Karnataka has formal mechanisms under the RPwD Act and State Rules that require “consultation with experts and persons with disabilities”, but experts and DPOs consistently point out that this participation is partial, uneven, and often not meaningfully implemented in practice.����

Legal and policy framework

The Karnataka State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2019 constitute expert committees to identify posts for reservation and explicitly require disability experts on these committees, including persons with disabilities and NGOs working in the sector.��

Rural Development and Panchayat Raj circular GP/254/2020 sets up Gram‑, Taluk‑ and Zilla‑level disability committees, listing representatives of voluntary organisations, self‑help groups, village rehabilitation workers and others as members, which is meant to operationalise “consultations” at local level under the RPwD Act.�

Examples of consultation with PwD and experts

The 2020 RDPR circular states that its infrastructure and non‑infrastructure actions (surveys, UDID registration, accessibility in panchayat buildings, inclusion in development programmes) were framed “based on consultations held on 22/07/2020 with consultants, state, national and international experts working in the field”.�

Disability policy platforms (such as Punarbhava’s documentation of Karnataka’s State Policy of Disability) record that the Women and Child Development Department and the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities are meant to coordinate with stakeholders and DPOs to implement disability legislation in “letter and spirit”, implying regular consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities (OPDs/DPOs).��

Gaps and criticisms from disability activists. Recent public interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court (Y Karthik & ors v State of Karnataka & ors) alleges “systemic lapses” in implementing the RPwD Act, including non‑operationalisation of the statutory fund and non‑implementation of 5% job reservation, and argues that the State has failed to translate consultations and recommendations into concrete action.��

Media reports on the same PIL and on a related petition by an MLC working on disability issues point out CAG findings that Karnataka has not fully utilised funds for PwD rehabilitation and has delayed many measures despite repeated representations from disability advocates, suggesting that inputs from experts and PwD have not been adequately acted upon.��

Current developments (2025) Karnataka has published a draft “Karnataka Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Employment and Education Bill, 2025”, proposing mandatory reservation (around 5%) in private sector jobs and education, with accessibility and inclusion plans and new regulatory bodies.���

News coverage notes that the Bill follows longstanding demands of disability rights groups for stronger state‑level enforcement of RPwD guarantees; it indicates that the government is engaging with disability organisations during the drafting stage, but details of how systematically their inputs are captured are not yet public, and the High Court has simultaneously asked the State to file a comprehensive status report on RPwD implementation.���