Accessibility is no longer a social commitment. It is a risk exposure baseline India can no longer ignore

India is not “early” on accessibility expertise. India is late on accountability. This the strategic truth India must confront.

For nearly two decades, accessibility in India has been framed as awareness, inclusion, or social responsibility. Conferences were convened. Guidelines were circulated. Audits were commissioned. Yet the lived experience of persons with disabilities continues to expose a systemic gap between intent and outcome. Ramps that meet slope ratios on paper but end in steps. Toilets marked accessible that cannot be used independently. Public buildings that technically comply during inspection but fail the moment daily use begins.

This is not an implementation lag. It is a governance failure.

India does not lack standards. It references international conventions, national building codes, and sector-specific guidelines. What the market is experiencing today is fatigue. Fatigue from frameworks that inspire but do not bind. Fatigue from audits that report non-compliance without consequence. Fatigue from infrastructure that appears compliant until it is actually used.

The uncomfortable reality India must now confront is this: accessibility has become a measurable risk exposure.

From moral framing to legal and operational risk

This shift was formally articulated by the Supreme Court of India in November 2024 in the landmark Rajive Raturi v. Union of India proceedings, where the Court held that treating accessibility requirements under Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules as merely recommendatory defeated the very purpose of the RPwD Act, and directed the Government to frame mandatory, enforceable accessibility standards with real statutory consequences for non-compliance.

This move places India on a regulatory path already well established internationally.

In the United States, accessibility obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act have long been enforced through civil penalties, consent decrees, and court-monitored remediation. Inaccessible buildings have faced delayed openings, mandatory retrofits, and long-term compliance monitoring imposed by federal authorities. Accessibility is treated not as a design preference, but as a condition of lawful operation.

In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act and building control regimes link accessibility to planning approvals and occupation. Public bodies face judicial review for inaccessible infrastructure, and private developers risk enforcement action where reasonable access is not provided. Accessibility failures are framed as governance and compliance breaches, not social oversights.

Across the European Union, accessibility has increasingly been positioned as a market access condition. The European Accessibility Act extends obligations beyond public infrastructure into transport, digital services, and consumer-facing environments, reinforcing the idea that exclusion is a regulatory failure with economic consequences.

Australia follows a similar enforcement logic. Disability access standards are embedded into building approvals, transport regulation, and public infrastructure funding. Complaints mechanisms and legal remedies ensure that non-compliance exposes owners and operators to enforceable risk, not moral criticism.

India’s shift is neither radical nor premature. It is a delayed alignment with a global regulatory consensus.

Why awareness is no longer the problem

Most large organizations in India already express support for accessibility. Most real estate developers already reference accessibility standards in design documentation.
Most governments already cite national and international norms in policy frameworks.

Yet failure persists.

The reason is structural. Accessibility responsibility remains fragmented across designers, contractors, certifying authorities, and operators. Audits identify gaps but rarely delay completion or occupation. No single actor carries end-to-end accountability.

This pattern is not unique to India. It was visible across much of the Global South until enforcement mechanisms changed.

In South Africa, courts have compelled public authorities to correct inaccessible transport systems under constitutional equality obligations. In Brazil, federal prosecutors have pursued municipalities and developers for inaccessible public buildings, linking compliance to funding and approvals. In Colombia, accessibility failures have triggered administrative sanctions and judicial remedies tied directly to building permits.

In Indonesia and Kenya, accessibility guidelines existed for years with limited effect until courts and regulators began linking compliance to constitutional rights, procurement rules, and planning permissions.

The lesson is consistent across jurisdictions: awareness does not produce access. Accountability does.

Accessibility as a risk exposure baseline

This is where the conversation must now land. Accessibility must be treated the same way organizations already treat fire safety, structural stability, environmental clearance, and data protection. Not as an ethical aspiration, but as a baseline condition for lawful operation.

Globally, every major regulatory shift has followed the same arc. Fire safety was once advisory. Environmental safeguards were once procedural. Data protection was once voluntary. Each became non-negotiable only after systemic failures exposed real harm and unmanaged risk.

Accessibility has reached that inflection point.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India, the EU, the US’s allies, Australia, and most of the Global South, frames accessibility as a binding state obligation. What courts and regulators are now doing is translating that obligation into enforceable domestic controls.

India’s emerging framework links accessibility compliance to building codes, completion certificates, and public disclosure. This shifts accessibility from design intent to operational legitimacy.

What this means for real estate

For real estate developers, accessibility risk is no longer abstract.

In the US, UK, Europe, and Australia, inaccessible buildings have faced delayed occupancy, forced retrofits, and enforcement action. Retrofitting after construction is significantly more expensive than building correctly from the start and introduces investor and lender risk.

Similar patterns are now visible across Latin America and parts of Asia. In Brazil and Chile, projects have faced penalties and delayed occupation due to accessibility non-compliance. Multinational tenants increasingly include accessibility clauses in leases, transferring compliance risk back to developers.

India is entering this same risk environment. A building that cannot be lawfully occupied or publicly defended is not an asset. It is a liability.

What this means for corporates

For corporates, accessibility failures increasingly intersect with employment law, ESG scrutiny, and public accountability.

In the US, UK, Europe, and Australia, inaccessible workplaces expose organizations to discrimination claims and regulatory action. In emerging markets, similar failures have triggered labour disputes and reputational damage where inclusion commitments did not match physical reality.

As grievance mechanisms become more accessible and disclosure norms tighten, Indian corporates face the same exposure.

Accessibility gaps are no longer invisible. They are documentable, contestable, and enforceable.

What this means for governments

For governments and urban authorities, the implications are constitutional.

Across advanced and emerging economies alike, courts have held states accountable for inaccessible courts, transport systems, hospitals, and civic infrastructure. These are no longer treated as policy shortcomings, but as failures of equal access to public services.

India’s judiciary has now signalled that similar standards apply domestically. Planning authorities and municipal bodies are no longer passive issuers of guidelines. They are enforcement actors with direct legal exposure.

What the market now demands

If accessibility is to be treated as a risk exposure baseline rather than a moral aspiration, the market requires systems not intentions.

Across jurisdictions where accessibility enforcement has stabilised, four structural characteristics consistently emerge. These do not represent innovation. They represent regulatory maturity.

1. Independent, verifiable certification

Accessibility cannot be self-declared, consultant-certified, or internally signed off. Where enforcement has worked, compliance is validated through independent certification mechanisms that are auditable, reviewable, and defensible under legal scrutiny. The purpose of certification is not symbolism. It is risk transfer providing owners, operators, and regulators confidence that accessibility claims can withstand challenge.

2. Lifecycle Accountability, Not Design-Time Compliance

Effective accessibility governance does not stop at drawings or completion. It spans the full lifecycle of an asset design, construction, commissioning, and operation. This ensures that accessibility is not diluted during value engineering, compromised during construction, or rendered unusable through poor maintenance and operational decisions. Accountability follows the building, not just the blueprint.

3. Post-occupancy validation based on lived use

Jurisdictions that have reduced litigation recognise a simple truth: accessibility succeeds or fails in use, not inspection. Post-occupancy validation tests whether environments function for persons with disabilities in real conditions—peak loads, emergency scenarios, routine navigation, and independent use. This closes the gap between technical compliance and lived accessibility.

4. Transparent disclosure and traceability

As with fire safety, environmental clearance, and increasingly ESG disclosures, accessibility compliance must be traceable, documented, and publicly defensible. Clear records of standards applied, audits conducted, gaps addressed, and validations completed create institutional memory and reduce dispute risk. Where disclosure exists, ambiguity recedes. Where it does not, litigation follows.

From frameworks to confidence

The market does not lack guidelines. It lacks confidence.
Confidence that what is built will perform as promised.
Confidence that what is certified will withstand regulatory and judicial scrutiny.
Confidence that what is disclosed will survive public accountability.

That confidence is not created through awareness campaigns or aspirational language. It is created through systems that make accessibility measurable, verifiable, and enforceable across time.

Until such systems become the norm, accessibility will continue to oscillate between symbolic compliance and judicial intervention. Where they are established, accessibility ceases to be contentious and becomes infrastructure.

Conclusion

Across jurisdictions, the pattern is now unmistakable. Wherever accessibility was treated as guidance, courts became the enforcers. Wherever it was treated as risk, litigation receded. Lawsuits did not create accessibility. They exposed the cost of ignoring it.

India now stands at that same threshold. It can allow accessibility to be enforced one grievance at a time, through prolonged litigation that burdens individuals and clogs institutions. Or it can do what every mature regulatory system eventually does: move enforcement upstream, into permissions, certifications, and occupation controls.

The Supreme Court’s signal is clear. Accessibility is no longer a post-facto correction. It is a precondition for lawful operation.

The question before India is not whether accessibility matters. That debate is over. The question is whether the country will manage accessibility as a predictable, auditable risk or outsource it, yet again, to the courts.

History suggests how that choice ends. Accessibility ignored becomes litigation. Accessibility governed becomes infrastructure.

India still has the opportunity to choose the latter.

END OF ARTICLE