A volunteer of the Cane Foundation, Mr. Madhava Rao, took up a study on compliance of IIMs with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act from the faculty hiring perspective. He filed RTI applications to all Indian Institutes of Management which are designated as Institutes of National Importance, in order to understand how many of their faculty members staff are persons with disabilities, and whether they have disability policies to govern their approach to persons with disabilities within the institutes. The results do not paint an encouraging picture to say the least.
A total of 1,444 faculty and non-faculty members work at all IIMs that responded, and only 11 of them are persons with disabilities. Only 4 faculty members in said IIMs are persons with disabilities. Only IIM Ahmedabad, and IIM Jammu, have disability policies, and other IIMs have stated that they are following Government rules / guidelines.
The table hereunder provides a summary of the responses received from different IIMs.
Table: Faculty Members with Disabilities at IIMS
| Sl. No. | Name of the Institute | No. Of. faculty and non-faculty members appointed since July, 2017 | No. of faculty positions reserved for Persons with Disabilities since July, 2017 | No. of faculty members with Disabilities appointed since July, 2017 | No. of faculty and non-faculty members | No. of faculty and non-faculty members with disabilities |
| 1 | IIM, Ahmedabad | 117 | Did not respond | Did not respond | 406 | Did not respond |
| 2 | IIM, Amritsar | 16 | Did not respond | 1 | 25 | nil |
| 3 | IIM, Bangalore | 22 | Did not respond | 1 | 106 | 1 |
| 4 | IIM, Indore | 19 | Did not respond | Did not respond | 104 | Did not respond |
| 5 | IIM, Jammu | 58 | nil | nil | 34 | nil |
| 6 | IIM, Kashipur | 14 | nil | nil | 60 | 1 |
| 7 | IIM, Kozhikode | 53 | nil | nil | 167 | 3 |
| 8 | IIM, Lucknow | 18 | nil | nil | 95 | 2 |
| 9 | IIM, Nagpur | 18 | Did not respond | nil | 46 | nil |
| 10 | IIM, Raipur | 25 | Did not respond | nil | 58 | 2 |
| 11 | IIM, Ranchi | 47 | Did not respond | nil | 76 | nil |
| 12 | IIM, Rohtak | 53 | nil | nil | 58 | 1 |
| 13 | IIM, Sambalpur | 12 | Did not respond | nil | 33 | nil |
| 14 | IIM, Sirmour | 40 | Did not respond | nil | 33 | nil |
| 15 | IIM, Tiruchy | 10 | Did not respond | nil | 56 | 1 |
| 16 | IIM, Udaypur | 20 | Did not respond | nil | 41 | nil |
| 17 | IIM, Visakhapatnam | 34 | Did not respond | nil | 46 | Nil |
| 18 | IIM, Kolkata | Did not respond to RTI | ||||
| 19 | IIM, Bodhgaya | Did not respond to RTI | ||||
| Total | 576 | Insufficient data |
2 | 1,444 | 11 | |
From the data, it is clear that IIMs are not as inclusive as is desirable of Institutes of National Importance, which are expected to set examples rather than find safe harbors within constricted interpretation of rules.
Can we foresee change in the near future?
Unlikely, because the issue might not be as important for them as their perception of “National Importance.”
