SpringerLink
Log in

Models of Disability and Judicial Interpretation in India

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Disability

  • 23 Accesses

Abstract

How disability is modeled or understood is determinative in the evolution of both Disability Studies and Disability Politics. By focusing on India, this chapter demonstrates that transformation and metamorphosis in the lives of persons with disabilities is contingent and predicated on the adoption of models to evolve conceptions of disability and disability rights. Upon the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 by India, a presumption arose that the Indian legal order embraced the social and Human rights models of disability and that disability was no longer to be viewed through the prism of the Medical Model. The judiciary is enjoined to be cognizant to and sensitive of these presumptions while interpreting the Constitution and other laws, just as the legislature and executive are mandated to reflect the same in the enactment and execution of laws.

This chapter investigates how the judiciary has drawn upon the social and human rights models of disability in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. The challenges faced by the judiciary in carrying out this role are also addressed. As Dhanda has argued, the approach of courts in India to disability rights cases continues to be dominated by a narrow focus on the facts of each particular case rather than an ambition for more systemic change (Dhanda, 2005). Nevertheless, there are some interesting and potentially important exceptions, which draw upon the social and human rights models of disability implicitly or explicitly.

This chapter is an outcome of the Major Research Project under Special Call for Studies Focusing on Social Science Dimensions of Covid-19 Corona virus Pandemic sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) to the author. The responsibility for the facts stated, opinions expressed, and the conclusions drawn is entirely that of the author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aman Hingorani v Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anka Toppo v AllMS, No. l754/30/2000–2001, Achievements of National Human Rights Commission of India vol.1 1993–2006 (p 86) https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/Achievements_of_NHRC_Vol_I.pdf Atrey Shreya.

  • Berghs, M., Atkin, K., Hatton, C., & Thomas, C. (2019). Do disabled people need a stronger social model: A social model of human rights? Disability & Society, 34(7–8), 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1619239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, B. N. (1921). The nature of the judicial process. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. J., & Sanchez, R. (2021). The disability studies reader. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Degener, T. (2014). A human rights model of disability. Routledge Handbook of Disability Law and Human Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanda, A. (2002). Verma, According reality to disability rights: Role of the Judiciary. S. K., Srivastava, S. C., & Dhanda, A. Ed. Rights of persons with disabilities (pp. 90–102). Indian Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanda, A. (2005). Role of Indian judiciary in protecting the civil and economic rights of the persons with disabilities. Retrieved from https://ir.nbu.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/1352/14/14_chapter_05.pdf

  • Disabled Rights Group v Chief Election Commission and others, WP (C) No. I '67 of 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disabled Rights Group vs Union of India 2017 SCC online SC 1486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaval S Chotai v Union of’ India & others, AIR 2003 Bombay 316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Comment No. 1 (2014) on UNCRPD on Article 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendren, S. (2020). What can a body do?: How we meet the built world. Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S. (2021). Exploring the jurisprudential and public law foundation of human rights of persons with disabilities in India. National Human Rights Commission of India Journal, 20, 135–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javed Abidi v Union of India, (1999) 1 SCC 467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javed Abidi v Union of India and others (2008 unreported).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayess and French. (2008). Out of darkness into light?. In Human Rights Law Review; Kristiansen, K., Vehmas, S., Shakespeare, T., & Edwards, S. D. (2009). Definitions of disability: Ethical and other values. In Arguing about disability: Philosophical perspectives. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A., & Beckett, A. E. (2020). The social and human rights models of disability: Towards a complementarity thesis. The International Journal of Human Rights, 25(2), 348–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2020.1783533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhavya Nain vs. High Court of Delhi 2020 SCC Online Del 2525.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association for the Blind & Others v Central Board of Secondary Education & Others, CWP No 101/1/2001 & CM No. 1712/2001, Delhi High Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Federation of Blind v Union Public Service Commission, (1993) 2 SSC 411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordenfelt, L. (2000). Action, ability, and health: Essays in the philosophy of action and welfare. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2004). The social model in action: If I had a hammer. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the social model of disability: Theory and research (pp. 18–31). The Disability Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramod Arora v Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1143

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakesh Chandra Narayan v State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchandra Tandi v State, AIR 1994 Ori 228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Sameeha Barvin v Joint Secretary Ministry of Youth and Sports Department of Sports Government of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, T. (2021). The social model of disability. Davis, L. J Ed. The Disability Studies Reader (pp. 266–273). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shobha Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government Secretariat and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikri, A. (2004). Human rights of the disabled: In a slow motion. Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, 38(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R. (2009). Social justice and disability, competing interpretations of the medical and social models. In K. Kristiansen, S. Vehmas and T. Shakespeare (eds) Arguing about disability: Philosophical perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R. (2011). Equality and diversity: Value incommensurability and the politics of recognition (pp. 414–416). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781847426079.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • S.R. Kapoor and Others v Union of India and Others, AIR 1990 SC 752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. A., & Stein, P. J. (2007). Beyond disability civil rights. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1552010

  • Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v State of M P and others, AIR 1995 SC 204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. (2004). Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Times of India p6, 29 June, 1994 (Delhi), Bombay High Court case.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, December 13, 2006. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersonswithdisabilities.aspx

  • Vibhu Dayal Sharma v The Director, Central Counselling Board and Others, 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 11972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikash Kumar vs. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

    Sanjay Jain

Authors
  1. Sanjay Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Jain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Marcia H. Rioux

  2. Advocacy Director, International Disability Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada

    José Viera

  3. School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Alexis Buettgen

  4. Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo, State University, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Ezra Zubrow

Section Editor information

  1. Disability, MagWaz Physiotherapy & Wellness Services, Lilongwe, Malawi

    Margaret Wazakili

  2. School of Law and Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK

    Anna Lawson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jain, S. (2023). Models of Disability and Judicial Interpretation in India. In: Rioux, M.H., Viera, J., Buettgen, A., Zubrow, E. (eds) Handbook of Disability. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1278-7_69-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1278-7_69-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-1278-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-1278-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation