Author(s): Lloyd Ponnudura. A, Varnikha Harshini. T
Paper Details: Volume 4, Issue 5
Citation: IJLSSS 4(5) 06
Page No: 69 – 83
ABSTRACT
Access to justice is a fundamental component of the rule of law and an indispensable human right. Yet, for women with intellectual disabilities in India, the realization of this right remains constrained by structural inequality, institutional bias, and procedural inaccessibility. Although India has enacted progressive constitutional and statutory safeguards and is a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), significant disparities persist between its international obligations and the lived experiences of women with intellectual disabilities. Existing scholarship has examined disability rights and gender justice independently; however, comparatively limited attention has been devoted to the intersection of gender, intellectual disability, and access to justice within the Indian legal framework.
This article adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology to examine the extent to which India’s legal and institutional framework conforms to international human rights standards relating to legal capacity, procedural accommodation, equality, and access to justice. It critically evaluates constitutional guarantees, statutory protections, judicial interpretation, and institutional practices through the normative framework of the CRPD and CEDAW, while drawing comparative insights from selected jurisdictions to identify emerging best practices.
The article argues that women with intellectual disabilities continue to face compounded discrimination arising from the interaction of patriarchal social structures, ableist legal doctrines, substituted decision-making regimes, and inaccessible justice processes. It contends that formal legal equality alone is insufficient to secure meaningful access to justice and that transformative equality requires structural reforms grounded in supported decision-making, reasonable accommodation, gender-responsive legal institutions, and effective implementation of India’s international human rights commitments.
The article concludes that meaningful access to justice demands a transition from paternalistic models of protection to autonomy-based, rights-oriented legal frameworks that recognise women with intellectual disabilities as equal rights-holders capable of participating fully in judicial processes. By integrating constitutional principles, international human rights norms, and comparative legal perspectives, this study contributes to the evolving discourse on disability justice and offers a reform-oriented framework for strengthening access to justice in India.
1. INTRODCTION
Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of a democratic legal system and an essential prerequisite for the protection of human rights. While legal systems are expected to guarantee equality before the law, equal treatment alone does not necessarily ensure equal access to justice. Individuals who experience structural disadvantages often face barriers that prevent them from effectively participating in legal processes, despite the existence of formal legal rights. Among the most marginalized are women with intellectual disabilities, whose experiences are shaped not only by disability but also by gender-based discrimination, social exclusion, and institutional prejudice. These overlapping forms of disadvantage frequently prevent them from seeking legal remedies, participating meaningfully in judicial proceedings, or exercising their legal rights on an equal basis with others.[1]
The exclusion of women with intellectual disabilities from the justice system is not merely the result of isolated administrative shortcomings but reflects deeper structural inequalities embedded within legal institutions and societal attitudes. They continue to face significant challenges at every stage of the justice process from reporting offences and interacting with law enforcement authorities to presenting evidence before courts and obtaining effective remedies. Traditional assumptions regarding legal capacity, dependence on guardianship arrangements, inaccessible legal procedures, and the absence of adequate procedural accommodations often undermine their autonomy and credibility. Consequently, justice systems that are formally committed to equality may, in practice, reinforce existing patterns of exclusion.
In India, the constitutional commitment to equality and dignity provides a strong normative foundation for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, together with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, recognise the need to secure equal participation and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities.[2] At the international level, India’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) require the State to ensure equal recognition before the law, effective access to justice, and appropriate procedural accommodations for women with disabilities.[3] Despite these constitutional and international commitments, considerable gaps remain between the legal framework and its implementation. Judicial processes continue to rely upon conventional notions of mental capacity and procedural uniformity, often overlooking the specific support requirements of women with intellectual disabilities.
Although substantial academic attention has been devoted to disability rights, gender justice, and access to justice as independent fields of study, comparatively limited scholarship has examined the combined impact of gender and intellectual disability on access to justice within the Indian legal system. Much of the existing literature focuses either on disability rights in general or on violence against women, without adequately addressing the structural barriers that arise when these identities intersect. Moreover, limited attention has been paid to assessing India’s compliance with its international human rights obligations through a comparative legal perspective. This article seeks to bridge that gap by examining the extent to which the Indian legal framework fulfils its constitutional and international obligations in ensuring meaningful access to justice for women with intellectual disabilities.
The study adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology based on constitutional provisions, statutory law, judicial decisions, international human rights instruments, and selected comparative jurisdictions. While the primary focus remains on the Indian legal framework, comparative experiences from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are examined to identify practices that may inform future legal and institutional reforms in India.[4]
This article argues that the barriers faced by women with intellectual disabilities are structural rather than incidental. It contends that genuine access to justice cannot be achieved through formal legal equality alone but requires a shift towards substantive and transformative equality that recognises individual autonomy, ensures reasonable accommodation, strengthens supported decision-making mechanisms, and promotes gender-responsive legal institutions. By integrating constitutional principles, international human rights standards, and comparative legal analysis, this article contributes to the growing discourse on disability justice and proposes a reform-oriented framework for strengthening access to justice in India.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The discourse on disability rights has evolved considerably over the past three decades, moving from welfare-oriented approaches towards a rights-based framework founded on equality, dignity, and inclusion. Much of the existing scholarship has focused on the legal recognition of persons with disabilities, the development of the social and human rights models of disability, and the transformative impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Similarly, feminist legal scholarship has extensively examined structural discrimination, gender-based violence, and unequal access to legal institutions. However, these two streams of scholarship have largely developed independently, with limited attention being paid to the unique experiences of women with intellectual disabilities within justice systems.
Contemporary disability scholarship has increasingly recognised that barriers faced by persons with disabilities are not merely physical but are deeply embedded within legal institutions, administrative practices, and social attitudes. The emphasis has gradually shifted from questions of incapacity to questions of autonomy, supported decision-making, and equal recognition before the law. While these developments have significantly influenced international human rights jurisprudence, their practical implementation within domestic legal systems remains uneven, particularly in developing jurisdictions such as India.[5]
Indian legal scholarship has primarily concentrated on constitutional guarantees, statutory protections under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the implementation of disability rights through judicial interpretation. Existing studies have also examined the vulnerability of women with disabilities to violence and discrimination, highlighting deficiencies in institutional support and legal aid mechanisms. Nevertheless, comparatively few studies analyse how gender and intellectual disability interact to create structural barriers within the criminal and civil justice systems. As a result, issues such as testimonial competence, procedural accommodation, legal capacity, and supported decision-making have not received sustained attention within the broader discourse on access to justice.
Another noticeable limitation within the existing literature is the absence of a comprehensive analysis that integrates constitutional principles, international human rights obligations, and comparative legal developments. Although the CRPD and CEDAW have been widely discussed in relation to disability rights and gender equality, limited scholarship has evaluated the extent to which these international obligations have influenced the design and functioning of India’s justice delivery system. Comparative experiences from jurisdictions that have progressively reformed their disability laws are also seldom utilised to assess potential reforms within the Indian context.[6]
This article seeks to address these gaps by adopting an intersectional approach that situates women with intellectual disabilities at the centre of the access-to-justice discourse. Unlike existing studies that examine disability rights or gender justice in isolation, the present study analyses the cumulative impact of structural inequality arising from the intersection of gender and intellectual disability. It further evaluates India’s legal framework against international human rights standards while drawing selective comparative insights from other common law jurisdictions. By doing so, the article aims to contribute to the emerging scholarship on transformative equality and disability justice through a reform-oriented analysis grounded in both constitutional and international law.[7]
3. CONCEPTUAL AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
The contemporary understanding of disability has undergone a significant transformation from the traditional medical model, which viewed disability primarily as an individual’s impairment requiring treatment or protection, to a human rights model that recognises disability as the product of interaction between individual impairments and barriers created by society. This shift has fundamentally altered the legal discourse surrounding disability by placing emphasis on dignity, autonomy, equality, and participation rather than incapacity and dependency. Within this framework, access to justice is understood not merely as the existence of legal remedies but as the ability of every individual to participate effectively in legal processes on an equal basis with others.[8]
The challenges experienced by women with intellectual disabilities cannot be understood through a single-axis approach to discrimination. Their exclusion from justice systems is shaped by the intersection of gender-based discrimination and disability-based disadvantage, producing unique forms of structural inequality that are often overlooked by legal institutions. Legal procedures that appear neutral frequently operate on assumptions of cognitive uniformity, independent decision-making, and conventional modes of communication. These assumptions disproportionately disadvantage women with intellectual disabilities, who may require procedural accommodations and supported decision-making to exercise their legal rights effectively. Consequently, equality before the law demands more than identical treatment; it requires legal systems to recognise and respond to the diverse needs of individuals facing structural disadvantage.[9]
The international human rights framework provides the normative basis for addressing these challenges. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) marks a decisive shift from paternalistic approaches towards a rights-based model that recognises persons with disabilities as autonomous rights-holders. Article 12 affirms equal recognition before the law, while Article 13 requires States to ensure effective access to justice through appropriate procedural accommodations and the training of justice sector personnel. Complementing these obligations, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requires States to eliminate discrimination against women in both law and practice, thereby acknowledging that gender equality cannot be achieved without addressing structural barriers affecting vulnerable groups of women.[10]
Together, these international instruments establish that meaningful access to justice extends beyond physical access to courts. It encompasses legal recognition, effective participation, procedural accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and institutional accountability. These principles provide the benchmark against which the Indian legal framework must be evaluated in the subsequent sections of this article. They also reinforce the broader objective of transformative equality, which seeks not merely to prohibit discrimination but to restructure legal institutions in a manner that enables women with intellectual disabilities to participate as equal rights-holders within the justice system.
4. INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK: ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR WOMEN WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
The Indian constitutional framework provides a strong normative foundation for protecting the rights of persons with disabilities through the principles of equality, dignity, and social justice. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution have consistently been interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee not merely formal equality but fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary legal procedures that preserve individual dignity. These constitutional guarantees are further reinforced by Article 39A, which obligates the State to promote equal justice and ensure that economic or other disabilities do not impede access to legal remedies. Collectively, these constitutional provisions establish that access to justice is an indispensable component of the rule of law and cannot be denied on the ground of disability alone.[11]
The enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) marked a significant step towards harmonising Indian disability law with the obligations arising under the CRPD. The Act recognises equality and non-discrimination as guiding principles and obligates the State to provide reasonable accommodation, ensure accessibility, and protect the legal rights of persons with disabilities. It also recognises intellectual disability as a specified disability and imposes positive obligations on public authorities to facilitate inclusion. Despite these legislative advancements, the implementation of these protections within the justice delivery system remains inconsistent. Procedural safeguards are often absent, accessibility measures are inadequately implemented, and disability-sensitive practices continue to vary across institutions and jurisdictions.[12]
The challenges become more pronounced when women with intellectual disabilities interact with the criminal justice system. Victims of sexual offences and domestic violence frequently encounter barriers at the stage of reporting complaints, recording statements, medical examination, investigation, and trial. Police officers and other justice sector officials often lack specialised training to communicate effectively with persons having intellectual disabilities, resulting in delays, incomplete investigations, or reluctance to register complaints. During trial, conventional evidentiary practices may place undue emphasis on cognitive ability and verbal communication, thereby affecting the credibility accorded to victims and witnesses with intellectual disabilities. Such institutional practices undermine both procedural fairness and substantive equality.
The Supreme Court has, however, progressively recognised that equality requires accommodation rather than uniform treatment. In Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, the Court observed that reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but a constitutional obligation flowing from the guarantee of equality and dignity. The judgment affirmed that the denial of reasonable accommodation amounts to discrimination and emphasised the State’s duty to create conditions that enable persons with disabilities to participate equally in public life. Although the decision arose in the context of competitive examinations, the principles articulated by the Court possess wider significance for judicial procedures and access to justice, particularly for women with intellectual disabilities who require procedural support to participate effectively in legal proceedings.[13]
Notwithstanding these developments, important gaps continue to exist within the Indian legal framework. Guardianship practices, limited availability of support persons, inadequate legal aid, inaccessible court infrastructure, and the absence of uniform procedural guidelines continue to restrict meaningful participation by women with intellectual disabilities. Consequently, India’s legal framework demonstrates a noticeable divergence between its constitutional ideals, statutory commitments, and the lived realities of those seeking justice. Bridging this gap requires not only legislative compliance with international standards but also institutional reforms capable of translating legal rights into practical and effective access to justice.
5. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES: LESSONS FOR THE INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Comparative legal analysis offers valuable insights into how different jurisdictions have sought to reconcile disability rights with effective access to justice. While constitutional, social, and institutional contexts differ across countries, the experiences of jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia demonstrate a gradual shift from paternalistic approaches towards rights-based models that emphasise autonomy, supported decision-making, and procedural inclusion. These developments are particularly relevant for India, which has undertaken legislative reforms through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, but continues to face significant challenges in translating legal guarantees into effective institutional practices.
The United Kingdom has progressively adopted measures to improve the participation of persons with intellectual disabilities in judicial proceedings by recognising the need for procedural accommodations and effective communication support. Special measures, intermediary assistance, and judicial guidance seek to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are able to provide evidence without compromising the fairness of the proceedings. Rather than questioning an individual’s competence solely on the basis of disability, the emphasis is placed on adapting legal procedures to facilitate meaningful participation. This approach reflects an understanding that equality before the law requires flexibility within legal institutions rather than rigid procedural uniformity.[14]
Canadian jurisprudence similarly recognises that substantive equality requires public institutions to accommodate the specific needs of persons with disabilities. Courts have consistently held that equal treatment cannot be achieved by applying identical procedures to individuals whose circumstances require differential support. This approach has influenced the development of disability-inclusive legal practices that encourage accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and equal participation within the justice system. The Canadian experience illustrates that disability rights are strengthened when accommodation is viewed as an integral component of equality rather than an exception to general legal procedures.[15]
Australia has also undertaken significant reforms by promoting supported decision-making and improving access to legal assistance for persons with disabilities. Policy initiatives have increasingly focused on recognising individual autonomy while providing the necessary support for effective participation in legal processes. Although challenges remain, Australian reforms demonstrate the importance of institutional coordination, specialised training, and accessible justice mechanisms in protecting the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities.
For India, these comparative experiences do not provide models for direct transplantation, as each jurisdiction operates within distinct constitutional and socio-economic conditions. Nevertheless, they demonstrate a common principle that procedural fairness must be adapted to individual needs if equality before the law is to be meaningful. India’s constitutional commitment to dignity, equality, and social justice, together with its obligations under the CRPD, provides an adequate normative foundation for similar reforms. The principal challenge therefore lies not in the absence of legal standards but in ensuring their consistent implementation through institutional capacity-building, judicial sensitivity, and disability-inclusive procedural reforms.[16]
6. STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN INDIA
The existence of constitutional guarantees and statutory protections does not automatically translate into meaningful access to justice for women with intellectual disabilities. Although India has progressively aligned its disability legislation with international human rights standards, the practical functioning of the justice system continues to reveal significant structural deficiencies. These deficiencies are not isolated administrative failures but are rooted in institutional practices, procedural rigidity, and long-standing social attitudes that collectively impede the effective participation of women with intellectual disabilities in legal proceedings.
One of the earliest barriers arises at the stage of reporting offences. Women with intellectual disabilities frequently encounter difficulties in communicating incidents of abuse, particularly where appropriate communication support or trained personnel are unavailable. In many instances, law enforcement officials lack specialised training to interact with persons with intellectual disabilities, leading to delays in registration of complaints, incomplete recording of statements, or an over-reliance on family members and guardians. Such practices diminish the autonomy of the victim and may compromise the accuracy and voluntariness of the information placed before investigative authorities.[17]
Institutional barriers continue throughout the judicial process. Court procedures are generally designed around assumptions that litigants and witnesses possess uniform cognitive and communicative abilities. Women with intellectual disabilities may require simplified communication, additional time to respond, or the assistance of trained support persons in order to participate effectively. The absence of such procedural accommodations often results in unequal participation despite the formal availability of judicial remedies. Equality before the law therefore requires courts to adapt their procedures to individual needs rather than expecting individuals to conform to inflexible procedural norms.
Another significant challenge concerns societal perceptions of credibility and legal capacity. Women with intellectual disabilities are frequently viewed through paternalistic assumptions that portray them as incapable of making informed decisions or providing reliable evidence. Such stereotypes may influence the conduct of investigations, the assessment of testimony, and the overall treatment of victims within the justice system. The resulting prejudice not only discourages the reporting of offences but also weakens confidence in legal institutions. A justice system committed to substantive equality must therefore reject assumptions based solely on disability and assess each individual according to the facts and circumstances of the case.[18]
The availability of legal aid and support services also remains uneven across India. Although legal assistance is recognised as an important component of access to justice, many women with intellectual disabilities continue to experience difficulties in obtaining appropriate legal representation, counselling services, psychological support, and rehabilitation assistance. These shortcomings are particularly evident in rural and economically disadvantaged regions, where specialised disability services remain limited. Without coordinated institutional support, the legal recognition of rights often fails to translate into effective remedies.
These barriers are further compounded by the intersection of disability with gender, poverty, education, and social exclusion. Women with intellectual disabilities frequently experience multiple disadvantages simultaneously, making it difficult to isolate disability from broader structural inequalities. Consequently, improving access to justice requires more than legislative reform alone. It demands institutional accountability, disability-sensitive judicial procedures, continuous capacity-building for justice sector officials, and the adoption of policies that recognise the diverse experiences of women with intellectual disabilities. Unless these structural barriers are addressed comprehensively, constitutional guarantees and statutory protections will remain largely aspirational rather than practically enforceable.[19]
7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFORM AGENDA
Ensuring meaningful access to justice for women with intellectual disabilities requires a shift from a predominantly welfare-oriented approach towards a rights-based framework that recognises autonomy, equality, and active participation. While India has made significant legislative progress through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the effectiveness of these legal protections ultimately depends upon their implementation within the justice delivery system. Accordingly, reforms must extend beyond legislative enactments to encompass institutional practices, procedural safeguards, and capacity-building initiatives.
A priority area for reform is the development of disability-inclusive procedures within the criminal and civil justice systems. Police officers, prosecutors, judicial officers, and court staff should receive regular training on disability rights, gender sensitivity, and effective communication with persons having intellectual disabilities. Such training should focus not only on statutory obligations but also on eliminating stereotypes that undermine the credibility and autonomy of women with intellectual disabilities during investigations and judicial proceedings. Institutional sensitisation is essential to ensure that procedural fairness is realised in practice rather than remaining a formal legal obligation.[20]
The justice system must also adopt clear procedural mechanisms that facilitate meaningful participation by women with intellectual disabilities. Courts should be empowered to provide appropriate communication support, permit the assistance of trained support persons where necessary, and adopt flexible procedures that enable victims and witnesses to present evidence effectively without compromising the fairness of the proceedings. These measures should be viewed as essential components of substantive equality rather than discretionary accommodations granted on a case-by-case basis.
Legal aid services require further strengthening to ensure that women with intellectual disabilities receive timely legal representation, counselling, and rehabilitation support. Although statutory legal aid mechanisms exist, their accessibility and effectiveness vary considerably across different regions of the country. Greater coordination between Legal Services Authorities, disability rights organisations, healthcare professionals, and social welfare agencies would facilitate a more integrated response to the legal needs of women with intellectual disabilities. Such collaboration would also reduce institutional fragmentation and improve the delivery of support services throughout the justice process.[21]
India may also benefit from selectively adopting best practices from comparative jurisdictions. The experiences of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia demonstrate that procedural accommodation, supported decision-making, and specialised assistance for vulnerable participants can substantially improve access to justice without compromising due process or judicial independence. Rather than replicating foreign legal models, India should adapt these principles in a manner consistent with its constitutional framework and socio-economic realities. Comparative experiences should therefore serve as persuasive guidance for institutional reform rather than as direct legislative templates.
Ultimately, meaningful access to justice requires sustained political commitment, institutional accountability, and continuous monitoring of implementation. Legislative reforms alone cannot dismantle structural inequalities unless they are accompanied by practical measures that ensure women with intellectual disabilities are able to participate in legal processes as autonomous rights-holders. A justice system committed to constitutional values must therefore move beyond formal recognition of rights and actively remove the barriers that continue to impede equal participation. Such an approach would not only strengthen compliance with India’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations but also promote a more inclusive and responsive justice system.
8. CONCLUSION
The pursuit of equal access to justice lies at the heart of every constitutional democracy committed to the rule of law and the protection of human rights. For women with intellectual disabilities, however, the promise of justice often remains unrealised due to the cumulative impact of structural inequality, institutional barriers, and deeply entrenched social prejudices. Although India has made significant constitutional, legislative, and policy advancements in recognising the rights of persons with disabilities, the effective implementation of these guarantees continues to present considerable challenges. The existence of legal rights alone cannot ensure justice unless institutions are capable of enabling individuals to exercise those rights in practice.
This study has examined India’s legal framework through the normative lens of international human rights law, particularly the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It demonstrates that while the constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination provides a robust legal foundation, the justice delivery system continues to reflect procedural and institutional practices that disproportionately disadvantage women with intellectual disabilities. The persistence of barriers relating to legal capacity, communication, procedural accommodation, accessibility, and institutional responsiveness reveals a significant gap between formal legal guarantees and substantive equality.
The comparative experiences of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia further illustrate that meaningful access to justice requires more than legislative recognition of rights. It demands institutional adaptation, disability-inclusive procedures, specialised training, and a sustained commitment to recognising persons with disabilities as autonomous participants within the justice system. While these jurisdictions operate within different constitutional and social contexts, they collectively demonstrate that effective access to justice is achievable when legal systems move beyond paternalistic assumptions and adopt rights-based approaches grounded in autonomy, participation, and reasonable accommodation.[22]
The central argument of this article is that the challenges faced by women with intellectual disabilities are structural rather than individual. Consequently, legal reform must extend beyond statutory enactments to include institutional accountability, judicial sensitivity, accessible procedures, coordinated legal support, and effective implementation of constitutional and international obligations. A justice system that merely recognises rights without enabling their meaningful exercise falls short of both constitutional values and international human rights standards.
As India continues to strengthen its commitment to inclusive governance and social justice, ensuring meaningful access to justice for women with intellectual disabilities must remain a legal and constitutional priority. The measure of an equitable justice system is not the rights it declares, but the extent to which those rights are made accessible to those who have historically been excluded from its protection. Realising this vision requires a transition from formal equality to transformative justice—one that recognises diversity, dismantles structural barriers, and affirms the equal dignity and autonomy of every individual before the law.
[1] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts. 12–13, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
[2] Indian Constitution arts. 14, 15 & 21; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
[3] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts. 6, 12 & 13.
[4] United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 (2014): Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/GC/1 (2014).
[5] United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 (2014): Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/GC/1 (2014).
[6] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts. 6, 12 & 13; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women arts. 2 & 15.
[7] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F. 139 (1989).
[8] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities pmbl., arts. 1, 3, 12 & 13, Dec. 13, 2006, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3.
[9] Kimberlé Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. Chi. Legal F. 139 (1989).
[10] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women arts. 2 & 15, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13; United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 (2014): Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/GC/1 (2014).
[11] Indian Constitution Art 14, 21 & 39A; Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 (recognising access to justice and speedy trial as integral to Article 21).
[12] Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 49 of 2016, §§ 3, 12, 13 & 89 (India).
[13] Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370, ¶¶ 43–55
[14] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, c. 23, §§ 16–30 (U.K.) (providing special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses).
[15] Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, ¶¶ 73–82 (Can.) (holding that substantive equality may require positive accommodation to ensure equal access to public services).
[16] Australian Law Reform Commission, Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws, Report No. 124, ch. 3 (2014) (advocating supported decision-making as a rights-based approach consistent with the CRPD).
[17] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Advisory on Measures to Ensure Safety and Security of Women (2015) (emphasising victim-sensitive investigation and the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies in dealing with vulnerable victims).
[18] United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 3 (2016): Women and Girls with Disabilities, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/GC/3, ¶¶ 31–38 (2016) (discussing intersectional discrimination and barriers to justice).
[19] National Legal Services Authority, NALSA (Legal Services to the Mentally Ill and Mentally Disabled Persons) Scheme, 2015, cls. 4–7 (providing legal aid and support mechanisms for persons with mental disabilities).
[20] Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan): Revised Guidelines (2021) (emphasising accessibility and institutional capacity-building for persons with disabilities).
[21] National Legal Services Authority, NALSA (Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities) Scheme, 2015, pts. II & III (providing legal assistance, awareness programmes, and coordination with welfare institutions for persons with disabilities).
[22] United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 6 (2018): Equality and Non-discrimination, U.N. Doc. CRPD/C/GC/6, ¶¶ 15–29 (2018) (emphasising substantive equality, reasonable accommodation, and the removal of structural barriers affecting persons with disabilities).