Offences and Penalties Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act

Rights exist on paper. But without enforcement, they remain hollow promises. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) understood this well. Beyond establishing rights and entitlements for persons with disabilities, the Act dedicates an entire chapter – Chapter XVI – to offences and penalties. This chapter ensures that violations, fraud, and atrocities against persons with disabilities are not just condemned in principle but are punishable by law. Here is a clear, section-by-section breakdown of what the law says and why it matters.

Why penalties are necessary in disability law 🔗

The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the older Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995, which was largely advisory in nature. Legal scholars have noted that the shift brought about by the 2016 Act was significant – it introduced enforceable protections backed by special courts and punitive measures, transforming what were once civil concerns into cognizable criminal offences. The inclusion of penalties was a deliberate signal: discrimination, exploitation, and negligence toward persons with disabilities will carry real consequences.

The Act applies to government, non-government, and private organisations alike, and lays down penalties for any violation of its provisions. The penal framework is laid out across Sections 89 to 95 under Chapter XVI.

Section 89: Penalty for contravening the Act 🔗

This is the baseline provision. Section 89 states that any person who contravenes any provision of the Act or any rule made under it is liable to be punished. For a first contravention, the fine can extend up to ₹10,000. For any subsequent contravention, the fine is steeper – not less than ₹50,000 and potentially up to ₹5 lakh.

This escalating penalty structure is intentional. It ensures that repeat violations are treated with increasing seriousness. Whether it is an employer failing to make reasonable accommodation, or an institution ignoring accessibility norms, this section provides the legal basis for penalizing non-compliance.

Section 90: Offences by companies 🔗

The Act does not let organisations off the hook by pointing fingers only at individuals. Under Section 90, when an offence is committed by a company, every person who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at that time is deemed guilty – along with the company itself.

There is, however, a defense available. If the person can prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge, or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent it, they may not be held liable. But if the offence is traced back to the consent, connivance, or neglect of a director, manager, secretary, or any officer, that individual is also held personally guilty. This provision closes a common loophole where organisations would otherwise shield individuals from accountability.

Section 91: Fraudulently availing benefits meant for persons with benchmark disabilities 🔗

Persons with benchmark disabilities – those with 40% or more of a specified disability – are entitled to specific benefits: reservations in government jobs, higher education seats, special schemes, and more. Section 91 directly addresses the misuse of these benefits.

Whoever fraudulently avails or attempts to avail any benefit meant for persons with benchmark disabilities is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to ₹1 lakh, or both. This includes those who submit false disability certificates, misrepresent their condition, or otherwise manipulate the system to claim benefits they are not entitled to.

This provision protects the integrity of the benefit system. When ineligible persons fraudulently claim reserved seats or government schemes, they deprive the very people these benefits are designed for. The Act treats such fraud seriously – as a criminal offence, not merely an administrative irregularity.

Section 92: Punishment for offences of atrocities 🔗

This is the most significant penal section of the Act. Section 92 creates six distinct categories of criminal offences specifically targeting the vulnerabilities of persons with disabilities. The punishment for any of these offences is imprisonment for a term not less than six months, which may extend to five years, along with a fine.

What constitutes an atrocity under Section 92? 🔗

The section lists the following acts as punishable atrocities:

(a) Intentional insult or intimidation: Deliberately insulting or intimidating a person with disability in any place within public view, with the intent to humiliate them, is a criminal offence. This acknowledges that harm to dignity is not just a social failing – it is a legal wrong.

(b) Assault or use of force: Assaulting or using physical force against a person with disability to dishonour them, or to outrage the modesty of a woman with disability, is punishable under this section.

(c) Denial of food or fluids: A person who has actual charge or control over someone with a disability and voluntarily or knowingly denies them food or fluids commits a punishable offence. This provision specifically addresses the abuse that can occur in custodial or caregiving situations – at home, in institutions, or in care facilities.

(d) Sexual exploitation: Being in a position to dominate the will of a child or woman with disability and using that position to exploit her sexually is explicitly listed as an atrocity. The Act recognises the heightened vulnerability of women and children with disabilities to sexual abuse by those in positions of authority or trust.

(e) Voluntary injury to limbs or senses: Anyone who voluntarily injures, damages, or interferes with the use of any limb, sense, or supporting device of a person with disability is liable under this section. This includes damage to assistive devices like wheelchairs, hearing aids, or white canes – tools that are extensions of a person’s functional independence.

(f) Unauthorized medical procedures: Performing or directing any medical procedure on a woman with disability that leads to – or is likely to lead to – the termination of pregnancy without her express consent is a serious offence. An exception exists only in cases of severe disability, where the procedure is done with the opinion of a registered medical practitioner and the consent of her guardian.

Together, these provisions reflect a comprehensive understanding of how atrocities against persons with disabilities can manifest – from public humiliation to covert medical harm. The aim of the lawmakers was to protect the dignity of every person with a disability in society and prevent any form of discrimination or exploitation.

Section 93: Failure to furnish information 🔗

Enforcement mechanisms require transparency and information flow. Section 93 deals with anyone who fails to produce books, accounts, documents, or furnish statements or information that they are legally required to provide under the Act. The fine for each such offence may extend to ₹25,000. In cases of continued refusal or failure, an additional fine of up to ₹1,000 per day can be imposed for each day the non-compliance continues after the original penalty order.

This provision ensures that the Chief Commissioner, State Commissioners, and other oversight bodies can effectively carry out their functions without being stonewalled by uncooperative establishments.

Section 94 and 95: Prior sanction and alternative punishments 🔗

Section 94 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a government employee under this chapter without the prior sanction of the appropriate Government, or unless a complaint is filed by an officer specifically authorized for this purpose. This is a procedural safeguard – though critics have argued it can also become a barrier to accountability for government employees.

Section 95 addresses the situation where an act constitutes an offence under both the RPwD Act and another law. In such cases, the offender will be punished only under the law that provides the greater degree of punishment. This prevents double punishment while ensuring that the stricter legal standard always applies – a sensible and fair approach when multiple laws overlap.

Special courts for speedy trial 🔗

The penal provisions of the Act are backed by a dedicated judicial mechanism. Section 84 mandates the establishment of Special Courts in each district, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, specifically to try offences under this Act. Section 85 further requires the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors with at least seven years of practice to handle these cases.

States like Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have moved ahead with designating such courts. The Supreme Court also directed all states and union territories in 2017 to establish Special Courts under the Act. However, the scarcity of Special Courts at the state level has weakened enforcement in practice, limiting the deterrent effect these provisions are meant to have.

The gap between law and implementation 🔗

Having robust penalties written into law is necessary, but not sufficient. The RPWD Act received the assent of the President on December 27, 2016, and its preamble clearly states that it aims to uphold the dignity of every person with disability and prevent any form of discrimination. Yet, compliance gaps persist – in accessibility, employment, and institutional treatment of persons with disabilities.

The Act provides strict provisions for penalties for offences committed against persons with disabilities and for violations of the provisions of the new law – but awareness of these rights and channels for redress remains limited, particularly in rural areas and among the most vulnerable groups. Teachers, caregivers, institutional staff, and public officials all have a role to play in making these provisions more than just text on a page.

What do you think? The RPwD Act 2016 provides strong legal penalties for atrocities and fraud against persons with disabilities – but laws work only when people know about them and institutions take them seriously. What steps can educators and community organizations take to make these provisions more widely known? And do you think the current penalties are strong enough to truly deter violations, or does more need to be done?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2155
2. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/indias-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-act-2016-an-unfulfilled-promise/
3. https://deoc.in/the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilitiesrpwd-act/
4. https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/p/chapter-xvi-offences-and-penalties.html
5. https://respekt.in/offences-and-penalties-for-violating-disability-laws-ensuring-enforcement-and-equality/
6. https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/criminal-offences-and-trials-under.html
7. https://www.lawrbit.com/article/rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-act-a-reformative-legislation/
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6482682/
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=155592