The Government of Karnataka drafted Karnataka Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Employment and Education Bill, 2025 (hereinafter ‘the Bill’) dated 24 November 2025. The Bill is designed to safeguard and advance the rights of persons with disabilities in employment and education by regulating the private sector in the state. This blog analyses the content of the Bill by examining the federal consistency, constitutional validity and practical enforcement.
Federal Consistency: When a State Bill goes beyond the RPwD Act
Entry 9 of the State List in the Constitution places the ‘relief of the disabled and unemployable’. This empowers the Karnataka Government to legislate on disability-related welfare in employment and education; however, this power is not absolute. Parliament, under Article 253, enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) to give effect to United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), establishing a uniform rights-based framework for persons with disabilities across India. Under Article 254, any State legislation must be consistent with such Central legislation and to the extent of any repugnancy, the central legislation shall prevail, and the laws made by the State legislature shall be void. Accordingly, the Karnataka Government is constitutionally competent to enact a State-specific legislation, but shall do so in a manner that supplements the RPwD Act.
Constitutional Validity: Private Sector Reservation
The Bill mandates 5% reservation for persons with disabilities in private establishments employing twenty or more people. Reservations for PwDs are currently provided only in public employment under the RPwD Act. No Indian law mandates reservations for any group in private employment. The sole comparable example is 25% reservation in private unaided schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and upheld by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools in Rajasthan and Anr v. Union of India and Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India because it was backed by a constitutional amendment (Article 21A) and education was recognized as a public function. In contrast, there is no constitutional amendment or backing supporting reservations in private employment. Therefore, the Bill is likely to face a serious constitutional challenge, which cannot be legally sustained. Instead of imposing mandatory reservation, the State should focus on the application of non-discrimination obligations and enforceable reasonable accommodation measures. These measures are constitutionally sound and more likely to withstand judicial scrutiny while meaningfully advancing inclusion.
The Bill, additionally, mandates a 10% reservation for persons with disability in all educational institutions, including private unaided institutions. However, under the RPwD Act, reservation in higher education is limited to persons with benchmark disability i.e. those assessed to have not less than 40% of specified disability. This ensures that only persons with significant barriers or benchmark disability can avail a reservation. Section 32 of the RPwD Act also capped at 5% in government or government-aided institutions of higher education. It is unreasonable to require private institutions to provide reservations at a higher level than mandated by the State under the RPwD Act. The Bill offers no empirical data or rationale to justify doubling the quantum of reservation to 10% nor does it limit the benefit to benchmark disabilities.
Practical enforcement
The Bill empowers the State Regulatory Authority to prescribe the form of disability certificates, as already governed by Section 56-58 of the RPwD Act and Rules. Allowing State Authorities to act independently will cause certification risks, inconsistent standards, duplication of bureaucratic processes and increased burden on persons with disabilities who already face access barriers.
Despite the RPwD Act mandating a State Advisory Body under Section 66 with a similar composition and role, the Bill establishes multiple new bodies, including the State Advisory Committee, State Regulatory Authority and State Enforcement Authority. Creating parallel committees risks conflicting recommendations, administrative confusion, and the wastage of public resources. Further, the medical or rehabilitation expert on the regulatory authority should be a person with disabilities to ensure inclusivity and assessment based on functional capacity and reasonable accommodation, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services and Others. Finally, while the Bill introduces penalties for non-compliance, the cap of Rs.5 lakh, even for repeated violations, is unlikely to create deterrence for medium and large private establishments, penalties should instead be proportionate to the size, turnover, and financial capacity of the establishment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bill reflects a commitment to advancing disability rights in the private sector. However, intent alone cannot secure rights. For disability legislation to be effective, it must be constitutionally valid, consistent with the RPwD Act and have practical enforcement. The provisions without constitutional backing or rationale will risk the rights rather than strengthening.
