The Delhi High Court has asserted that individuals with disabilities are "no different from you or me," emphasizing that a more suitable term to describe them would be "differently abled" rather than "disabled."

Justice C Hari Shankar emphasized that the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act) and all other related laws aim to mitigate disability, ensuring that differently abled individuals and their peers have equal opportunities. This principle, he noted, lies at the core of the theory of equal opportunity and is enshrined in the Constitution.

"It is because of this that the more appropriate term to use would be 'differently abled', rather than 'disabled'. Persons who are differently abled are as able as any of us; however, as their ability is different, it poses a challenge when they seek to integrate with the societal whole," said the judge in a recent order.

"Persons who suffer from disabilities, as recognized by the RPWD Act, are no different from you or me. In one way or another, each of us suffers from disabilities, known and unknown. Yet, we all have to function as a cohesive human whole," added the judge.

The court's remarks were made while issuing an order instructing Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to furnish facilities to its visually impaired students who had been expelled from the hostel. In its directive, the court underscored that once the disparity is "neutralized," a differently abled individual can ascend to their full potential, harnessing their inherent abilities and faculties to the utmost.

"In such a situation, the person who was otherwise regarded as 'disabled' often equals, if not excels, his more redoubtable peers in the profession that he pursues. Mr Rahul Bajaj (thpetitioner's lawyer who suffers from visual impairment) is a luminescent example," observed the court.

The 49-year-old petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, had lodged a petition with the high court challenging his eviction from the hostel, citing that the relevant regulations do not forbid hostel accommodation for a student pursuing a second postgraduate course. In granting relief to the petitioner, the high court remarked that it was indeed ironic that JNU sought to justify its stance by pointing out that the petitioner, who is completely visually impaired, had provided a residential address located 21 km away from the JNU campus.