NEW DELHI: For people who cannot communicate through speech alone, a picture board or a device that converts symbols into spoken words can be their only means of expressing pain, making choices or giving consent to medical treatment.
Disability rights advocates say such technologies, along with prosthetic limbs, should be treated as essential assistive products rather than specialised equipment under the draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2026. The Government has sought suggestions from the public before finalisation of the proposed rules.
Doctors with Disabilities: Agents of Change (DwDAoC), led by disability rights activist Dr Satendra Singh, has urged the government to revise the proposed classification, warning that placing these products in a specialised category could create uncertainty over access to insurance coverage, replacement and other protections.
The group has submitted a representation to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), the Union Health Ministry, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government bodies, arguing that the complexity of providing an assistive product should not determine whether it is considered essential.
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices include picture-based communication boards, speech-generating devices and applications that convert text or symbols into speech. For people who cannot rely on speech alone, these can be crucial for expressing needs, reporting symptoms, making decisions and participating in education, employment and public life.
“These devices enable them to express their needs, report pain, make decisions, give informed consent and participate in education, employment and public life.
“Similarly, prostheses can be central to mobility, independence and social participation for people who need and choose to use them,” Dr Singh said in the representation.
The issue has implications for a sizeable population. Census 2011 recorded 2.68 crore persons with disabilities in India, accounting for 2.21% of the population. Of these, around 50.73 lakh were recorded as having hearing disabilities. These remain the latest complete census-based figures, while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, recognises 21 categories of disability.
The group has argued that the proposed classification should align with India’s existing disability rights framework. Section 2(f) of the 2016 Act explicitly includes augmentative and alternative modes of communication in its definition of communication. India also ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007, which provides for access to communication and mobility aids.
The representation further cites the World Health Organization’s Priority Assistive Products List, which includes communication aids and artificial limbs, and ICMR’s National List of Essential Assistive Products (NLEAP), 2023. Prostheses feature among the 21 prioritised products in the Indian list.
“We welcome the Government’s initiative to establish non-negotiable accessibility standards for assistive products and technology,” the group said, while seeking a review of the proposed categories.
It has called for equitable access to insurance, public financing, replacement, maintenance and grievance redressal for people who depend on these products. Specialist assessment, fitting, programming, rehabilitation and follow-up, it argued, should be addressed through appropriate service standards rather than used as grounds to classify a product as less essential.
The group has also urged the government to consult persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, including AAC users, prosthesis users, healthcare professionals with disabilities and technical experts, before finalising the rules.
Issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the draft rules propose standards and accessibility requirements for assistive products and technology. The notification follows a Supreme Court directive for clear, non-negotiable accessibility requirements under Section 40 of the Act.
