Introduction

The concept of neurodiversity, coined by Australian sociologist Judy Singer in her 1998 thesis, presents a paradigm shift in understanding neurological differences as a valuable aspect of human diversity rather than a deficit to be pathologized. With an estimated 15-20% of the global population identifying as neurodivergent, Singer’s work calls for these variations to be recognized as a significant factor in political engagement for marginalized groups.

In India, a nation celebrated for its rich cultural pluralism, the imperative to understand and embrace neurodiversity is becoming increasingly crucial. However, this discourse intersects with a troubling global crisis in mental healthcare, as highlighted by James Lake and Mason Spain Turner of Kaiser Permanente. They describe a situation affecting all age groups across countries, accounting for one-third of adult health problems and resulting in “enormous personal suffering and socioeconomic costs.” This mandates a deliberate scrutiny of the intersection of neurodiversity with Indian law.

This intersection of neurodiversity and Indian law reveals a complex landscape where the very framing of legal statutes can inadvertently perpetuate the marginalization they seek to address. This article argues that the problematic language and conceptualization within Indian disability laws not only reflect outdated understandings of neurodivergence but also directly contribute to implementation challenges. By examining how these laws are constructed, we can better understand the systemic barriers faced by neurodivergent individuals in India and propose more effective, inclusive legal frameworks.

Legal Neurodiversity

However, the translation of these theoretical principles into legal frameworks in India has been fraught with challenges. The language and framing employed in Indian disability laws often reflect outdated, medicalized models of disability that can undermine the very rights and protections they aim to provide. This disconnect between the aspirational goals of legal neurodiversity and the actual framing of laws creates a foundation for implementation problems, as will be explored in the following sections.

The Language Employed in Statutes and Policies Addressing NDDS

The analysis of the language used in key Indian legislations pertaining to Neurodevelopmental Disorders (“NDDs”) reveals a persistent reliance on outdated, pathologizing rhetoric that not only reinforces stigma but also creates significant barriers to effective implementation.

First, the persistent use of deficit-based phrases like “mental retardation” in the National Trust Act of 1999 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 exemplifies the problematic framing of neurodivergence. This language not only offends but also entrenches a deficit-based view of neurodivergent individuals, directly contradicting the principles of dignity and equality these laws purport to uphold.

For instance, the National Trust Act’s definition of a “person with disability” includes “a person suffering from mental retardation” as per Section 2(j). This framing immediately positions neurodivergent individuals as “suffering” rather than simply experiencing a different neurological state.

Second, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’s separation of “mental retardation” from “mental illness” perpetuates an outdated binary that fails to recognize the complex spectrum of neurodivergence. This artificial siloing creates implementation challenges by forcing individuals into rigid categories that may not reflect their lived experiences or needs.

An example of this is how the Act defines “mental illness” and “intellectual disability” separately as per Section 2(s) and 2(r). This is potentially creating gaps in coverage for individuals who may experience aspects of both.

Third, the focus on IQ and mental age benchmarks in assessing needs and accommodations reduces complex human neurological variations to narrow reductionist metrics. This approach not only fails to capture the diverse strengths and challenges of neurodivergent individuals but also creates implementation hurdles by relying on potentially inaccurate or culturally biased assessment tools.

For example, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, specify IQ ranges for determining the extent of intellectual disability under Rule 14(1)(b), potentially excluding individuals who may require support but fall outside these arbitrary ranges.

Last, the preference for “integration” over “inclusion” in many Indian disability laws reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of neurodiversity principles. This framing suggests an assimilationist approach rather than one that truly values and accommodates neurological differences.

For instance, the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, frequently uses the term “integrate” (e.g., Sections 26, 27, 39), implying that neurodivergent individuals must adapt to existing systems rather than systems adapting to accommodate diverse needs.

These language choices and framings within Indian disability laws create a foundation that inherently undermines the goals of neurodiversity. By positioning neurodivergence as a deficit to be overcome rather than a natural variation to be accommodated, these laws set the stage for implementation failures. They create a disconnect between the stated aims of inclusion and empowerment and the actual mechanisms put in place to achieve these goals.

Despite the linguistic and conceptual shortcomings discussed earlier, it’s important to acknowledge the progressive elements within Indian disability laws, particularly the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. These aspects align more closely with neurodiversity principles and aim to foster genuine inclusion. The Act introduces significant affirmative action measures, including reservations in education and employment for persons with disabilities. It also mandates accessibility standards for physical environments and information systems, recognizes the legal capacity of all persons with disabilities, and provides for skill development and self-employment schemes. Additionally, the Act acknowledges cultural and recreational rights and introduces penalties for discrimination. While these provisions represent significant strides towards inclusion and empowerment, offering a foundation for protecting the rights of neurodivergent individuals, their full potential remains constrained by the problematic framing and language discussed earlier. The challenge lies in aligning these progressive mandates with a more neurodiversity-affirming conceptual framework to ensure their meaningful implementation and impact.

The Laws’ Real-world Impact and the Way Forward

The problematic framing and language employed in Indian disability laws directly contribute to significant implementation challenges and real-world impacts that fall short of realizing substantive equality, dignity, and inclusion for India’s neurodivergent citizens.

First, the use of deficit-based language in laws reinforces societal stigma, making it more difficult to change attitudes and behaviours towards neurodivergent individuals. This creates a vicious cycle of perpetuation of stigma and discrimination.

For instance, a 2019 study by Shubhangi Vaidya found that families of autistic individuals in India often faced social ostracism and discrimination, partly due to widespread misunderstanding of neurodevelopmental conditions.

Second, the artificial categorization of neurodivergent conditions in laws leads to siloed and often insufficient support services that fail to address the complex, intersectional needs of individuals.

This can be illustrated by a 2021 report by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) highlighted the severe shortage of mental health professionals in India, with only 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000 population, far below the recommended 3 per 100,000.

Third, the focus on narrow metrics like IQ in laws translates to inflexible assessment and accommodation practices in educational and employment settings. This increases barriers to education and employment under the garb of objective metrics.

For example, a 2020 study by Srilatha Juvva and Deeksha Sharma found that despite legal mandates, many Indian universities lack adequate support systems for neurodivergent students, often due to rigid admission criteria and inflexible assessment methods.

Fourth, the problematic framing of neurodivergence as a primarily medical issue in laws contributes to inadequate resource allocation for holistic support systems.

For instance, the budget allocation for implementing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act has faced significant cuts, with a 43% decrease from 2022 to 2024-25 levels.

Last, the paternalistic language in laws perpetuates the exclusion of neurodivergent voices from policy-making and implementation processes. Lack of neurodivergent representation entrenches the chasm between genuine inclusion and mere integration.

For example, a 2022 report by the National Human Rights Commission noted the limited involvement of persons with disabilities in the monitoring mechanisms established under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

These real-world impacts demonstrate how the problematic framing and language in Indian disability laws create a cascade of implementation challenges. By failing to fully embrace the principles of neurodiversity, these laws inadvertently reinforce barriers to inclusion and empowerment for neurodivergent individuals.

Conclusion

The journey towards true neurodiversity inclusion in India must begin with a fundamental reimagining of how our laws conceptualize and frame neurodivergence. By moving away from deficit-based, medicalized language and embracing a rights-based, identity-affirming approach, we can create legal frameworks that not only protect neurodivergent individuals on paper but also facilitate meaningful implementation and societal change. Only through this holistic transformation of both legal language and societal attitudes can we hope to unlock the full potential of India’s neurodivergent population and enrich our collective human experience