Back
summons Election Commission over inaccessible voting for disabled persons
In a significant move to enforce the voting rights of persons with disabilities, the recently summoned the to explain why polling stations remain inaccessible despite clear legal mandates. The summons underscores a persistent gap between the promises of the and the ground reality faced by over 88 lakh registered disabled voters.
The Legal Framework and Its Gaps
Section 11 of the RPwD Act explicitly requires that
"all polling stations are accessible to persons with disabilities and all materials related to the electoral process are easily understandable by and accessible to them."
Yet, the Act's Section 40, which deals with accessibility standards, uses vague language—"other facilities and services"—without expressly naming polling stations, Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), or electoral offices. This ambiguity has allowed widespread non-compliance.
The , which governs elections, contains no specific provisions for disabled voters. Sections 11A and 62 address disqualifications but omit any duty to ensure accessible infrastructure. Consequently, disabled voters often rely on ad hoc guidelines rather than enforceable legal rights.
Real Stories of Exclusion
The gap between law and practice is starkly illustrated by personal accounts. Priya Srivastava, a wheelchair user in Lucknow, found the EVM placed too high to reach independently.
"I made my choice based on accessibility,"
she said, forced to press a button for a candidate she did not support to preserve her privacy. Samita Sadasivan of the
reported ramps so steep that she needed someone to push her wheelchair—a clear failure of accessibility standards.
These experiences are not isolated. Nearly half of all registered disabled voters were affected by recent electoral roll revisions, and the ECI has invoked "" to avoid compiling basic data on disabled voters. Without enforceable law or transparent data, technology meant to empower instead excludes.
Judicial Interventions and the Way Forward
Courts have stepped in where the legislature and executive have not. In Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011), the held that (right to life) must be read with (equality) to remove disparities and enhance the quality of life for persons with disabilities. The 's recent summons continues this trajectory of judicial oversight, demanding accountability from the ECI.
However, judicial intervention tends to produce directions rather than penalties. The RPwD Act's Chapter XVI provides for fines and imprisonment for offences, but these provisions are rarely applied to authorities failing to ensure accessibility. The case of illustrates how courts often issue directions without imposing sanctions, leaving implementation weak.
Conclusion: Democracy Denied
The right to vote under is not merely a mechanical act; it is a constitutional promise of equal citizenship. For persons with disabilities, that promise remains aspirational. Between an estimated 1.89 crore eligible disabled electors and the 88.35 lakh actually registered lies a democratic deficit that technology alone cannot bridge. Until Section 40 of the RPwD Act is amended to explicitly cover polling stations and EVMs, and until the ECI is legally bound to collect and publish disaggregated data, India's disabled voters will continue to face a system that quietly denies them their fundamental right.
