In a significant move toward inclusive education, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), in partnership with the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), recently signed a landmark tripartite memorandum of understanding (MoU). The goal: to reform school curricula so that children — able-bodied or otherwise — are exposed early to the concept of disability, and gain a foundational understanding of the rights enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
This move sends a clear and urgent message: if we want inclusion in our buildings, streets, workplaces, and public spaces, we must first build it into our textbooks. It’s a long-overdue recognition that inclusion is not a regulatory requirement to be complied with; it’s a cultural norm that must be taught, modelled, and absorbed. And nowhere is this shift more urgently needed than in the fields of architecture, engineering, and urban development — professions that literally shape the world around us.
What this project to reform school-level education acknowledges, the built environment sector in India still fails to grasp: inclusion is not a checkbox; it cannot be coerced; it has to be inculcated.
Take the example of Delhi, it continues to be a city where persons with disabilities are systematically excluded by design. According to a 2016 access audit conducted under the Union government’s Accessible India Campaign, nearly 30% of government buildings in the capital lacked ramps, 82% of public toilets were inaccessible, and 94% of healthcare facilities were not designed with people with disabilities in mind. These figures are not just numbers — they represent an everyday denial of rights.
Despite growing awareness, the fundamental issues of coordination, enforcement, and mandatory design education remain unresolved — leaving Delhi’s built environment far from inclusive.
An afterthought
The root of the problem is that the people designing and constructing these buildings — engineers, architects, developers — often have little to no training in disability inclusion. Stakeholders implementing the Unified Building Bylaws (UBBL), a comprehensive set of regulations and guidelines for the construction, alteration, and maintenance of buildings within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, frequently point to a significant knowledge gap. Unlike fire safety, which enjoys a secure place in engineering and architectural curricula and is baked into compliance processes, accessibility is treated as an afterthought — if it appears at all.
Two of India’s most competitive and prestigious programmes illustrate this gap with uncomfortable clarity. The B.Tech. in computer science and engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, despite its centrality to digital product and systems design, includes no foundational training in accessible technology or inclusive design. The B.Arch. program at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, one of the country’s top institutions for urban design, often treats accessibility as an elective or a niche specialisation, not as a non-negotiable design principle.
These courses represent the aspirational apex of technical education in India. If the engineers and architects coming out of these programmes are not trained in disability inclusion, what can one hope for broader systemic change?
Most crucially, it’s not that India lacks a legal framework for accessibility. Quite the opposite. The RPwD Act, 2016 — specifically Sections 40 and 44 lay out clear obligations for accessible infrastructure. The Harmonised Guidelines, 2021, provide detailed technical standards. Delhi’s UBBL, in chapter 11, lays down clear accessibility requirements for public-use buildings — sloped ramps, tactile flooring, accessible toilets, appropriate signage, and more. These essentially accessibility mandates are echoed in varying details in the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards (2021) and the National Building Code, respectively. Delhi’s Master Plan, 2041 even commits to building inclusive recreational spaces and public infrastructure. And yet, even after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajive Raturi vs Union of India (2024), which ruled that accessibility standards must be mandatory, not optional, implementation remains patchy.
Because the real bottleneck isn’t the law — it’s the capacity to apply it.
As one stakeholder in one of our consultations, succinctly put it: “Engineers don’t know what’s expected of them. And no one teaches them.” Developers, despite their central role in shaping the built environment, are not even mentioned in UBBL’s accountability frameworks, in terms of the compliances they have to meet and the penalties in cases of non-compliance. And technical professionals including engineers and architects across the board rarely receive training in accessibility compliance. The result? Projects that, at most, check some legal boxes without meeting real-world needs. Buildings that pass inspections but fail people.
There is an increasing temptation to correct this through penalties. But penalties cannot substitute education. The RPwD Act, 2016 does contain provisions for penalising non-compliance: Section 89 prescribes a fine of up to ₹10,000 for a first offence and ₹50,000 to ₹5 lakh for subsequent offences for any person who contravenes provisions of the Act, including accessibility mandates.
The enforcement mechanism under the UBBL also leans heavily on punitive penalties while offering little in the way of structural accountability or institutional clarity, which should ideally include training, capacity building, accessibility licensing requirements, among others.
Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, unauthorised construction — including deviations from sanctioned plans — can attract criminal penalties such as imprisonment for up to six months, fines up to ₹5,000, or both. Furthermore, the UBBL states that professionals, including engineers and architects, “run the risk of having his/her licence cancelled” in cases of misrepresentation or deviation, and allows for delisting and public naming on authority websites, with information forwarded to the Council of Architecture for further action. What results is a framework that focuses on punishment in theory, but lacks the practical tools to ensure prevention, detection, or redress. Enforcement exists on paper, but accountability dissolves in practice.
Yet, despite these legal tools and even with express legal provision, enforcement on the ground remains weak, inconsistent, and often tokenistic. Meaning legal coercion is clearly not working.
Courts have also recognised this gap. In Nipun Malhotra vs GNCTD (2018), the Delhi High Court explicitly cited the lack of sensitisation among authorities regarding the rights of persons with disabilities. The court stressed that such ignorance often stems from a lack of training and education in accessibility standards. Similarly, in a complaint regarding inaccessible market areas in south Delhi, the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, tasked with the implementation of the RPwD Act and adjudicating disputes under the same, ordered that not just municipal engineers and architects but even contractors and masons should be given structured accessibility training.
Inclusion must be inculcated
This is precisely why the DEPwD’s MoU with NCERT and NIOS must not be viewed as an isolated reform, but rather as a foundational template for deeper, structural transformation across professional education. While school curricula now embed inclusion as a civic value, that same commitment must extend to higher education — particularly in architecture, engineering, and planning. Institutions such as the All India Council for Technical Education, the Council of Architecture, and other regulatory bodies must integrate accessibility not as a peripheral topic or optional module, but as a core design competency.
Students should graduate not only with the ability to calculate structural loads or design building façades, but with the sensitivity and skills to plan tactile pathways for the visually challenged and ensure ramps are not just technically compliant, but genuinely usable.
Because accessibility is not only a matter of compliance; it is a matter of compassion. Unless professionals are educated to internalise this ethos from school through university, no volume of policies, laws, or litigations will rectify the physical and social barriers we continue to cement into our cities.
This is particularly urgent now, as in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme court to delineate the minimum non-negotiable standards for accessibility of built environment, the DEPwD called for public comments on a fresh draft of the Built Environment Accessibility Rules in May 2025. As much as the public comments are being collated and incorporated, as a positive step in disability governance, without parallel reform in education, another set of rules will only add to bureaucratic saturation — an ever-expanding stack of paperwork that does little to change what gets built on the ground.
To avoid repeating the cycle of well-meaning but toothless compliance, the rulebook must be matched by a textbook — one that does not impose accessibility as a compliance burden, but inculcates it as a first nature.
Anchal Bhatheja is a Research Fellow, Disability, Inclusion and Access Team, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; Views are personal