This research investigates the systemic barriers disabled people face in the structures of society and the gap between legal provisions and factual reality. Disabled people are often marginalized and perceived as recipients of care rather than participants in society. In this respect, it tries to investigate how legal and social systems pervert discrimination through examples such as the unequal treatment of Paralympians and Olympians in India.

The present study borrows the concept of indirect discrimination as discussed in the case Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India 2021 (Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021) to argue that although social structures may appear fair, they often fail to deliver justice to persons with disabilities, making them marginalized. This article discusses systemic exclusion in sports, education, and work life. It also recommends legal and social solutions to the gap between abstract entitlements and real-life inclusion.

Introduction
Disabled individuals frequently find themselves marginalized within societal frameworks, receiving sympathy instead of authentic recognition or participation. This phenomenon of exclusion affects various domains, including education, employment, and public acknowledgment, particularly evident in the realm of sports. For example, in India, Olympians are hailed with extensive media coverage and financial incentives, while Paralympians frequently remain overlooked, even though they accomplish equally impressive achievements (Donnelly & Inglis, 2010). This inequality represents broader social patterns that exclude individuals with disabilities and reflect them as inactive or incapable of participating significantly (Shakespeare, 2006).

While there are laws like the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016)[1] in place, many of these provisions prove to be insufficient to make them wholly inclusive and people with disabilities remain vulnerable to systemic discrimination. This article examines how social structures maintain exclusion, and using a reference to Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India (Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021), it demonstrates indirect discrimination. Policies may appear neutral, but their ineffectiveness in providing accommodations heightens the sense of marginalization.

Research problem
The heart of the problem lies in the disagreement of having protective legal provisions and the real exclusion of disabled people. Even after the RPWD Act, 2016 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016), has been implemented, the theoretical gap from the practical scenario still exists. The article aims to find the root cause of exclusion, identify how systemic discrimination seems to manifest across sectors, and attempt to outline some possible reforms that can be taken.

This study is focused particularly on addressing the Systemic discrimination against persons with disabilities is evident, particularly at the societal level has exclusionary and marginalizing tendencies. Legal instruments like the RPWD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) are insufficient to prevent marginalization; there is a huge difference between entitlements that would appear theoretically and implementation that happens in practice. What is required, therefore, is to have tangible measures so that disabled persons can have full exercise of their rights.

Literature Review
Disability studies throw light into the issues that bar disabled people's full inclusion in society. According to Barnes and Mercer (Barnes & Mercer, 2010), people in society often portray disabled people as helpless, hence putting them on a pathway away from societal participation. For instance, the world of sports, employment sectors, and education sectors are parts that usually sideline disabled persons.

For example, disabled athletes gain less publicity or support in sports than their normal-bodied counterparts get as mentioned in the Donnelly and Inglis article (Donnelly & Inglis, 2010). In the employment market, according to Goodley (Goodley, 2014), the organization policies usually exclude the specific requirements of disabled people, therefore they are excluded from fair participation. Similarly, Shakespeare appeals to how most schools lack the necessary resources like sign language interpreters and accessible materials for learning to support disabled students, thus resulting in poor academic performance and limited prospects (Shakespeare, 2006).

These are then compounded by social views of disabled people as a burden rather than full participants in public life (Schweik, 2009). The study by Meyer and Jankowski in 2019 (Meyer & Jankowski, 2019) has revealed the fact that the media represents the disabled, which leads to stereotyping and exclusion of disabled people within society. In place of this, they offered that systemic discrimination occurs when media fails to present disabled individuals as active participants, and unless this situation changes, disability narratives will lead to future exclusion.

The Lt. Col. Nitisha judgment of 2021[2] makes it clear that the system, despite provisions of equality under the law, still has discrimination against disabled individuals and requires adjusted accommodation so that equality could be ensured as a neutral policy might seem to be but be disastrous for the disabled without proper accommodation (Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021).

Through a synthesis of these sources, the literature reveals how systemic discrimination interacts across sectors and visibly marks the exclusion of disabled people from public life in education, employment, sports, and media. As the issue will also show, both older, foundational studies and more recent research describe systemic discrimination even now, despite advances in legal rights.

Formulation and Argumentation

The primary argument of this article is that there is indirect discrimination perpetuating the exclusion of disabled people through systems put in place in society. The Lt. Col. Nitisha's judgment is particularly instructive on the way seemingly neutral-sounding policies can indeed end up marginalizing people when they do not take into account the specific needs of disabled people (Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021).

Although the RPWD Act 2016 (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) is progressive on paper, it does not measure up quite well in practice by denying disabled people a robust support system for participation in society. This article looks at systemic discrimination in sports, employment, and education while offering a framework of legal and social transformation based on case law and other legal documents as well as literature in this area of study to work towards a full development of the challenges that disabled people face.

Systemic Discrimination in the Arena of Sports

Systemic discrimination against the disabled is one of its most evident manifestations in the sporting arena. Within India, Paralympians are consistently overshadowed by their able-bodied counterpart, while Olympians are celebrated as national heroes. Even as Olympians are celebrating in the glory, the exploits of Paralympians are unknown to many (Donnelly & Inglis, 2010).

This is more than just a matter of acknowledgment; the visions above display a hegemonic social policy of devaluing the work of disabled people and their overall value in getting the limelight and accolades in public service (Barnes & Mercer, 2010). Non-coverage for Paralympians by media, presumably, can highlight the negative imaginations of potential individuals from persons with disabilities and perpetuate the rest of their oppression as public persons. (Shakespeare, 2006).

Systemic Inequality in Employment and Education

The exclusion of people with disabilities is not only in sports but continues in employment and education sites. In the employment setting, studies have shown that there is exclusion of individuals with disability due to failure to implement conducive policies to accommodate them, despite legal protection (Goodley, 2014). While promising to protect the rights of people with disabilities, the RPWD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016) has been implemented inconsistently, making it difficult for the victims of the exclusion.

Similarly, in education, students with disabilities have been segregated in education due to a lack of substantive accommodations (Shakespeare, 2006). Schools do not often make educationally necessary aids, such as Braille books or sign language interpreters, thereby limiting disabled students' participation in academe. Hence, it leads to bad academic performance and further life opportunities are limited (Schweik, 2009).

Indirect Discrimination and the Lt. Col. Nitisha Judgment

The judgment of Lt. Col. Nitisha, as pronounced in 2021 gives an important legal framework for understanding how systemic discrimination functions in the societal setup. The judgment shows that even policies that may seem very neutral can result in discrimination if the accommodation of their particular needs by disabled individuals fails (Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021).

The essence of such indirect discrimination often manifests in ways that seem unintentional but are profoundly harmful to the lives of disabled persons because they disallow them from opportunities in education, employment, and public life. In this judgment, the existing legal frameworks and policies should transform from mere formal equality to the specific needs of disabled persons if they are to be fully included in the public sphere.

Solutions Presented
Addressing systemic discrimination against the disabled requires multiple strands. For instance, one of them could be an amendment in the legal provisions to ensure the better implementation of the RPWD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016). In this sense, public institutions and, more generally, schools, universities, and places of work will have to be made accountable for not implementing the existing provisions regarding accommodation. Monitoring bodies can ensure proper implementation, bring them on par, and raise standards.

Secondly, Social attitudes must shift toward disabled people: that is, society should recognize that disabled people are equal contributors who could possess the possibility of agency and meaningful contribution, instead of recipients of care. Public awareness campaigns and educational programs can be important sites for that shift in attitudes (Barnes & Mercer, 2010).

Finally, representation of disabled people through the media has to be improved. The media itself has immense power to influence the perception of the public, and by socializing them towards the more frequent occurrence of disabled sports people and professionals, this can be used to decrease myths and socialize society to alter their conduct to become more respectable (Donnelly & Inglis, 2010).

Conclusion
In summary, despite such progressive legislation, including the RPWD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016), systemic disadvantage against disabled people remains deeply ingrained within social structures. By strengthening legal structures, changing attitudes in society, and improving media representation, society can meaningfully take steps toward achieving full inclusion for people who are disabled.

Facilitating such changes in society would begin with legal reforms, create new ideas through public awareness campaigns, and move on to better media representation. Ensuring that laws, like the RPWD Act (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016), are implemented and shifted in terms of public attitudes about equal contributors by disabled individuals will be a great stride toward achieving full societal inclusion. The solutions mentioned represent a framework of action that strives to address the roots of exclusion. From there, this will ensure that individuals with disabilities are enabled to exercise all their rights and live in public life minus the experience of such systemic barriers.

References:
Articles

1. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (Eds.). (2010). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Polity Press.
2. Donnelly, P., & Inglis, D. (2010). Sport and the marginalization of disabled athletes: A case of unequal coverage. Sport in Society, 13(4), 616-628.
3. Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge.
4. Schweik, S. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. NYU Press.
5. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. Routledge.
6. Meyer, A., & Jankowski, N. (2019). Disability and societal change: A comprehensive overview. Routledge.

Case Laws

• Nitisha v. Union of India W.P. (Civil) No. 1014/2017 SC 2021.

Legislation

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

End Notes:

1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a crucial law of India that seeks to ensure and promote the rights of persons with disabilities. It categorizes 21 disability categories, mandates accessibility in public spaces, transport, and educational institutions, and provides job reservation for disabled persons. Despite its importance, the implementation encounters various issues and negative attitude of society.
2. Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India, 2021 case was intended to challenge indirect discrimination against persons with disabilities within the Indian Armed Forces. The case involved a serving officer who challenged the discriminatory policies that failed to take account of her disability and asserted that such policies manifested acts of systemic exclusion. The court ruled that even seemingly neutral policies could have negative effects on discrimination, as long as the formulation of policies did not draw on particular needs of individuals with disabilities. In this ruling, the court emphasized something more than effective accommodations and a movement from formal to substantive equality.