The principle of equality of treatment demands that disability benefits be determined by the extent of disability rather than the State of domicile. Examine this proposition in light of constitutional provisions and the CRPD framework.

Q. The principle of equality of treatment demands that disability benefits be determined by the extent of disability rather than the State of domicile. Examine this proposition in light of constitutional provisions and the CRPD framework. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Equality of treatment requires that like cases be treated alike on relevant grounds. Yet under the Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme, central assistance is a uniform ₹300 per month while State top-ups range from ₹200 to ₹3,300 [1] — making residence, not impairment, the operative variable.

The constitutional case for the proposition - Article 14 permits classification only on an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to the object. Extent of disability directly measures need; domicile does not. - Article 21 guarantees life with dignity, which a pension inadequate for basic subsistence undermines. - Article 41 (DPSP) obliges the State to provide public assistance in cases of disablement — an obligation of the Union and States alike. - Domestic law already accepts the extent-based logic: the RPwD Act, 2016 keys entitlements, including 4% reservation in government posts, to benchmark disability of 40% [2].

The CRPD framework - India ratified the CRPD in 2007. Article 5 demands substantive equality — not merely removal of discriminatory law but proactive measures to equalise outcomes [3]. - Article 28 recognises an adequate standard of living and social protection, to be secured without discrimination on the basis of disability [3]. - Uneven delivery is systemic, not confined to pensions: only 11 States/UTs received barrier-free infrastructure grants after 2017-18, and roughly 30% of targeted buildings became accessible [4].

Limits of the proposition - Social security is a Concurrent subject; States differ in fiscal capacity and cost of living, so identical amounts everywhere are neither feasible nor fair. - Equality demands a guaranteed minimum, not enforced uniformity — top-ups above the floor remain legitimate.

The proposition is therefore sound as a claim about the base entitlement: a nationally guaranteed, periodically indexed pension floor calibrated to disability severity, with States free to add more. Coupled with simplified certification and enforcement of SIPDA timelines, this would align welfare delivery with Articles 14, 21 and 41 and with India's CRPD commitments, converting formal legal equality into lived equality of treatment.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Increasing Pension under National Social Assistance Programme, PIB (2024) — ₹300 central IGNDPS assistance; State top-ups of ₹200–₹3,300 2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2016 Passed by Parliament, PIB — 40% benchmark disability threshold; 4% reservation in government employment 3. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, OHCHR — Article 5 substantive equality; Article 28 social protection without discrimination 4. Assessment of SIPDA, PRS Legislative Research — 11 States/UTs receiving barrier-free grants; ~30% of targeted buildings accessible