme Court noted in Om Rathod v. The Director General of Health Services, 2024iv, it is essential to perceive persons with disabilities not with an element of sympathy, but as an integral part of society.
Accountability and Systemic Reform
For the court's directives to have a real impact, there must be a clear mechanism for accountability. A designated official in every court complex should be responsible for ensuring digital and physical accessibility. Furthermore, the judiciary's mandate of a three-year practical experience for some judicial exams, while intended to ensure competence, must be re-evaluated to accommodate the unique challenges faced by persons with disabilities. The system must find ways to ensure that this experience is accessible and inclusive, without creating an insurmountable barrier. This is particularly relevant in light of the recent judgment in All India Judges Association and others versus Union of India and others, 2025v, which mandated the three-year practice as an advocate for a candidate to apply for the entry posts in judicial service examinations (post of Civil Judge-Junior Division). For this rule to be fair, the courts must simultaneously provide the necessary support for disabled students and advocates to gain that experience. This includes measures like ensuring a scribe or a sighted person can assist them in the courts so they can build their skill set without being at a disadvantage.
In conclusion, the judiciary's recent pronouncements signal a clear commitment to an inclusive and accessible legal system. The Right to Digital Access is now a fundamental right, and the legal framework for accessibility is stronger than ever. However, the real work lies ahead, in the district courts, in the administrative offices, and in the minds of the people who run the system. By combining legal knowledge with personal advocacy, we can help bridge the gap between judicial mandates and ground realities, ensuring that the promise of justice is a reality for all. As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud aptly stated, "Persons with disability are entitled as a matter of right, not as a matter of concession."
Views are personal.
v 2025 INSC 735