There are so many daily reports of rape and sexual violence against women that it sometimes seems as if society has become almost desensitized to the issue. Every now and then, a case can attract enough attention to spark a nationwide discourse on rape and women’s vulnerability. Currently, the Kolkata rape case has evolved in the same way as the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. While these types of cases spark public outrage, countless others are ignored, rendering them invisible – especially when it comes to women with disabilities.

Justice Chandrachud’s recent comments highlighting the vulnerability of women with disabilities in cases of sexual violence come at an opportune time. Last month, a mentally challenged woman was raped in Chhattisgarh. In the same month, another woman with speech and hearing problems was raped in Chhattisgarh itself. In August this year, a mentally challenged woman was raped in Andhra Pradesh. In July, a physically challenged girl was raped in Uttar Pradesh. Similar stories surfaced in other states earlier this year.

Tragically, for every reported case of rape and sexual violence against women with disabilities, there are many others that slip through the cracks. Research reveals two major factors behind this invisibility. First, the justice system is often inaccessible to women with disabilities, which is exacerbated by a lack of sensitivity to disability issues among law enforcement. Second, many perpetrators are individuals with whom the victims have close relationships, including male partners, health care professionals, and caregivers. The financial and social dependence of these relationships discourages women from reporting.

Because most crimes against persons with disabilities go unreported, the seriousness of this issue is not reflected in the statistics. Sexual violence against women with disabilities, in particular, remains shrouded in secrecy. Notably, the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) does not release disaggregated data on persons with disabilities, making even reported cases invisible in crime statistics.

While invisibility in data certainly contributes to the lack of social awareness on this topic, it still does not explain why even reported stories of sexual violence against women with disabilities cannot receive much attention. It is an unfortunate reality that the discourse around sexual violence in India is built around certain pivotal events: the Kolkata rape case (2024), the Delhi rape case (2012), Mathura Rameeza Bee (1979), Maya Tyagi (1980), Suman Rani (1989), Bhanwari Devi (1992) and Mathura (1972).

Given this dependence on such critical events, the discourse has become cyclical in nature: a short period of public outrage followed by a long silence, while rape and sexual violence statistics continue to rise. Such cyclical nature of public discourse can only address a specific set of cases that influence mainstream consciousness; ignoring the same problems that the subaltern class often faces.

In such a case, the role of social movements becomes fundamental. It is to the credit of the feminist movement that rape has been defined as a social problem – a political tool for male oppression. However, the feminist movement has failed to address the intersectional concerns of women with disabilities. With its focus on critical events, it has focused almost exclusively on issues that arise in public spaces, ignoring the more routine nature of rape and sexual violence in private spaces. Because sexual violence against women with disabilities mainly takes place in private spaces, the issue has not been able to gain the required space in social discourse.

This issue has also been largely ignored by the disability rights movement. Because disability intersects with different identities, such as class, caste, race and gender, the movement has often prioritized demands across disabilities to increase mobilization. Although there have been recent attempts to integrate gender-based issues, the movement has struggled to maintain a political identity. For example, efforts to advocate for a respectful identity for persons with disabilities have received minimal political support. The movement’s opposition to the term divyangjan (divine beings) has been largely ignored. In contrast, the use of terms like Harijan for Dalits is legally prohibited due to its derogatory connotations. This challenge of maintaining a political identity has hampered the movement’s ability to frame sexual violence as a political tool of both ableist and patriarchal oppression.

It is clear that the struggle for justice and safety for women with disabilities in India is ongoing and very complex. These women are not only fighting against gender-based violence, but also against a system that often ignores their needs as women with disabilities. If we want real change, the justice system must recognize the unique challenges they face. And we as a society must ensure that they are not invisible in the discourse around rape and women’s vulnerability.

This article was written by Meghna Sharma, Assistant Professor and Rafa Khan, LLB Student, School of Law, RV University.