Akshaya Kshetram: 30 Years of Care for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities

Relevance: GS Paper II – Social Justice | GS Paper I – Society

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

Intellectual Disability, RPwD Act 2016, Rehabilitation Institutions, Tirupati, Community Care, Disability Inclusion

For Mains:

Disability inclusion, Social stigma, Gandhian philosophy, Antyodaya, Sarvodaya, Inclusive development, Rights-based approach, Community participation, Social justice, Human dignity, Welfare governance

Why in News?

Akshaya Kshetram, a residential home for persons with intellectual disabilities near Tirumala.It has completed 30 years of service and is planning outreach initiatives including awareness campaigns and a 5 km walk to promote inclusion and reduce stigma.

About Akshaya Kshetram

Akshaya Kshetram is a social welfare institution providing residential care to around 100 persons with intellectual disabilities.
It operates two ashrams at Durgasamudram and Renigunta, supported by about 30 staff members, ensuring round-the-clock care.

Historical Background and Gandhian Linkages

Founded on October 2, 1996, the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the institution reflects Gandhian ideals of service and compassion.

The founders were guided by:

Antyodaya – prioritising the most marginalized (abandoned individuals)
Sarvodaya – welfare of all sections of society
Seva and Trusteeship – moral responsibility towards vulnerable groups

Initially a daycare centre, it expanded into a full residential facility responding to the growing issue of abandonment of persons with disabilities.

Institutional Framework and Services

The institution provides:

Long-term residential care
• Daily living assistance and supervision
• Emotional and social support
• Safe shelter for abandoned individuals

This reflects a support-based welfare model, bridging gaps between family and state support systems

Social Issues Highlighted

Abandonment of Persons with Disabilities
Lack of awareness and support leads to abandonment, especially in pilgrimage areas like Tirumala.

Social Stigma
Deep-rooted prejudices result in exclusion and marginalisation.

Lack of Institutional Support Systems
Limited access to formal rehabilitation services increases dependence on NGOs

Constitutional, Legal and Ethical Foundations of Disability Welfare

1. Constitutional Foundations

Article 21

Guarantees right to life with dignity, which includes care, protection, and humane treatment of persons with disabilities

Article 41 (DPSP)

Directs the State to provide assistance in cases of disability, unemployment, and old age

Article 46

Promotes protection of weaker sections and ensures social justice

These provisions collectively establish a welfare-oriented constitutional mandate

2. Legal Framework

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)

Expands recognised disabilities from 7 to 21 categories
• Ensures equality, dignity, and non-discrimination
• Mandates inclusive education, employment, and accessibility

3. Policy and Scheme Linkages

Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan)

Focuses on accessibility in public infrastructure and services

Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme (DDRS)

Provides financial support to NGOs working for persons with disabilities

National Trust Act, 1999

Supports welfare of persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and multiple disabilities

4. International Framework

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

India is a signatory
• Emphasises dignity, autonomy, and inclusion
• Promotes shift from charity-based to rights-based approach

5. Ethical and Philosophical Dimension

Akshaya Kshetram reflects:

Human dignity and compassion (core ethical values)
• Inclusive society (no exclusion based on ability)
• Gandhian ethics of service and equality

Role in Community and Awareness

The institution actively works to:

Reduce stigma around intellectual disabilities
• Promote awareness through outreach programmes
• Encourage families to accept children with disabilities
• Build inclusive social attitudes

This reflects community-based social transformation, not just institutional care

Challenges

The functioning of institutions like Akshaya Kshetram highlights several structural and societal challenges that continue to affect disability welfare in India.
Limited funding remains a major constraint, as such institutions largely depend on donations and philanthropic contributions, making long-term financial sustainability uncertain.
The growing number of persons requiring care, especially those abandoned or without family support, places pressure on limited institutional capacity, leading to resource and infrastructure constraints.
Persistent social stigma associated with intellectual disabilities continues to discourage family acceptance and community integration, thereby reinforcing cycles of exclusion.
Dependence on voluntary efforts and non-state actors reflects gaps in formal state-led rehabilitation systems, indicating uneven implementation of welfare policies on the ground.

Way Forward

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-dimensional approach combining state support, community participation, and policy implementation.
Strengthening partnerships between government and civil society organisations can ensure better resource mobilisation, institutional support, and policy outreach at the grassroots level.
Promoting community-based rehabilitation models is essential to shift from institutionalisation towards inclusion, enabling persons with disabilities to live within family and community settings.
Enhancing awareness through education, media campaigns, and outreach programmes can help reduce stigma and promote acceptance of persons with intellectual disabilities in society.
Ensuring effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with schemes like DDRS and Accessible India Campaign, is crucial to translate legal provisions into tangible outcomes.

Conclusion

Akshaya Kshetram stands as a significant example of how civil society initiatives can translate constitutional ideals, Gandhian philosophy, and rights-based frameworks into meaningful action. Its work extends beyond providing care to addressing deeper societal issues such as stigma, exclusion, and lack of awareness. By promoting dignity, inclusion, and social acceptance, such institutions contribute to the realization of an inclusive and humane society envisioned in the Constitution.

CARE MCQ

Q.With reference to disability welfare in India, consider the following statements:

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 promotes equality and non-discrimination.
Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to provide assistance in cases of disability.
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) promotes a rights-based approach to disability.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1, 2 and 3
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1 and 3 only

Ans: (a)

Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The RPwD Act, 2016 marks a shift from a welfare approach to a rights-based framework, ensuring equality, dignity, and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, in line with international commitments.

Statement 2 is correct: Article 41, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, directs the State to make effective provisions for securing public assistance in cases of disability, within its economic capacity.

Statement 3 is correct: The UNCRPD emphasizes a rights-based approach, recognizing persons with disabilities as rights-holders, focusing on inclusion, accessibility, and full participation in society.

Q.Consider the following statements regarding the evolution of Article 21 and socio-economic rights:

Statement 1: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood.

Statement 2: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court declared the ‘right to work’ as a fundamental right enforceable under Article 21.

Which one of the following is correct?

(a) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct and Statement 2 is the correct explanation for Statement 1
(b) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct and Statement 2 is not the correct explanation for Statement 1
(c) Statement 1 is correct but Statement 2 is incorrect
(d) Statement 1 is incorrect but Statement 2 is correct

Ans: (c)

Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: In Olga Tellis (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, since life cannot be sustained without means of living. This marked a major step in expanding Article 21 to include socio-economic dimensions.

Statement 2 is incorrect: In Mohini Jain (1992), the Court recognized the right to education as a part of Article 21, not the right to work. The right to work is not a fundamental right; it remains a Directive Principle under Article 41, subject to the State’s economic capacity.

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the judicial interpretation of Article 21:

Statement 1: In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court held that ‘procedure established by law’ need not satisfy tests of fairness or reasonableness.

Statement 2: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that such procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby expanding the scope of Article 21.

Which one of the following is correct?

Ans: (a)

Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: In A.K. Gopalan (1950), the Court adopted a narrow and literal interpretation, holding that any law enacted by the legislature would suffice, irrespective of its fairness.

Statement 2 is correct: In Maneka Gandhi (1978), the Court overruled this restrictive view and held that the ‘procedure’ must be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby introducing elements of due process into Article 21.

Link between Statement 1 and 2: Statement 2 explains the transformative shift from the restrictive interpretation in Gopalan to the expansive and rights-oriented interpretation in Maneka Gandhi, making it the correct explanation.