Operationalising Inclusion For Persons With Disabilities With Universal Design

Introduction

Universal Design is a fundamental principle in the development and advancement of not just those presently disadvantaged, but for advancement of society in general. Universal Design enables a change in accessibility and helps in redefining ability, disability and shapes culture into a more open and accepting form allowing for social and economic mobility. Universal Design in Education is a key aspect in ensuring that learners of any age, pre-schooling till college level remain on par with their peers and are granted opportunities they may not receive under the current framework. Various countries such as the USA and UK have implemented Universal Design into their educational frameworks to great effect in allowing for early intervention and helping advance the learning capacity of its learning population. India attempts to implement Universal Design through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which is its bid to bring disability policy on par with international standards set by the UN in the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act lays down a very strong foundation but falters in implementation due to the practicality of enacting policy. Implementing disability policy in India faces difficulties due to duplication of work by multiple departments (such as the necessity to involve the ministries of health, education, finance and social justice for educational policy), bureaucratic red tape, budget issues and general apathy among the population towards issues affecting the differently abled. Implementation of Universal Design is key in bringing India further into the global stage by bringing parity in accessibility and in aiding achieving sustainable development goals.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted at the global level as an international treaty in 2006. The Preamble of this Convention provides that it is an aim of this Convention to establish a discrimination-free environment for persons with disabilities to enjoy their fundamental rights. Accordingly, it views disability as an evolving concept in clause (e) of the Preamble and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. It is necessary to view disability as an evolving concept because it is fundamental to upholding human rights, shaping inclusive policies, and ensuring full societal participation for all individuals. This understanding moves beyond static, individual-focused definitions to recognize disability as an interaction between a person’s impairment and environmental and attitudinal barriers.[1]

The Preamble also stresses the importance of mainstreaming disability issues as an integral part of relevant strategies of sustainable development through clause (g). This can be achieved only when there is cooperation among countries at an international level to improve the living conditions of persons with disabilities in every country; the importance of international cooperation among countries is also emphasised in the Preamble, with particular necessity among developing countries in clause (l).[2][3]

Article 1 outlines that the purpose of the Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.[4] According to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to education is a fundamental right which is to be guaranteed to everyone.[5] Considering that the right to education is a universal fundamental right and that the Convention aims to ensure that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are enjoyed by all persons with disabilities, the right to education is also to be enjoyed by persons with disabilities to the full extent. It is also to be noted that Article 24 of the Convention establishes the right to education for persons with disabilities and mandates that signatory nations create an inclusive education system at all levels.[6] This includes ensuring equal opportunities, providing support measures, and enabling participation in mainstream schooling and lifelong learning without discrimination. According to the Convention, inclusive education can be achieved through a commitment to remove barriers to the right to education, as well as reforms to the culture, policy, and practice of mainstream schools to accommodate and successfully incorporate all children.

In addition, Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations at an international level aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.[7] Therefore, it is well established that the right to education, a universal fundamental right, is to be provided for all persons including persons with disabilities in an inclusive manner, and there should be no disparity in the quality of education provided. Thus, all signatory member countries that are parties to the Convention of 2006 are to implement the necessary measures to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and ensure that they are able to exercise those rights without any bias.

India ratified the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007 and, as a part of the process of implementing the Convention, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act was enacted in 2016.

Section 3 of the Act mandates that the government ensure persons with disabilities enjoy equality, dignity, and respect on par with others. It requires the creation of an enabling environment to utilize their abilities and prohibits discrimination based on disability, except when a proportional and legitimate justification exists. It further safeguards against deprivation of personal liberty solely due to disability and obligates the government to provide reasonable accommodation to support their inclusion and participation.[8]

Under Section 16 of the Act, a duty is placed on governments and local authorities to ensure that all funded or recognized educational institutions provide inclusive education for children with disabilities. It requires schools to admit them without discrimination, ensure accessibility of buildings and facilities, and offer reasonable accommodation based on individual needs. Institutions must provide appropriate support to promote full academic and social inclusion, use suitable languages and communication methods for blind and deaf students, and identify and address learning disabilities early. Additionally, they must monitor each disabled student’s progress and provide necessary transport facilities, including attendants for those with high support needs. The Act legally requires educational institutions to provide accessibility in both physical and pedagogical dimensions. However, the translation of these mandates into practice has been partial and uneven across states.[9]

For instance, according to data from UDISE+, only 77% of government schools have at least one ramp. Aside from that, there are very few special schools in India (only 19 registered in Tamil Nadu) that cater specifically to children with intellectual disabilities. The current system of special schools does not effectively cater to students with learning disabilities like dyslexia or executive disabilities like autism, which together account for nearly 40% of school-aged children. Neither government, private, nor special schools cater to the demands of this large group, resulting in inferior outcomes overall.

Existing Policy Framework in India

Inclusive education policy in India is rooted in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, supplemented by frameworks such as the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. These collectively outline governmental and institutional duties to ensure accessible, barrier-free, and non-discriminatory education for all children, including those with disabilities.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Section 17 of the Act provides specific measures to promote and facilitate inclusive education. The appropriate Government and local authorities are to take the following measures to ensure inclusive education for all:[10]

1. To undertake a survey of school-aged children every five years to identify children with impairments, determine their specific requirements, and assess the extent to which they are met.
2. To construct a suitable number of teacher training institutes.
3. To train and employ teachers, including teachers with disabilities who are qualified in sign language and Braille, as well as teachers who are trained to teach children with intellectual disabilities.
4. To establish an adequate number of resource centers to support educational institutions at all levels of school education.
5. To promote the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, including means and formats of communication, Braille, and sign language, to supplement the use of one’s own speech to fulfil the daily communication needs of people with special needs.
6. To make appropriate modifications in the curriculum and examination system to meet the needs of students with disabilities, such as extra time for examination paper completion, the availability of a scribe or amanuensis, exemption from second and third language courses.
7. To promote research to improve learning.

Section 17 of the RPwD Act comprehensively lists mandatory measures, including surveys to identify school-aged children with disabilities and to assess their needs, constructing and funding training institutes for teachers, and setting up resource centers at different administrative levels to support inclusive education. These Block Resource Centres (BRCs) act as decentralised hubs, equipped with infrastructure and resource personnel for curriculum development, teacher training, monitoring student outcomes, data collection, and mobilising resources across blocks and clusters. Their primary aim is continuous improvement in enrolment, retention, and learning outcomes for children with special needs by addressing local gaps and challenges through targeted strategies and feedback loops.

Despite these comprehensive policies, implementation and accountability metrics fluctuate across Indian states and districts, owing to varying degrees of resource deployment, institutional capacity, and local governance. BRCs are meant to serve as crucial intermediaries between higher policy directives and actual school-level transformation.

Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan

The Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan is India’s flagship centrally sponsored scheme that operationalises inclusive education from pre-primary to senior secondary levels. The SSA integrates previous policies into one comprehensive framework, focusing resources on holistic development, equity, and quality learning for all. For disability inclusion, it provides:

• Financial support for assistive devices, aids, accessible learning materials, and individualised stipends for Children With Special Needs (CWSN).
• Upgrading infrastructure through construction of ramps, ensuring barrier-free toilets, and accessible classrooms, especially in government schools.
• Development and deployment of block and cluster-level Resource Centres (BRCs/CRCs) as hubs for teacher training, curriculum adaptation, and ongoing support for teachers and families.
• Promotion of inclusive pedagogies, ongoing teacher professional development, and collaborative partnerships with community organisations.
• Annual planning and monitoring, based on district-level data, to identify gaps and ensure resources reach the most marginalised children, including those in tribal and remote regions.

However, implementation challenges remain due to underutilisation of allocated funds, delays in fund transfers, inconsistent planning capacities across states, and a lack of uniform accountability mechanisms at district and school levels. These barriers often result in regional disparities in service and accessibility.

National Education Policy, 2020

The NEP 2020 brings a renewed focus on inclusive education as a guiding vision for India’s educational transformation. Its key mandates for children with disabilities include:

• Universal access and equity, integrating children with disabilities in all mainstream education settings, with provisions for early childhood, foundational years, and lifelong learning opportunities.
• Emphasis on school complexes and clusters to pool resources, facilitate curriculum adaptation, and ensure specialised support for students across primary and secondary levels.
• Curricular flexibility, focusing on multi-tiered approaches, joyful learning, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – aimed at overcoming physical, cognitive, and attitudinal barriers to participation.
• Mandatory teacher education reforms, including certification requirements in sign language, Braille, disability pedagogy, and digital skills, to enable all teachers to support diverse classrooms.
• Inclusion of parent organisations, NGOs, and civil society as stakeholders in school-level decision-making and policy review.

Continuous monitoring and coordination among ministries – especially Education, Social Justice, Empowerment, and Health – are envisioned to streamline resource allocations and accountability, moving away from fragmented governance. The NEP’s alignment with international practices and commitment to the “Zero Rejection Policy” demonstrate the intent to make inclusive education measurable, scalable, and effective, as reflected in India’s UNICEF Country Profile.

In step with international commitments and NEP 2020, the National Guidelines and Implementation Framework on Equitable and Inclusive Education provides guidance on early identification and assessment, home-based education, foundational stage interventions, teacher education in sign language and Braille, curriculum adaptations, continuous monitoring, and collaborative partnerships with civil society and parent organisations. Resource allocation and coordination are envisioned to span across ministries, including the Department of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Education, and allied agencies, translating policy into operational frameworks at school and community levels.

Moreover, the UNICEF Country Profile for India highlights advances in measurable inclusion through strategies like “joyful learning,” multi-tiered teaching methods, and the “Zero Rejection Policy.” This is aligned with international best practices advocating for Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which mandates adaptation in both content and pedagogy to remove learning barriers and promote equitable quality education for all.

Shortcomings and Obstacles in Implementation

Notwithstanding a robust legislative and policy environment, the translation of rights into real-world change for students with disabilities in India remains deeply fragmented. A persistent problem is the lack of reliable data.

For instance, the mandate in Section 17 for regular surveys of school-aged children with disabilities is largely unfulfilled; there is currently no accessible, nationwide public database capturing either prevalence or localised needs, limiting targeted interventions at the grassroots level.[11]

The RPwD Act also requires employing educators competent in sign language, Braille, and teaching children with intellectual and learning disabilities. The qualifications for teachers under the Rehabilitation Council of India include a minimum of a 12th-grade pass and a two-year D.Ed. in Special Education in any disability category, or a one-year Diploma in Special Education (DSE); however, this qualification is not mandated by the RPwD Act as a general qualification or uniform mandatory standard for teachers, which would provide a more inclusive framework enforceable across regular schools. The shortage of specialised professionals, coupled with the absence of continuous professional development and accessible resources, further marginalises large populations of students with invisible disabilities such as autism, dyslexia, or ADHD.

Resource constraints also impede effective implementation. Central government expenditure toward disability-related schemes has stagnated at approximately 0.02% of the annual budget in recent years.[12] Even this allocation is rarely fully spent or efficiently translated into support at the school level, due to bureaucratic delays, absence of effective monitoring, and complex inter-departmental coordination. The UNICEF Country Profile echoes these findings, pointing to underutilised funds, insufficient training, and uneven distribution of inclusive school infrastructure such as ramps, accessible toilets, and learning materials.

On the institutional front, BRCs and other resource centers are inconsistently operational and often lack the autonomy, authority, and financial resources needed to serve their full functions. Their roles in data monitoring, remedial intervention, and teacher support are variably realised, with many centres under-staffed and lacking adequate infrastructure. Administrative fragmentation – across ministries and among central, state, and local agencies, drives up transaction costs, complicates accountability, and suppresses innovation in implementing inclusive practices.

Finally, widespread lack of awareness among both families and frontline administrators regarding existing rights, entitlements, and procedures for securing accommodations or redress compounds under-enforcement, leaving many children excluded from mainstream education or support services.

Comparison with the Americans with Disabilities Act

The American experience stands as a powerful comparative benchmark. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, institutionalises the right to reasonable accommodation in both K-12 and higher education. The ADA imposes binding obligations on public and private educational institutions to adapt infrastructure, pedagogy, and assessments, ensuring equal participation of students with disabilities at all stages of learning.

Empirical evidence from the United States reveals significant improvements consequent to the ADA’s enforcement: increased enrolment and retention of children with disabilities, reduced dropout rates, and higher rates of economic participation among adults with disabilities, demonstrating both the legal and economic dividends of robust compliance frameworks. Universities and colleges now universally recognise the necessity of disability accommodation offices, routinely offering adaptive assessment schedules, personalised learning support, technology-enabled accessibility (e.g., screen readers, captioning), and comprehensive grievance redressal mechanisms. These are routinely monitored and evaluated by both federal and state oversight bodies to ensure compliance and continual improvement, and institutions are subject to significant legal liability for non-compliance.

In contrast, India’s legislative framework and guidelines draw similar mandates, yet the lack of strong enforcement, under-resourced institutions, fragmentary cross-sectoral collaboration, and limited community awareness mean that guarantees “on paper” often fail to translate into universal, lived inclusion “on the ground.” The distinction lies less in the normative content of the law than in the structure, consistency, and culture of policy execution, with the US system consistently demonstrating the advantages of integrated, enforceable, and data-driven approaches to inclusion.

The No Child Left Behind policy exemplifies the United States’ commitment to ensuring that all children, regardless of disability status or background, have equitable opportunities to learn and succeed by mandating accountability, data transparency, and targeted resource allocation. This comparison highlights that the successful operationalisation of inclusive education depends critically on systemic enforcement, institutional accountability, and cultural preparedness beyond legislative proclamations.

Universal Design

Universal Design (UD) is a design thinking principle that shifts the focus of access and inclusion from accommodation to anticipation. Instead of seeing learners with difficulties (such as autism, intellectual disability, learning disabilities, ADHD) as “exceptions” who need special individual support, UD asks: how do we design systems so that learners, regardless of ability, background or circumstance, can engage, learn and succeed from the outset? UD emerged originally in architecture from the works of Ronald Mace, whose work inspired the core principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and now extends into pedagogy, curriculum, and educational policy as “Universal Design for Learning” (UDL).

The core of UD, and the understanding of disabilities evidenced by the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is that disability is often a function not only of impairment but of misfit between person and environment. When environments, teaching methods, assessments, and technologies assume a “typical” learner, many are excluded. UD asks for inclusive design at the outset, flexible curriculum, accessible materials, classrooms built for accessibility, and institutional policies that anticipate variance rather than reacting after the fact.

UDL proposes multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression. This reflects that there is no “one way” of teaching or learning that suits everyone. Learners may differ in how they comprehend, process, express, or engage with content. A UDL-informed system provides alternative pathways: for example, offering content in visual, auditory, and tactile modes; assessments in written, oral, or project form; and flexible timelines or supports when needed.

Importantly, UD/UDL benefits all learners, not just those labelled as “disabled” or “special”. For example: captioned videos help deaf students but also benefit second-language learners and students in noisy environments; adjustable furniture designed for wheelchair users also aids students with temporary injury (such as a fracture), older learners, or even younger learners whose ergonomic needs differ. Thus, UD is universal, not by providing a singular encompassing solution, but by accounting for variable situations and anticipating needs.

In the Indian context, embedding UD is especially critical given the scale of educational diversity and the mandate for inclusive education under law and policy. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) has various provisions for educational institutions. UD supplies the underlying design logic through which these statutory duties can be implemented effectively. Moreover, national data indicate large gaps in infrastructure and pedagogy: for instance, only about 27% of all Indian schools have children-with-special-needs (CWSN)-friendly toilets, and only approximately 25.7% have functional CWSN-friendly toilets.

Beyond rights and inclusion, UD holds pedagogical and developmental advantages. Pedagogically, when multiple modes of instruction and assessment are built in, learning becomes more resilient; students with varied learning profiles can engage in ways that suit them, thereby reducing dropout, improving retention, and increasing attainment. For example, learners with dyslexia gain from structured phonics and alternate assessment pathways, but such practices also enhance literacy outcomes for the whole classroom. Developmentally, systems that operate under UD support social integration, reduce stigma, and expand opportunities for persons with disabilities to transition into higher education, employment, and civic life.

Systemically, UD demands that institutions and systems view access as participation by design rather than temporary accommodation. Spaces, curriculums, teacher training, and assessment systems must all align with an inclusive design mind-set. Rather than building separate “special units”, UD expects mainstream structures to be inclusive from day one. This change, when realised, aligns with global norms (e.g., the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and India’s own sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 4 (inclusive, equitable quality education).

To end with an example that may be observed in daily life: how many doors within any spaces you may visit on a regular basis are accessible by wheelchair? A building may have ramps but the door may not be wide enough to fit a wheelchair through without help. UD, rather than designing for the average person, designs for every possible situation. A wider, more accessible doorway would not only help those using a wheelchair, but also allow a stretcher to be brought in without difficulty for medical emergencies.

Implementation of Universal Design

The implementation of Universal Design (UD) in education involves coordinated reform across infrastructure, pedagogy, budget and governance, and monitoring and accountability. Implementation must span both school-level and higher education (university/college) contexts and must respond to legacy systems, budget constraints, and institutional indifference.

1. Policy and Budget Alignment

Effective implementation begins with policy coherence, financial commitment, and institutional accountability. The RPwD Act sets statutory mandates, but legislation without adequate financing remains a statement rather than a system. Recent data show that budgets for disability-related schemes in India remain tiny relative to need. For example, the central allocation for disability welfare was just 0.027% of the total Union Budget in 2023-24. Without ring-fenced funding for school and higher education accessibility, institutions struggle to retrofit or upgrade infrastructure, train staff, deploy digital supports, and establish continuous budgets for maintenance and updates.

Implementation must therefore embed dedicated budget lines for accessibility, procurement of assistive technologies, teacher training in universal design, digital compliance (WCAG/IS17802), and maintenance of accessibility infrastructure.

2. Infrastructure and Legacy Retrofitting

Physical accessibility remains the most visible and the most costly part of implementation. Educational institutions, both schools and universities, often operate on legacy buildings and campuses not designed with accessibility in mind. Retrofitting presents technical, financial, and integrational challenges. A case study in India noted that institutional buildings lack user-centric design and that retrofits involve stakeholder engagement, phasing, budget provisions, and maintenance planning. Similarly, retrofit analyses of Indian buildings have shown that even moderate upgrades require design iteration, costing, and time, especially when original design lacks accessibility orientation.

Implementation steps include: conducting a comprehensive accessibility audit based on the Indian Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility (2021/2023); prioritising high-impact spaces (e.g., classrooms, labs, hostels, libraries, transport links); embedding accessibility requirements in all new constructions and procurement; and allocating routine maintenance budgets (e.g., 2-3% of annual infrastructure budgets) for accessibility elements (ramps, handrails, signage) so functionality is sustained. Without these steps, institutions risk “token compliance”: for example, a ramp but no handrails, or a “CWSN-friendly toilet” with non-functional fixtures. The UDISE+ 2021-22 data indicate that approximately 27% of schools reported having CWSN-friendly toilets, and only approximately 25.7% had functional ones.

In higher education, implementation needs to cover academic buildings, residences, transport links, laboratories, libraries, and digital infrastructure. Universities must treat campus accessibility as integral, not optional.

3. Pedagogy, Digital Systems, and Institutional Services

UD’s realisation in education depends on teaching, learning, assessment, and services being accessible, flexible, and inclusive. In schools and universities, this means:

• Integrating UDL (multiple means of engagement/representation/expression) into curriculum and teacher/faculty training.
• Establishing Resource Centres or Disability/Accessibility Offices (universities) and Resource Rooms/Special Educator Units (schools) that coordinate alternative formats, assistive technologies, extended deadlines, flexible assessments, and accessible materials. In Indian universities, these are less commonplace than in American institutions by virtue of the ADA.
• Changing assessment systems: beyond high-stakes written exams, offering alternative formats, projects/presentations, extended time, and peer/mentor support — all aligned with the anticipatory logic of UD.

Implementation requires that institutions mandate faculty training in inclusive pedagogy, have clearly articulated alternate assessment policies, and integrate accessible student services into faculty orientation, induction, and strategic planning.

4. Monitoring, Accountability, and Institutional Culture

Sustainable implementation hinges on monitoring, accountability, and culture change. Schools should feed accessibility indicators into UDISE+ (currently, data on infrastructure exist, but pedagogy/support systems are less well captured). The UDISE+ 2021-22 report indicated CWSN enrolment at 0.89% of total school enrolment, suggesting either under-identification or under-reporting. Universities should publish annual accessibility reports, include accessibility KPIs in institutional scorecards, and make public Accessibility Statements. Institutions must designate Grievance Redressal Officers (RPwD §23) and ensure persons with disabilities are part of governance boards.

Changing the institutional culture from “special needs” to “universal design” requires leadership commitment, budgets, training, participatory planning (including learners with disabilities in design), and peer accountability (benchmarking, audits, dashboards).

5. Implementation Across School and University Levels

At the school level, implementation means: audits of building/transport, procurement of assistive technology, teacher training in inclusive pedagogy, alternate assessments, screening systems for learning differences, accessible ICT, and routine maintenance budgets. Funding should align with central schemes (e.g., Samagra Shiksha) and release of funds conditioned on audit/compliance.

At the university/college level, implementation means: accessibility of the entire campus (academic, residential, transport), digital compliance, faculty training in UDL, establishment of Disability/Accessibility Resource Centre, alternative assessments, student services for accommodations, accessible admission/finance systems, and monitoring via institutional MIS. Universities must embed accessibility in strategic plans, budgets, and quality assurance cycles.

6. Key Barriers and Mitigation Strategies

Under-funding: Disability/inclusion budgets are tiny and often fragmented. Mitigation: ring-fenced budget lines, performance-linked funding, cross-ministry budgeting.
Legacy infrastructure and retrofitting: Older buildings require complex upgrades. Mitigation: phased retrofit plans, priority sequencing, maintenance budgets.
Fragmented institutional responsibility: Estates, ICT, Academics, and Library often act in silos. Mitigation: central Accessibility Office with cross-functional remit and budget.
Low capacity/awareness: Faculty may lack training in UDL; procurement may ignore accessibility. Mitigation: mandatory training, KPI integration, vendor compliance clauses.
Poor data/monitoring: Low disclosure of disability status (0.89% from UDISE+ 2021-22) suggests under-reporting. Mitigation: add accessibility indicators to data systems, publish dashboards, include governance transparency.

Conclusion

India has a long journey ahead when it comes to implementing universal design in various domains, especially in education. Although policies like the Right to Education Act, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act have been enacted, their application leaves much to be desired, with the bodies constituted in these policies regularly failing to meet their statutory duties. The opaque nature and lack of data collected to enact policy harm further attempts at policy-making and cause difficulties in creating new policies or amending existing ones. Funding shortfalls and non-use of funds continue to plague the ground-level implementation of various policies. The prevailing situation is one where the legislature and policy makers have acknowledged the importance of universal design but struggle to put the principles into practice due to operational difficulties, institutional apathy, and difficulties in retrofitting existing infrastructure. Universal Design’s value has been acknowledged and implemented in nearly all new constructions, but much work remains in providing access to legacy infrastructure which still serves as the most important institutions within the country. With rising rates of diagnosis of various learning difficulties (ADHD, dyslexia, autism, etc.), the need for UDL has only become more apparent and serves as the key to unlocking the country’s potential for complete development and utilisation of its human resource.

Refernces

[1] United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006, entered into force 3 May 2008) (UNCRPD) Preamble cl (e).
[2] United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Preamble cl (g).
[3] United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Preamble cl (l).
[4] United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) art 1.
[5] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) art 26.
[6] United Nations, International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) art 24.
[7] United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1 (2015) Goal 4.
[8] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India) s 3.
[9] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India) s 16.
[10] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India) s 17.
[11] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India) s 17.
[12] Apurva Thakur, ‘Policy Shortcomings: Effective Implementation of The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016’ (2025) <https://cnlu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Policy-Shortcomings-Effective-Implementation-Of-The-Rights-Of-Persons-With-Disabilities-Act-2016-by-Apurva-Thakur.pdf> accessed 7 November 2025.

• Education for All in India, ‘Enhancing Accessibility for Children with Special Needs: Analysis Based on UDISE+ 2021-22 Data’ (2023) <https://educationforallinindia.com/enhancing-accessibility-children-special-needs-analysis/>
• Goutam Patra, ‘Inclusive Education in India and Its Present Perspectives’ (gtchooghly.ac.in, 2025) <https://gtchooghly.ac.in/pdf/profile/goutam-patra/Inclusive%20Education.pdf>
• India Development Review, ‘No Budget for Persons with Disabilities in India’ (February 2024) <https://idronline.org/article/advocacy-government/no-budget-for-persons-with-disabilities-in-india/>
• ‘National Guidelines and Implementation Framework on Equitable and Inclusive Education’ (Department of Education of Groups with Special Needs, NCERT, 2021) <https://dsel.education.gov.in/sites/default/files/guidelines/NGIFEIE_dosel.pdf>
• PIB, ‘Education of Divyang Children: Press Release’ (Government of India, 3 November 2022) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1882766>
• Psychology.Town, ‘Accessibility Policies in India: Creating Barrier-Free Environments’ (25 August 2024) <https://psychology.town/psychosocial-issues-in-disability/accessibility-policies-india-barrier-free-environments/>
• Raman K et al, ‘Energy and Retrofit Analysis of Existing Educational Buildings in Chennai’ (2023) 13(4) Buildings 1103
• ThePrint, ‘Accessibility in Indian Universities: Lessons from the US’ (13 March 2025) <https://theprint.in/opinion/accessibility-in-indian-universities/2542503/>
• United Nations Human Settlements Programme & IIT Kharagpur, ‘Toolkit on Enhancing Accessibility and Inclusion in Schools’ (UN-Habitat India, 2023) <https://unhabitat.org.in/sites/default/files/2024-11/unh_iit_kgp_toolkit_on_enhancing_accessibility-inclusion-in-schools_compressed_1.pdf>
• WBNSOU, ‘Unit I: Perspectives in Inclusive Education’ (n.d.) <https://www.wbnsou.ac.in/online_services/SLM/MED/A5.pdf>
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India) <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf> accessed 7 November 2025
• Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, ‘Inclusive Education Report’ (2020) <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/InclusiveEducationReport_final_28April_0527PM-1.pdf>
• Inflibnet, ‘Resource Centers at Block and Cluster Levels: Structure and Appraisal’ <https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/edup13/chapter/resource-centers-at-block-and-cluster-levels-structure-and-appraisal/>
• PMC, ‘The Americans with Disabilities Act and Equal Access to Education’ (2023) <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676777/>