Accessibility in courts still a challenge, says lawyer

1. At a Glance

• Two Supreme Court-linked advocates — Sanchita Ain (Advocate-on-Record) and Sarah Sunny (hearing-impaired advocate) — highlight persistent gaps in courtroom accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs) in India, despite a landmark 2023 precedent [1].
• Tests UPSC's GS-II (disability rights, judiciary, social justice) and GS-IV (empathy/inclusion in institutions) linkages simultaneously.
• Anchors to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which statutorily guarantees non-discriminatory access to courts and tribunals [2].
• Shows the gap between de jure statutory rights and de facto implementation — a recurring UPSC theme (law vs. ground reality).

2. Why in the News

• Advocates Sanchita Ain and Sarah Sunny publicly stated (report dated 1 March 2026) that courtroom accessibility "remains inconsistent and difficult to secure," over two years after a sign language interpreter first assisted a hearing-impaired lawyer in the Supreme Court [1].
• In 2024, Sarah Sunny was reportedly asked to leave a Bengaluru courtroom despite arranging her own interpreter, illustrating continuing implementation gaps [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• September 2023: Sanchita Ain moved a request before the Bench led by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud seeking that the Indian Sign Language interpreter's video feed remain visible throughout a hearing, enabling Sarah Sunny (joining virtually) to follow proceedings in real time [1][3].
• This followed Sarah Sunny's earlier historic appearance arguing a case in the Supreme Court (26 September, per contemporaneous reporting) using interpreter Saurav Roy Chowdhury — described as a first-of-its-kind milestone [3].
• The virtual-hearing moderator initially resisted keeping the interpreter's video on; CJI D.Y. Chandrachud personally intervened to permit it [3].
• CJI Chandrachud subsequently announced the Supreme Court's formal appointment of a sign-language interpreter to assist hearing-impaired lawyers and litigants [3].
• Predecessor legal framework: the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, later replaced by the RPwD Act, 2016 [2].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Governing statute	Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [2]
Predecessor Act	Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 [2]
Key guarantee	Right to access any court, tribunal, authority, commission, or body with judicial/quasi-judicial/investigative powers, without discrimination on grounds of disability [2]
Implementing bodies for court access	National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and State Legal Services Authorities — mandated to ensure reasonable accommodation [2]
Accessible modes recognised under the Act	Sign language, displays, plain-language communication, human-reader assistance, augmentative and alternative communication modes [2]
First courtroom milestone	Supreme Court, September 2023 — sign language interpreter's video feed kept visible during a virtual hearing [1][3]
Key individuals	Sanchita Ain (Advocate-on-Record), Sarah Sunny (hearing-impaired advocate), interpreter Saurav Roy Chowdhury, then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud [1][3]
2024 incident	Sarah Sunny asked to leave a Bengaluru courtroom despite her own arranged interpreter [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Social

• Highlights exclusion of PwDs from full participation in a core public institution — the judiciary — despite formal legal guarantees [2].
• Reveals persistent "invisibility"/lack of dignity toward disabled professionals — Sunny noted she was not addressed directly even after her interpreter was accepted [1].

Legal / Constitutional

• RPwD Act, 2016 operationalises Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (access to justice as part of right to life/dignity) for PwDs [2].
• Reasonable accommodation is a statutory obligation on courts/tribunals via NALSA/SLSAs, not a discretionary courtesy [2].
• Gap between statutory mandate and administrative practice (courtroom staff denying access) shows weak enforcement mechanisms.

Administrative

• Interpreter arrangement remains ad hoc and litigant-funded in practice — Ain stated she personally bore interpreter costs while mentoring Sunny [1].
• No uniform, standing protocol across courts (subordinate courts like Bengaluru vs. Supreme Court) for engaging certified sign language interpreters.
• Institutional inertia: momentum from 2023 media attention did not translate into systemic reform [1].

Ethical / Governance

• Tests judiciary's accountability toward its own constitutional mandate of equal access to justice.
• Raises question of whether "reasonable accommodation" duties are backed by budgetary/administrative enforcement or remain aspirational.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2024: Sarah Sunny asked to leave a Bengaluru courtroom despite bringing her own sign language interpreter; intervention by her team was needed before she was allowed to stay, without direct acknowledgment from court staff [1].
• Ain and Sunny attended "Justice Unplugged" only after confirming interpreters would be present, indicating accessibility remains contingent on ad hoc arrangement rather than institutional guarantee [1].
• As of the 1 March 2026 report, both advocates state no structural progress has been made since the 2023 Supreme Court precedent, and interpreter arrangement for courtrooms remains "tedious" [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act was enacted in 2016, replacing the 1995 Act [2].
• The RPwD Act, 2016 guarantees PwDs the right to access courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies without discrimination [2].
• NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities are tasked with ensuring "reasonable accommodation" for PwDs in judicial access [2].
• Accessible modes recognised in the Act include sign language, human-readers, and augmentative/alternative communication — not just Braille [2].
• September 2023 saw the first instance of a Supreme Court hearing where a sign language interpreter's video feed was kept visible throughout, aiding a virtually-joined hearing-impaired advocate [1][3].
• The then-Chief Justice of India who intervened to permit the interpreter's continuous video presence was D.Y. Chandrachud [1][3].
• The Supreme Court subsequently made a formal appointment of a sign-language interpreter to assist hearing-impaired lawyers/litigants — announced by CJI Chandrachud [3].
• Despite this precedent, a hearing-impaired advocate was asked to leave a Bengaluru courtroom in 2024 even with a self-arranged interpreter [1].
• "Reasonable accommodation" without additional cost to the PwD lawyer/litigant is a principle associated with disability access to justice discourse in India [3].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Governance, Constitution — Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources; Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.
• GS-II: Judiciary — structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection of vulnerable sections of society.
• GS-IV: Ethics in governance — accountability, transparency, and empathy toward differently-abled persons in public institutions.

Plausible Mains question stems:

1. "Access to justice for persons with disabilities in India remains more a statutory promise than an administrative reality." Critically examine with reference to the RPwD Act, 2016 and recent courtroom experiences. (GS-II, 15 marks)
2. Discuss the concept of "reasonable accommodation" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and evaluate the institutional mechanisms available for its enforcement in India's judicial system. (GS-II, 15 marks)
3. Legal guarantees for inclusion often fail at the level of everyday administrative practice. Illustrate this proposition with examples from the accessibility of Indian courts to persons with disabilities. (GS-IV, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (full provisions, disability definitions, reservation quotas) — direct statutory backbone of this issue.
• National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — institutional machinery for access to justice, including for PwDs.
• Article 21 and access to justice jurisprudence — constitutional basis for accessibility as a fundamental right.
• UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) — India is a signatory; sets international benchmarks referenced in domestic disability law.
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project / digital accessibility in judiciary — parallel administrative reform relevant to inclusive justice delivery.
• Reservation and accessibility in higher education/employment for PwDs — comparative implementation gaps across sectors.
• Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan / Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan) — broader government accessibility initiatives to contrast with judiciary's lag.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the RPwD Act, 2016 with the older Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 — the 2016 Act repealed and replaced it with an expanded rights-based framework [2].
• Assuming the Supreme Court's 2023 interpreter arrangement was a permanent institutional rule — reports indicate implementation remains ad hoc and inconsistent even in 2024–26 [1].
• Attributing accessibility mandates solely to the Supreme Court — the RPwD Act's court-access guarantee applies to all courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies, not just the apex court [2].
• Mixing up NALSA's role (legal aid and access-to-justice facilitation) with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's role (nodal ministry for RPwD Act implementation generally) — do not conflate the two.