Beyond the Law: Rethinking Mental Health Accommodation in India

Introduction

The National Mental Health Survey of 2015-16 highlighted that nearly 150 million people in India need mental-health care, yet most of them do not receive it, with the gap ranging from 70% to 92%, depending on the disorder. The survey also found that 13.7% of adults have had a mental disorder at some point in their lives, and 10.6% are living with one right now.

While these figures prompt concerns about access to care, yet a more urgent question is left unanswered: What safeguards exist for people who are suffering from mental illness in educational institutions and workplaces?

For decades, mental illness has been politically and socially stigmatized, operating as a third rail of public discourse. It is only in recent years that legal and policy institutions have begun to acknowledge its significance and work towards its inclusion.

However, the translation of these commitments into enforceable rights remains uncertain as the current situation reveals substantial and considerable inadequacies in support facilities with ill-equipped educational institutions and workplaces.

This blog examines the structural inconsistencies in the mental health accommodation in India despite its formal legal recognition through an analysis of its existing framework, along with the barriers it faces in two vital sectors, namely education and employment. By drawing on comparative international models, it argues for a shift from individualised burden to institutional responsibility, supported by accountability mechanisms, policy audits, and enforceable duties.

Existing Legal Framework Regarding ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ in India

India, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), is bound by law to provide reasonable accommodation on the grounds of the principle of non-discrimination. The Convention articulates this idea as ‘necessary and appropriate modifications to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy or exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with others.’

In compliance with the same, India has framed its legal framework to support and provide accommodation to people with mental health disabilities. 

Section 2(s) of the Right of Persons with Disability Act (‘RPwD Act’), defines a ‘person with disability’ as ‘an individual with a long-term - physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment which, when coupled with various barriers, limits their full and effective integration into society on a footing equal to others.’ Further, Section 2(y) of the Act states that ‘reasonable accommodation’ refers to ‘necessary and appropriate modifications or adjustments which do not involve excessive or unreasonable effort, to facilitate persons with disabilities to enjoy or exercise their rights equally along with others.’ According to a judicial pronouncement by the Apex Court, the State and private parties need to adopt an ‘inclusive attitude’ towards persons with disabilities to ensure compliance with the statute.

However, these definitions are declaratory rather than prescriptive. The statute lacks adequate guidance on what constitutes reasonable accommodations for episodic, variable, and invisible mental illnesses, and merely provides for the accommodations to be ‘appropriate’ and ‘necessary.’

This ‍vaguely defined criterion allows institutions to evade accountability with accommodations remaining largely symbolic, unsupported by concrete benchmarks, model policies, minimum accommodation requirements, or enforceable sanctions for non-compliance.

The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (‘MHCA’) was intended as a step forward, ensuring the safeguarding of the rights of people to access mental healthcare and prohibiting discriminatory treatment. Nevertheless, this model also faces difficulties due to absence of structural focus. Section 18 of MHCA is primarily concerned with the treatment and health provisions of mental illnesses, but only in clinical environments. Similarly, Section 19 safeguards the ‘right to live with dignity and not be discriminated against’, but it does not take into account the realities of non-clinical environments such as workplaces or schools.

Such a situation results in an administrative vacuum where a person may be clinically eligible for treatment but still have no explicit right to practical accommodations such as flexible scheduling, extended deadlines or classroom-based accommodations. By not addressing such details, the law places the responsibility on the vulnerable individuals to demand, negotiate, and provide a rationale for each accommodation, usually in institutions that may be indifferent or even hostile to‌‍ ‍‌them.

Thus, despite the formal promise of equality before law, ambiguities and lack of implementation make access to these accommodations difficult. 

Barriers to Effective Implementation

Disclosure of one’s mental health condition is one of the biggest practical obstacles. According to a 2024 BMC Public Health study, many Indian employees diagnosed with a mental health condition did not disclose it at work because they were afraid of discrimination or job loss. This silence is not a personal failing but a foreseeable consequence of legal frameworks that do not guarantee protection, anonymity or access to an independent grievance mechanism.

In educational institutions, stigma produces similar barriers. Students who disclose depression or anxiety are routinely labelled weak or dismissed as attention-seeking. Such responses transform the act of seeking assistance into a form of social discredit, reinforcing the idea that accommodations are not rights one can assert but favours one must hesitate to request. Even when disclosures do occur, most institutions lack a designated authority to receive accommodation requests, and there is rarely a defined process for evaluating or implementing them.

A study detailing Krea University's experience while developing protocols for mental health accommodations found that very few standard policies exist in most Indian institutions of higher education. This lack of institutional clarity leaves the vulnerable individual to navigate the process alone. Thus, what ought to operate as a protective framework then becomes a test of endurance rather than a rights-based procedure.

Infrastructure deficits deepen this problem. A comprehensive review concluded that the School Mental Health Program in India ‘is running with a piecemeal approach,’ and remains practically non-existent for most of the children. Without support services on campus or in workplaces, reasonable accommodations become impractical. For instance, a flexible attendance policy is meaningless if there is no clinician on-site to validate and support a student’s mental health illness. 

Enforcement remains another impediment. While the RPwD Rules, 2017 provide individuals with the right to register complaints with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), it is an extremely lengthy process, requiring a disability certificate and extensive documentation. For a worker managing professional obligations amidst clinical depression or a student appearing for examinations while coping with an anxiety disorder, this burden may be wholly unmanageable.

Further, the absence of clear safeguards for protection of disability-related data under the Act results in inconsistent practices in data collection and sharing, undermining confidentiality and exposing individuals to discrimination and privacy violations.

Thus, India’s legal framework is not only deficient but also structurally unsound, effectively leaving individuals to navigate a rights regime that operates largely on paper. Addressing these failures requires rethinking both institutional responsibility and the deployment of existing national resources, alongside lessons drawn from comparative jurisdictions.

Strengthening Accommodation for Mental Health in India

Comparative experience offers valuable lessons for India. A pertinent example is the Canadian Human Rights Act, which contains an explicit ‘duty to accommodate’. It requires employers to modify job policies through flexible working hours, change of duties or counselling unless it creates undue hardship on the employer. Canada also recognises a ‘duty to inquire’, requiring institutions to proactively identify and address needs rather than waiting for individuals to disclose their mental health conditions. This reverses the dynamic as the burden is placed on the institution to identify and address the needs of the individuals.

Similarly, the EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities recognises mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia (though not exhaustively) as disabilities when they substantially limit major life activities. It mandates accommodations such as work-from-home, reduced hours, extra test time, or counselling, subject to undue hardship. Crucially, the ADA also mandates an ‘interactive process’ in which institutions work with individuals to determine and document their needs. By embedding dialogue and documentation into law, the ADA closes the loophole that allows Indian institutions to treat accommodations as administrative discretion rather than enforceable rights.

Incorporation of similar provisions of accommodation, inquiry, and interaction in the Indian legal framework would significantly enhance inclusivity and reduce stigma in workplaces and educational institutions.

India is already in possession of unused resources that can help to implement these changes. The National Fund for Persons with Disabilities, created under the RPwD Act, contains unused resources that could be used to support organisations that develop and implement structured accommodation frameworks. This could be done by creating specific guidelines and offering competitive grants for organisations’ compliance with these guidelines.

Legal reform must be accompanied by attitudinal change. Mental health education in schools, employer training on accommodation obligations, and evidence-based public awareness campaigns highlighting improved academic and workplace outcomes can help normalise accommodations and shift the discourse away from stigma towards support, and away from pity towards empowerment.

Further, institutional accountability should be placed at equal importance. The RPwD Act should compel educational institutions and workplaces to issue annual Accommodation Policies highlighting the mental health support available within the institution. The said policies should be reviewed through scheduled audits and be merged with college accreditation processes, as well as corporate social responsibility reporting.

These audits should assess the existence of such policies and also evaluate the number of accommodation requests made, accepted, and denied. Those institutions that regularly choose inaction should be penalised through funding sanctions, lower accreditation scores, or public reporting to ensure that these policies do not remain a symbolic gesture.

Along with this, the government must create a centralized digital platform where students and staff can anonymously seek information or lodge complaints regarding accommodations and follow up on the feedback from their institutions. Such a network would facilitate the redressal of grievances and offer data on areas that are well supported in terms of mental health and those that are deficient.  ‍ ‌‍ ‍‌

All these reforms together would help to move from mere compliance to active institutional responsibility. Wipro's MITR program is an example of how such commitments can be turned into real and supportive mental health measures in workplaces.

Wipro's MITR Program: A Case Study in Workplace Mental Health

Wipro's MITR (‘meaning friend’) program, which was introduced in 2004, is a remarkable peer-led mental health initiative. With the growing recognition of mental health in workplace wellness, MITR was triggered by internal health assessments to provide employees with early emotional support and thus prevent worsening of stress-related conditions. The initiative trains employees as counsellors to offer confidential support for issues such as workplace stress, family conflict, and relationship difficulties. 

The initiative trains employees as counsellors to offer confidential support for issues such as workplace stress, family conflict, and relationship difficulties. The program is engaged by around 500 employees every year, and 40% of the cases are dealt entirely by the MITR counselors. 

Wipro annually conducts an Employee Perception Survey to monitor the impact metrics such as gender trends and mental health indicators. The key takeaway is not merely that MITR is effective, but that its effectiveness is due to Wipro treating accommodations as an institutional obligation backed by trained personnel, simplified procedures, and measurable results, thus establishing a sustainable, employee-centred model. 

Conclusion and Future Directions

India’s mental health laws, particularly the RPwD Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, show a dedication to equality; however, they seldom achieve it in practice. The present arrangement compels individuals to reveal, negotiate, and justify their need for support in educational or employment settings, thereby maintaining the very structural barriers it claims to break.

Unclear policies, stigma attached to mental health within institutions, and the absence of uniform standards and adequate sanctions further discourage disclosure and make individuals more vulnerable, especially those outside the healthcare sector.

A genuine change means that the responsibility for providing accommodations should no longer be on individuals, but rather be with institutions. This requires changing the law to set clear accommodation obligations along with procedural safeguards, enforcement mechanisms that have real consequences, and dedicated financial support. Accreditation systems and corporate accountability measures, such as Wipro's MITR initiative, are examples that can result in actual changes. 

Dignity will continue to be a legal fiction and not a living reality until institutions are compelled to cease treating mental disabilities as insignificant. Unless decisive action is taken, India's vision of inclusion will be just another set of policy documents that will never reach the people it is supposed to protect.

---

This article has been authored by Hitashi Pandit and Ankit Kumar Yadav, students at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. It is a part of the RSRR's Rolling Blog Series.