As awareness around accessibility grows, so does the demand for certifications that validate a building’s inclusiveness. But not all that glitters is gold.
A complaint was recently filed with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) against an international accessibility certification agency operating in India. The complaint, submitted by a group of empanelled accessibility auditors, raises serious concerns about the credibility, transparency, and legitimacy of certain certification practices currently in use.
At the same time, certifications can play a constructive role in motivating organisations to improve accessibility and in recognising those who have made meaningful progress. However, unlike LEED or GRIHA for green buildings, India does not yet have a formal national certification body for accessibility. Empanelled access auditors do issue certifications, but these are not standardised, regulated, or universally recognised.
While some international certifications are based on credible frameworks, several others take a narrow, fragmented, or superficial approach. A building might be labelled “accessible” for catering to one disability — for instance, hearing impairment — even while lacking basic features like step-free entrances, accessible toilets, or safe emergency evacuation systems.
The Indian Context: A Strong Legal and Technical Foundation
India already has a robust legal and technical framework for accessibility:
- The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 mandates accessibility across public and private infrastructure.
- The Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in the Built Environment (2021) issued by MoHUA lay down clear requirements for inclusive design.
- The National Building Code (NBC) 2016, particularly Part 3, includes provisions for universal design.
- The Supreme Court of India has also directed the government to identify and enforce non-negotiable accessibility features.
These standards are not optional — they are mandatory. Certifications that ignore or operate independently of this legal and technical foundation risk creating a false sense of compliance. This can be misleading, exclusionary, and even legally problematic.
Accessibility is Not a Checklist — It’s a Holistic, Functional, Rights-Based Approach
True accessibility goes far beyond compliance checklists. It must reflect:
- Functional usability for persons with different disabilities
- Consistency across all elements: entrances, circulation paths, washrooms, furniture, signage, emergency systems, etc.
- Context-sensitive, human-centered design — not just minimum technical specs
Superficial assessments often miss this complexity. For example, an audit might note “no ramp available” — but if that results in a dangerously steep ramp being installed just to meet the checkbox, it defeats the purpose entirely.
Who Is Doing the Certification — and How?
A critical concern is who is conducting these audits and certifications. Some programs claim that “anyone” — regardless of technical qualifications or lived experience — can carry out the assessment. This is in direct contradiction to Indian government norms, which require a multi-disciplinary team that includes:
- Persons with disabilities
- Access experts and architects
Without this diverse expertise, certifications are likely to be inaccurate, incomplete, or exclusionary.
Who’s Developing These Certifications — and With What Credibility?
Many of the organisations currently offering certifications have limited grounding in Indian accessibility laws, standards, or lived realities of persons with disabilities. In some instances:
- Frameworks are copied from international sources without adapting to Indian contexts.
- There is no public disclosure of their methodology, standards used, or assessor qualifications.
- Some are startups or private entities with little or no proven track record in accessibility, universal design, or disability rights.
This raises serious concerns about credibility and accountability. Certifications without rigor or relevance may become mere branding exercises, disconnected from the actual experience of people with disabilities.
Emerging ‘Assessment, Not Audit’ Tools – Do They Help?
New tools that avoid the term “audit” often offer basic yes/no assessments. While they might serve as a conversation starter, they typically fall short when it comes to:
- Detailed, standards-based technical recommendations
- Design solutions with specifications and cost estimates
- Drawings and guidance for implementation
As a result, these tools have limited practical impact. They often leave both users and property owners without authentic, actionable information.
What Should a Meaningful Accessibility Certification or Audit Offer?
A robust, rights-based, and useful certification or audit must:
✅ Cover all disability types — not just a select few
✅ Be aligned with Indian laws, standards, and non-negotiables
✅ Provide detailed, actionable recommendations — including technical drawings, costing, and implementation plans
✅ Be carried out by a multi-disciplinary team — not individuals working in isolation
✅ Include user feedback, usability testing, and real-world validation of access
✅ Go beyond the built environment to include policies, technologies, services, and products — for a truly holistic certification
In Conclusion: Certify with Integrity
If accessibility is about inclusion, equity, and dignity, then certifications must reflect credibility, technical rigour, and a cross-disability lens.
What should we demand from any accessibility certification?
- ✅ Alignment with Indian laws and standards
- ✅ Multi-disciplinary and inclusive audit teams
- ✅ Functional usability, not just visual compliance
- ✅ Cross-disability coverage
- ✅ Actionable, implementable recommendations
- ✅ Support beyond certification — toward real inclusion
Accessibility is not a logo, a label, or a checklist. It is a systemic shift in how we design, build, and manage our spaces — for everyone.