Courts demand true accessibility, audits expose stark gaps

In a landmark move, the Karnataka High Court reinforced the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by mandating comprehensive accessibility across all government and private establishments, including digital platforms. This directive introduced clear compliance timelines for both new and existing buildings, emphasizing universal design, barrier-free environments, and reasonable accommodation to address intersectional needs. The court’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) not only codified these requirements but also expanded the scope of enforcement to digital accessibility, reflecting a holistic approach to inclusivity.

To ensure effective enforcement, the Karnataka High Court empowered the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities with binding corrective authority, moving beyond advisory roles. Complementing this, the establishment of a State Accessibility Authority and District Accessibility Committees institutionalized monitoring and compliance, creating a robust framework to uphold accessibility standards across sectors. This structural innovation marks a significant shift from passive oversight to proactive enforcement within the state’s legal architecture.

Highlighting persistent gaps despite prior Supreme Court directives, the Madras High Court mandated the Election Commission of India to install permanent ramps at all polling booths, particularly those in schools and public buildings, to fulfill statutory accessibility obligations. The court also ordered urgent upgrades to the Election Commission’s websites to eliminate digital barriers for persons with disabilities, responding to widespread complaints. This judicial intervention underscores the unacceptable prevalence of temporary and defective accessibility arrangements at polling stations, pressing for genuine, durable solutions.

Despite clear legal mandates and Supreme Court directives, enforcement of accessibility infrastructure remains weak, as exemplified by the Madras High Court's 2026 order demanding permanent ramps at polling stations and accessible Election Commission websites. The Court condemned the widespread use of temporary, defective arrangements and emphasized the statutory duty of public bodies to ensure genuine accessibility, highlighting a persistent gap between legal requirements and on-the-ground realities.

In both India and Nigeria, audits reveal that poor infrastructure design and vague regulatory standards critically undermine accessibility. For instance, only 2% of Nigerian buildings are accessible, with audits showing that 22.4% of political-party offices had ramps and 28% of health facilities lacked basic features. This is compounded by the National Building Code's vague provisions and limited awareness among architects and approving authorities, resulting in physical barriers like obstructed sidewalks and stair-only pedestrian bridges that treat accessibility as an afterthought rather than a design imperative.

Digital accessibility remains a glaring enforcement challenge, with over half of political-party websites and social media platforms in Nigeria inaccessible to persons with disabilities, mirroring similar issues in India where the Election Commission was ordered to expedite website accessibility improvements. Furthermore, despite partial compliance by many Indian states with website accessibility rules, enforcement is hampered by insufficient resources, lack of formal complaint mechanisms, and poor collaboration between state and local governments, leaving many digital barriers unaddressed.

Comprehensive audits of Indian public hospitals under the Accessible India Campaign reveal that physical accessibility features often exist in form but fail in function, with only 32.6% overall compliance. Critical elements like ramps, lifts, sensory signage, and toilets are frequently non-compliant or non-functional—64% of lifts lack Braille controls, and 94% of accessible toilets have inward-opening doors that hinder wheelchair access. These implementation gaps are exacerbated by capacity constraints, economic factors, and societal attitudes, underscoring the necessity of involving persons with disabilities as trained auditors to uncover practical barriers invisible to others.

India's legal framework, including the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and related Supreme Court rulings, reflects a broadened understanding of accessibility that encompasses environmental, institutional, social, and attitudinal barriers. However, the disconnect between improved legal terminology and actual infrastructure remains stark, as unusable pavements and improperly constructed ramps persist. The Supreme Court has called for enforceable standards with clear consequences, criticizing existing rules that treat mandatory provisions as recommendatory, and emphasizing that accessibility must be integrated holistically into building approvals, procurement, transport, education, and maintenance rather than reduced to isolated checklists.

The Karnataka High Court's 2026 SOP exemplifies a systemic commitment to universal design by mandating barrier-free environments that address intersectional disadvantages, emphasizing that accessibility must be embedded from the earliest design stages. Experts in the built environment stress that accessibility should be a non-negotiable element integrated into planning approvals and construction supervision, rather than an optional add-on, to prevent the persistent creation of inaccessible infrastructure.

Despite legal mandates, a significant gap persists due to poor awareness and inadequate training among architects, developers, and regulatory authorities, as highlighted by Nathaniel Atebije, former President of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners. This knowledge deficit, compounded by limited institutional capacity and societal attitudes, undermines the translation of legal rights into genuinely accessible environments, revealing that enforcement alone cannot suffice without systemic capacity building.

Involving persons with disabilities as trained auditors transforms accessibility assessments by incorporating lived experience, uncovering practical barriers invisible to others. Dr. Satendra Singh underscores this participatory approach, noting that without their involvement in planning and monitoring, many obstacles remain undetected. However, audits reveal that universal design principles often fall short in execution: for instance, only 57.1% of hospitals had ramps meeting the recommended 1:12 gradient, and a staggering 91% of lifts lacked controls at accessible heights, indicating that mere presence of features does not guarantee usability.

Accessibility initiatives frequently suffer from fragmentation, focusing narrowly on main entrances while neglecting comprehensive, systemic integration throughout facilities. The Outlook India hospital audit found sensory accessibility particularly deficient, with only 5.7% featuring tactile ground surface indicators and virtually no Braille signage or tactile maps. This superficial approach highlights the urgent need for robust capacity building to ensure that legal rights evolve into meaningful, usable environments that serve all users effectively.