AI accessibility: We need to clearly define what it means

As the world approaches the India AI Summit 2026 , the conversation on AI has evolved beyond algorithmic efficiency to encompass the more significant issues of digital sovereignty and ethics.

- SHASHANK PANDEY

A critical legal and ethical gap needs to be plugged: the definition of ‘AI accessibility.’ In India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act of 2016 provides a robust legal framework for persons with disabilities (PwDs). But it defines accessibility primarily in negative terms, with a ‘barrier’ taken as its denial. To ensure that “Al for All,” the central theme of this year's summit, becomes more than a slogan, we must construct a three-tiered definition of Al accessibility rooted in legal and disability jurisprudence.

The definitional gap: Under the RPwD Act, a ‘barrier’ is defined broadly as any factor, be it “communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural,” that hampers the full participation of PwDs. By extension, Indian law has treated accessibility as the mere absence of these obstacles. But AI is not a static physical structure like a ramp. It is a recursive form of software that evolves. If the summit is to set a global benchmark, it must go beyond calls to remove barriers and mandate what AI needs to be from its very inception.

For AI, accessibility must be understood as a spectrum of time and utility, operating at three distinct levels.