On January 2, the Supreme Court ordered political parties to include persons with disabilities in their proportional representation lists. The goal of this intervention was to enforce rights that disability advocates worldwide have fought decades to establish and Nepali disability activists specifically mobilised to embed into the Constitution.

Disability advocates and activists have achieved something that most advanced democracies have not: Constitutional rights for persons with disabilities. The lack of implementation of this progressive constitutional mandate would be a missed opportunity both from a Nepali standpoint and a global perspective. On the other hand, correcting this oversight could make Nepal an international leader in disability rights.

Political parties in Nepal do not seem to be aware of the importance of including persons with disabilities in their proportional representation lists. Disability impacts a significant proportion of any population. The World Health Organisation estimates that approximately 15 percent of any population experiences disability. Persons with disabilities face barriers to organising that other types of disadvantaged groups often do not. This is partly because of disability itself and partly because disability is scattered across classes, ethnicities and regions. Moreover, disability takes a variety of physical and mental forms, from autism, blindness and cerebral palsy to musculoskeletal impairment. Hence, persons with disabilities tend to rely even more than other disadvantaged individuals on democratic actors and institutions, including political parties and the state, for inclusion and justice.

The importance of such inclusion and justice has been increasingly recognised internationally as profound changes have occurred over the past few decades in how disability is viewed and addressed.

A profound global shift

Disability was historically viewed through the lens of charity and medical intervention. Persons with disabilities were treated as objects of charity, patients requiring treatment and individuals to be institutionalised. This began changing in the 1970s and 1980s as persons with disabilities worldwide organised despite the barriers to organising, demanding recognition not as objects of charity but as bearers of rights. The rallying cry became ‘nothing about us without us’, a powerful slogan of the disability rights movement. Decisions affecting persons with disabilities must include persons with disabilities as active participants in governance, not passive recipients of services, they argued.

This movement culminated in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006. The CRPD represents the first comprehensive human rights treaty of the 21st century. When Nepal ratified it in 2010, it committed to recognising disability as a human rights issue, not a medical or welfare problem. ‘Nothing about us without us’ became international law. But treaties don’t implement themselves. Countries must translate commitments into domestic laws and policies, and that’s where approaches can diverge dramatically.

Consultation versus co-design

Most countries have chosen what scholars term ‘civil society mediation’ to address disability. This involves governments funding disability organisations to participate in consultation processes, review policies, sit on advisory councils and provide recommendations. These organisations become intermediaries between persons with disabilities and government decision-makers. The consultative approach has value but fundamental limitations. Consultation is not decision-making power. Governments can listen to recommendations, then ignore them. When that happens, advocates have limited recourse beyond lobbying and public pressure.

Nepal chose a different pathway. The 2015 Constitution doesn’t promise consultation. Article 84(3) mandates that political parties must include persons with disabilities as candidates in proportional representation lists: Not as advisors but as legislators who vote on laws, shape policy directly and exercise political power. This is a direct representation. It operationalises ‘nothing about us without us’ in its most powerful form: Persons with disabilities in parliament, making decisions affecting their own lives and the disability community, including decisions about how disability is defined, measured and addressed through policy.

Importantly, this wasn’t handed down from above. It resulted from sustained advocacy by Nepal’s disability rights movement during the 2008-2015 Constituent Assembly process, despite structural and social barriers to organising. The principle they fought for and achieved was self-determination: Persons with disabilities defining what disability rights mean in Nepal’s democracy. The advocates fought for years to achieve constitutional recognition. They organised community consultations, built coalitions with other marginalised groups, presented evidence to Constituent Assembly members, and mobilised public support. Their advocacy succeeded. The Assembly embedded disability representation directly into constitutional text, recognising that democracy means nothing if systematically excluded groups lack political voice.

For Nepal’s persons with disabilities, whether 540,000 as per the census or closer to 2 million using WHO estimates, Article 84(3) represents hard-won constitutional rights, not charitable accommodation or consultation opportunities. This is what makes Nepal’s approach globally significant. Nepal’s framework also provides enforcement mechanisms. Activist Madhav Prasad Chamlagain, for example, could file a writ petition against political parties because Article 84(3) creates enforceable rights. The SC could order compliance because this isn’t a discretionary consultation but a constitutional mandate. When political parties submitted PR lists on December 28-29 without adequate disability representation, they violated Article 84(3)’s explicit mandate. More fundamentally, they did not respect the advocacy work that disability activists invested in achieving constitutional recognition.

The January 6-12 remediation period tests whether political parties will respect the hard-won constitutional rights. If parties genuinely implement Article 84(3), placing candidates with disabilities in winnable positions and selecting authentic disability rights leaders, including women and persons from marginalised communities, Nepal validates constitutional representation as an effective approach, showing the world a pathway to genuine inclusion and self-determination.

This is where comprehensive disability policy reform begins. With persons with disabilities in parliament, Nepal can address data collection gaps, adopting methodologies capturing actual prevalence of disability closer to WHO estimates. Legislators with lived experience of disability can champion policy reforms reflecting social and human rights models rather than the parochial medical model of disability. They can ensure resource allocations match actual population needs, not undercounted census figures.

Nepal possesses globally exceptional constitutional architecture operationalising international disability rights more directly than virtually any democracy. Political parties must recognise that Article 84(3) isn't a bureaucratic requirement but a constitutional guarantee reflecting years of advocacy demanding a rightful place in democracy for persons with disabilities.