Establish Legal Rights Of The Disabled

I am writing this article in response to the call made by the Ministry of Women, Children and Senior Citizens (MOWCSC) to present opinions and reasons for the proposed amendments. While engaging with the document published on the government’s official website, I encountered a fundamental barrier: the document itself was not accessible. It had been uploaded as an image, making it unreadable through screen readers. With minimal additional effort such as providing a Word or Rich Text version it could have been accessible to many. Instead, I had to rely on my partner to read it aloud. This is not a minor oversight; it reflects a deeper, persistent gap between commitment and practice.

If we are amending laws, consultation must be meaningful and inclusive. This is an opportunity not to be wasted an opportunity to align domestic legislation with international commitments that Nepal has already made before the global community. The reasons provided by the government for initiating amendments are valid. However, the document does not explicitly acknowledge the recommendations made by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) during Nepal’s review. Ignoring these recommendations risks repeating past mistakes, prolonging systemic injustice, and reinforcing discrimination.

Medical model 

At the outset, it becomes evident that the proposed amendments continue to rely on a medical model of disability, particularly in defining disability and determining degrees of severity. This approach is outdated. It locates disability within the individual, rather than recognising it as the result of interaction between a person with impairments and the barriers present in society. Closely linked to this is the absence of a clear distinction between disability-related benefits and the broader systems required to support persons with disabilities. The proposed approach appears to adopt a one-size-fits-all model in determining social protection allowances, without acknowledging the diversity of needs and lived experiences.

The document presents rehabilitation as something exclusively required for persons with disabilities. This reflects a limited understanding. Rehabilitation is a need that arises in many contexts road accidents, burns, falls, or other injuries many of which do not result in disability. By framing rehabilitation narrowly, the policy risks excluding a wider group of people who may require such services while also reinforcing misconceptions about disability.

The annexes continue to define disability through medical conditions such as polio, muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, and haemophilia. While these conditions may lead to disability, their presence alone does not constitute disability. Disability emerges from the interaction between impairment and environmental and attitudinal barriers.

International standards, particularly under the CRPD, recognise four broad domains of disability: physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental or psychosocial. All impairments can be understood within these categories, including complex conditions that may span multiple domains.

What is required is a shift towards a functional approach one that assesses how individuals experience barriers in daily life and determines eligibility for support accordingly. Such assessments must be conducted in ways that are dignified, inclusive, and participatory. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the proposed amendments is the continued legitimisation and investment in segregation, exclusion, and marginalisation through so called rehabilitation centres and residential facilities.

Article 19 of the CRPD is unequivocal in its stance: persons with disabilities have the right to live independently and be included in the community. The CRPD Committee has further clarified that institutionalisation is not limited to large, isolated facilities. Any setting be it a residential school or a small home where individuals are required to follow imposed routines, share services against their will, live with others not of their choosing, and lack freedom of movement or association, constitutes institutionalisation. Such arrangements undermine equality of opportunity, restrict personal autonomy, and violate fundamental rights. Institutionalisation, in effect, stands in contradiction to the obligation of the state to prevent neglect, abandonment, and concealment of persons with disabilities.

Persons with disabilities are often excluded among the already excluded. Residential facilities, whether framed as rehabilitation or education, deepen this exclusion. They isolate individuals from their communities and increase the risk of rights violations.

Independent living does not simply mean living alone; it means having the freedom to make choices about one’s life, to decide where and with whom to live, and to participate fully in society. Institutional models, by design, erode these freedoms.

Accountability 

The proposed law identifies the National Direction Committee as both a coordinating and CRPD-implementing body. However, the CRPD Committee has consistently expressed concern that such mechanisms are often placed too far from centres of decision-making power. For effective implementation, such a body should be anchored at a higher level closer to the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance, or the Ministry of Justice, Law and Parliamentary Affairs. Repositioning and restructuring this body are not merely administrative; it is central to ensuring accountability, coherence, and real impact.

This amendment process presents a critical opportunity. It is a chance to move beyond symbolic commitments and align Nepal’s laws with the principles and obligations it has already endorsed internationally. It is also a chance to centre they lived experiences of persons with disabilities in lawmaking. I hope that these reflections reach the concerned ministers and cabinet members, and that they prompt thoughtful reconsideration. The direction we choose now will determine whether we continue to replicate exclusion or finally begin to dismantle it.

(The writer is the human rights policy expert)