JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 observation and general comments,15 there is no gainsaying their persuasive value. I would return to this question in a later part of this article after narrating how the two Indian disability legislations have interpreted their duties under Article 12 of the CRPD. 3. Legal Capacity in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPD) Act, 2016 The Preamble to RPDA states that the statute is being enacted to give effect to the CRPD. To that end, all the principles adopted by the CRPD have been expressly incorporated in the preamble, which declares that the Act was being enacted to implement the Convention, which India had ratified on the 1st of October 2007. Principle (a) which speaks of “respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of person” and principle (h), which refers to “respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities” are of special relevance to the central inquiry of this article. The preamble is particularly important because it is an established rule of interpretation of statutes that whenever the text of a statute is ambiguous, the preamble would be looked at by the courts to fathom the intention of the legislature.16 The incorporation of the CRPD principles in the preamble of RPDA has made CRPD the ruling spirit of the Act. Chapter II of RPDA, titled “Rights and Entitlements”, includes the various civil-political rights incorporated in the RPDA. It is important to appreciate that these rights have been incorporated for the first time in the disability law of the country. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995 (PWDA) only 15 16 36 Helen Keller and Leena Grover, “General Comments of the Human Rights Committee and their Legitimacy,” pp 116-198; Rosanne van Alebeek and Andre Nollkaemper, “Legal Status of Human Rights Treaty Bodies in National Law,” 356-413 in Helen Keller and Geir Ulfstein (eds) UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies Law and Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press, 2012). An examination of the case law under the RPDA shows that the Courts have relied upon the preamble and referred to the Articles of the CRPD to opt for a more pro-CRPD interpretation of the RPDA. See Deaf Employees Association v UOI (2014) 3 SCC 173; Court on its own motion v UOI 2017 SCC Online Del 9968; Court on its own motion v State of HP 2018 SCC Online HP 2897; Kamal Gupta v State of Uttarakhand 2018 SCC Online Utt 677. National Federation of the Blind v High Court of Bombay 2018 SCC Online Bom 931; Bank of Baroda v Susmita Saha 2019 SCC Online Del 7846; Purswaniv UOI (2019) 14 SCC 422; Ravi Kumar v UOI 2019 SCC Online Mad 9103; Amit K Aggarwal v UOI 2021 SCC Online Pat 2777; Avni Prakash v National Testing Agency 2021 SCC Online SC 1112; M. Sameeha Barvhv Jt Secy Ministry of Youth 2021 SCC Online Mad 6456; Vikash Kumar v UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370; Net Ram v State of Rajasthan 2022 SCC Online SC 1022; Anu Jayapal v State of Kerala MANU / KE/1463/2022; T.R. Ramanathan v State of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC Online Mad 3032.