Disability Groups Flag Census 2027 Data Gaps

Disability rights groups have given a thumbs-down to the proposed disability enumeration framework for Census 2027, warning that limiting the exercise to nine broad categories could leave millions of people invisible in official data and, consequently, out of the targeted welfare and inclusion measures.

In a statement prepared by the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD), disability rights organisations, activists and concerned citizens said the proposed categories do not adequately reflect the 21 disabilities recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

They have demanded that the Census questionnaire individually capture all 21 specified disabilities.

The proposed Census framework, according to the groups, is expected to cover nine categories — seeing, hearing, speech, mobility, intellectual disability, mental illness, acid attack, chronic neurological disease and blood disorder. However, the rights groups questioned why the Census should not mirror the legal framework created under the RPwD Act, which recognises a much wider spectrum of disabilities, said the statement.

The 21 specified disabilities under the law include locomotor disability, leprosy-cured persons, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, acid attack victims, blindness, low vision, deafness, hard of hearing, speech and language disability, intellectual disability, specific learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, mental illness, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, haemophilia, thalassaemia, sickle-cell disease and multiple disabilities, including deaf blindness.

The organisations said the proposed nine-category system risks obscuring important differences between conditions. Disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder, specific learning disabilities, dwarfism, leprosy-cured persons and multiple disabilities, including deaf blindness, do not appear to have distinct representation in the proposed framework.

Similarly, they argued, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease could be inadequately represented if grouped under an umbrella category of chronic neurological disease.

The grouping of haemophilia, thalassaemia and sickle-cell disease under the single description of “blood disorder” has also drawn concern. The groups maintain that each condition has distinct medical, social and support requirements and therefore deserves separate enumeration.

Stating that the importance of reliable population data cannot be negated, they pointed out that census figures are not merely statistical records; they influence the way governments understand social needs, design programmes and allocate public resources.

“If entire categories of persons with disabilities are not separately identified, they risk becoming invisible in official statistics,” the organisations said.

Such gaps, they argued, could have consequences for policy formulation, budgetary allocations, accessibility programmes, rehabilitation services, education, employment support and healthcare planning. Without disaggregated data, it can also become difficult to assess whether existing schemes are reaching the communities for whom they are intended.

The groups also expressed concern about the implications for census enumerators. A broad classification could leave field workers uncertain about how to record people with conditions that do not fit neatly into the proposed categories. This, in turn, could lead to inconsistent reporting and undercounting.

They also pointed to an earlier assurance by Union Minister Ramdas Athawale that data covering all 21 disabilities would be captured, and said the reported proposal appears inconsistent with that commitment.

At least 59 disability-rights organisations, researchers, advocates and individuals have come together to call for better and more meaningful representation of diverse disability groups in policymaking and decision-making processes.

The signatories include organisations such as Sense International India, Disability Rights Alliance, TARATDAC, National Association for the Blind, Sruti Disability Rights Centre, Disability Rights Association of Goa, The Spastics Society of Tamil Nadu, Helen Keller Institute for Deaf and Deafblind, NEDAR Foundation, Family of Disabled, Umang Foundation and other cross-disability and community organisations from across the country.

The list, which also includes independent researchers, health experts and disability-rights advocates, reflects a broad-based demand for an inclusive approach that recognises the varied needs and lived experiences of persons with disabilities.