tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81315633751362047902024-03-17T00:22:37.148+05:30Disability Rights Through CourtsA platform to share the periodic updates on developments in disability law, policy formulation and related fields across the world with special focus on India. It analysis successes and failures in the struggle of restoring disability rights through Court Intervention and general discourse on Human Rights of People with Disabilities.Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.comBlogger344125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-29040724858294055952023-12-15T22:00:00.005+05:302024-01-17T22:08:55.863+05:30Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Landmark Judgment: Upholding Rights of Persons with Disabilities Against Unjust Transfer [Judgement included]<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court</b>: Delhi High Court </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench</b>: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> Bhavneet Singh Vs Ircon Internatioal Ltd. through Chairman & MD & Ors.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No</b>: W.P.(C) 12404/2022, CM APPL. Nos. 37256/2022 & 10458/2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Decided on: </b>15th December 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Cases Refered: </b> <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2022/08/supreme-court-of-india-disabled.html" target="_blank">Net Ram Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors</a>. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1022</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Facts of the Case</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The petitioner, an individual with orthopedic disabilities with a 72% locomotor impairment, field this petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenging a transfer order issued by IRCON International Ltd. relocating the petitioner from the corporate office to the Chhattisgarh Rail Project.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Alleging non-compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner contended that such a transfer would lead to undue harassment, pose health risks, and deprive him of essential medical care. The petitioner argued that the transfer contravened Articles 14 and 16, as well as the provisions of the Disability Act.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In response, IRCON defended the transfer, citing administrative necessities, professional interests, and the amenities available at the new location. They asserted that the move was not intended to be malicious and even offered additional benefits to the petitioner at the new place of transfer.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Upon careful examination of the reasons presented and consideration of the applicable legal standards, the court ruled that the transfer order violated Article 14 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The court underscored the importance of ensuring equal opportunities and suitable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Consequently, the court set aside the transfer orders, granting relief in favor of the petitioner.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the Court Judgement dated 15 Dec 23 below:</span></b></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kI70Ymx38MGOL9BCLg4UM-mbYm_mNo7T/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-38275199114020168642023-12-07T20:00:00.012+05:302023-12-18T14:22:09.039+05:30Court of CCPD issues Suo Motu notice to Department of Posts for use of inappropriate terms as "Lunatic Account" for a person with autism.<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court:</b> Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No:</b> 14668/1102/2023 </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> Suo Motu against Department of Posts, Govt. of India & Anr. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Notice</b>: 07 Dec 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Court of CCPD has taken cognizance of a news item published in the daily, “The Hindu” on
21.11.2023 (Chennai Edition) which says that ‘<a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/post-office-opens-lunatic-account-for-autistic-man-plaint-lodged/article67559267.ece" target="_blank">Post office opens ‘Lunatic Account’ for autisticman</a>; plaint lodged’. According to the news item, a senior citizen-a telecom family pensioner, approached the GKM Postal Colony
Post Office in Chennai some months ago to open a savings account and term deposit account in the
name of his son who has autism. He had requested to open a Guardian
Operated Account, furnishing his son’s National Disability Identity Card and the Guardianship
Certificate given under the National Trust Act. His account was opened but citing a colonial-era
legislation, Section 12 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, the Department of Posts is
continuing the insensitive practice of classifying the account as “<i><b>Lunatic Account</b></i>”. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Incidently, "as per the Section 12 of Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, persons with unsound mind or incapable of managing his affairs are defined as lunatics and as such, the same terminology is used in Post Office Saving Bank operations," clarified a communication from the department of posts.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court highlighted the mandate of Section 13 of RPWD Act that provides that the appropriate government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities have rights equally with others to control their financial affairs and have access to bank loans and other forms of financial credit and enjoy legal capacity. The Section and the Preamble of the Act also provides that the autonomy, dignity, and privacy of persons with disability shall be respected;</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court also refered to the UN issued <a href="https://www.ungeneva.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Disability-Inclusive-Language-Guidelines.pdf" target="_blank">Disability Inclusive Language Guidelines</a> launched by the United Nations in 2019 as part of its <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/03/UNDIS_20- March-2019_for-HLCM.P.pdf" target="_blank">UN Disability Inclusion Strategy</a> The said guidelines in its Annexure I lists various commonly used terms, which should be avoided and has also mapped such terms with corresponding terms recommended by the UN. The policy of the UN aims to establish the highest levels of commitment and a vision for the United Nations system on disability inclusion for the next decade, and aims at establishing an institutional framework for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, among other international human rights instruments and development and humanitarian commitments.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here is the Suo Motu Notice:</span></b></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t5rc0f1yxTCNXh-1niD4n4IPaRSSVL-C/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-36134549982844349092023-11-08T21:50:00.009+05:302023-11-18T22:15:40.467+05:30Delhi HC seeks Response of Delhi University on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities<p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court: </b>Delhi High Court</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span><b>Bench:</b> </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Caste No(s):</b><span> W.P.(C) </span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> 5390/2022</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Title:</b> Jayant Singh Raghav Vs. University of Delhi & Ors.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Order</b><span>: 08 November 2023</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Next Date of Hearing: </b></span></span> 07 December 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On a plea moved by one Jayant
Singh Raghav, a student with visual disability of the Delhi University, raising the issue
of provisions facilities and reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities during
examinations.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court asked the varsity to satisfy in the affidavit as to how the provisions of
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the suggestions given by
amicus curiae Advocate Kamal Gupta have been implemented.
“As a last indulgence, 7 days time is granted to the respondent no.1- University to
file comprehensive affidavit to satisfy as to how the provisions of the Act of 2016
and the suggestions/report of the Amicus Curiae have been implemented by the
University,” the court said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On March 10, the amicus curiae had handed over his report to the court wherein
certain suggestions qua physical infrastructure and accessibility in the CLC as well
as regarding Raghav were made. The report suggested that the Accessibility Guidelines and Standards for Higher
Education Institutions and Universities, 2022, framed by the University Grants
Commission (UGC) must be implemented immediately in CLC, Delhi University in
time bound manner. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">It was also suggested that an access audit of CLC must be directed to be
conducted immediately and a report be submitted to the court.
The amicus curiae also suggested that at least 10 more ramps with tactile at
various locations must be ordered to be erected immediately in the varsity and that
a washroom for the disabled individuals be made functional on each floor as there
was only one such toilet at present in the entire campus of CLC.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Univeristy
submitted that the repair work in toilets, corridors, open areas and provision of
tactile and other facilities for persons with disabilities at CLC has been completed
by the agency upto the satisfaction of varsity’s competent authority.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">However, the court said, “Needless to state that the same was not only the expectation or the requirement
under the provisions of the Act of 2016 or in the report submitted by the Amicus
Curiae. It is to be seen that there are various other requirements to be adhered to
by the respondent no.1-University,”.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Here is a copy of the order dated 08 November 2023</b>:-</span></p><p><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X7HM6FeTt8csnjfyrVY7mNLwSBywwtFz/preview" width="640"></iframe></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-21291125794782346542023-11-01T21:00:00.003+05:302023-11-08T17:58:11.289+05:30Delhi HC directs Kendriya Vidyalaya to provide reservation to Deaf and Hard of Hearing candidates through a special recruitment drive<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court: </b>Delhi High Court</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, Sanjeev Narula, Justice.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Caste No(s):</b> W.P.(C) 17460/2022 </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Title:</b> Court on its own Motion Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Connected matter:</b> W.P.(C) 665/2023 National Association of the Deaf Vs. Union of India & Ors.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Judgement</b>: 01 November 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Neutral Citation:</b> 2023: DHC: 7914-DB</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Cases referred</b>: </span><a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2023/10/delhi-hc-holds-kvs-recruitment.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: verdana;">National Federation of the
Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidvalaya Sangthan & Ors., 2023:DHC:7551-DB</span></a></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The present petition was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based upon a letter dated 07.12.2022 of the National Association of Deaf (NAD/ the Association) through its President Mr. A.S. Narayanan being aggrieved by Advertisements No.15/2022 & 16/2022 issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) inviting applications for various posts of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT), Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), Librarian, Primary Teacher (Music), Finance Officer, as well as other posts. The NAD in its letter had stated that the advertisements issued by KVS were violative of statutory provisions as contained under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the RPwD Act).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench while holding the recruitement exercise by the KVS on the basis of 2013 job identification list instead of the current 2021 job identification list as violation of the statutory provisions as contained under the RPwD Act, directed the KVS to conduct a speccial recruitment drive and recruit the persons with hard of hearing and those who are deaf on the posts s per the law.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"The KVS – in respect of the identified posts as per the notification dated 04.01.2021, shall issue an advertisement and shall clear the backlog of vacancies within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment." directed the Bench.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court observed that the KVS has assumed a power which never vested in it (of deleting the identified posts on their own by instituting some internal committee). The task of identification as well
as of exemption of posts falls in the domain of the appropriate government and not the KVS.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"It is unfortunate that disabled persons are being compelled to file writ petitions and are being compelled to run from pillar to post by an organization like KVS. They are not claiming any charity, and they are claiming their rights as guaranteed to them under the RPwD Act. The
legislature has laid down a noble vision of providing “reasonable accommodation” to persons with disabilities so as to ensure that all possible special measures are adopted to enable the PwDs to perform to the best of their ability. Despite so, instead of creating such reasonable accommodation, the respondent has looked down upon the PwDs from the lens of inconvenience." expressed the bench.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Direction on Addressing the Policy Disconnect</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court said in its order, "Before parting, we feel constrained to observe that there appears to be a mismatch in the understanding of different departments regarding the mandate under RPwD Act. Whereas the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Nodal Ministry under the RPwD Act) has upgraded the list of posts suitable for the PwDs, the thought has not percolated to the departments which conduct recruitment. A similar “policy disconnect” was noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 370, wherein the stand taken by the Nodal Ministry was found to be in contrast with the stand taken by the recruiting agency – UPSC. This policy disconnect had led to a
situation wherein different departments are made to learn the same lesson after individual cases travel to the constitutional Courts. The direct impact of this practice is to compel the PwDs to assert their basic rights before judicial fora, something that cannot be termed as desirable. In this regard, we direct the concerned Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to issue suitable guidelines for the implementation of reservation policy by all departments in a uniform manner. One step may go far in the fulfilment of our promise to the PwDs. </span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the Judgement in </span></b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>W.P.(C) 17460/2022 </b></span><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">dated 01 Nov 2023</span></b></p><p><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KFeFKYR8lo6YF0xb1VL0-JZLhSS8-dtf/preview" width="640"></iframe></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-42705458029799636082023-10-17T16:20:00.001+05:302023-10-17T16:53:24.254+05:30Supreme Court seeks Union of India's Response to PIL Challenging Iron-Fortified Rice Program <p>Court: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi</p><p>Case No: <i>W.P.(C) No. 001100/2023 dated 30-09-2023 Pending- 38350/2023</i></p><p>Case Title: Rajesh Krishnan & Anr Vs. Union of India & Others</p><p>Date of filing: 30.09.2023</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has sought response of Union of India in a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwoBHJkLjejqcAFSnN_gTxzXi2MJXToG/view" target="_blank">Public Interest Litigation (PIL)</a> filed by concerned citizens, challenging the Government of India's iron-fortified rice program. The PIL raises critical concerns about the government's failure to adhere to their <i><b>own advisories</b></i>, which caution patients with Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Disease against consuming iron or recommend its use under strict medical supervision. Alarmingly, despite reaching out to various government departments and state food commissioners, the citizens received no response.</p><p>The government's iron-fortified rice program is an integral component of public safety net initiatives, including the Public Distribution System (PDS), mid-day meals, and anganwadis, providing sustenance to millions of Indians.</p><p>Underlining the gravity of the issue, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has clearly outlined in <a href="https://www.fssai.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Compendium_Food_Fortification_Regulations_30_09_2021.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">clause 7(4) of the Food Safety Act</a>, supported by international scientific evidence, that individuals afflicted with haemoglobinopathies like Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Disease should refrain from consuming iron. Such consumption can lead to severe adverse consequences, including organ failure for those with these conditions.</p><p>However, investigations carried out by the Alliance for Holistic and Sustainable Agriculture (ASHA) and the Right to Food Campaign during <a href="https://community-holistic-nutrition.blogspot.com/p/fact-finding-visits-to-local.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fact-finding visits</a> in two states revealed that iron-fortified rice was being distributed without due consideration, completely ignoring the necessity for medical screenings and supervision. More distressing was the revelation that individuals suffering from haemoglobinopathies were unaware of the potential harm posed by the rice. Astonishingly, state governments had not been issued any guidelines by the central government pertaining to these warnings. In addition, the rice was being distributed in both raw and cooked forms, especially in schemes such as mid-day meals, with minimal and poorly visible written or verbal warnings, often found only on the gunny bags. Shockingly, no provision for iron-free rice was made available to these vulnerable patients.</p><p>The recipients of state food schemes who are consuming this synthetic iron-fortified rice primarily consist of economically disadvantaged citizens who heavily rely on state-subsidized food. For them, iron-fortified rice has become a necessity, as they cannot afford to purchase non-fortified rice from the open market. The large-scale implementation of this program commenced before a pilot scheme in 15 states was thoroughly assessed or independently evaluated. According to government responses to Right to Information (RTI) queries, the evaluation of these pilot programs was expected to be concluded by late 2022, yet no evaluation findings have been made available to date.</p><p>In light of these pressing concerns, the PIL petitioners have made two fundamental demands. <i><b>Firstly,</b></i> they call upon the government to rigorously adhere to clause 7(4) of the Food Safety Act and ensure that comprehensive warnings reach consumers directly. <i><b>Secondly</b></i>, they insist that non-fortified rice be provided to patients with medical contraindications, safeguarding the well-being of these vulnerable individuals. The Supreme Court's directive is a significant step towards addressing these vital issues and ensuring the health and safety of those most in need.</p><p><b>Access the Petition here:</b></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gwoBHJkLjejqcAFSnN_gTxzXi2MJXToG/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-37686066569766650242023-10-16T22:00:00.003+05:302023-10-19T16:22:58.519+05:30Supreme Court: Citing Reasonable Accommodation provisions, bench directs a person with defective colour vision to be appointed as Assistant Engineer Electrical<p><b>Court:</b> Supreme Court of India</p><p><b>Bench</b>: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar</p><p><b>Case No.</b>: Civil Appeal No. 6785 of 2023 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12671 of 2022]</p><p><b>Case Title</b>: Mohamed Ibrahim Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director & Ors.</p><p><b>Date of Judgement</b>: 16 October 2023</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>The Supreme Court granted relief to the appellant - a person with colour blindness - who was denied appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer applying the principle of "reasonable accommodation" as defined in the RPwD Act. Incidently, colour blindness is not an identified or defined disability in the schedule to the Act.</p><p>The Court highlighted that the provisions of the RPwD Act are specifically designed to foster the participation and empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). However, it expressed its concern that the benefits arising from affirmative action are confined to a specific category of PwDs, including those with orthopedic, visual, hearing, and mental disabilities, among others covered in the schedule to the Act. These benefits are intricately linked to the concept of "benchmark" disabilities, which grants affirmative action and similar benefits to PwDs who meet a defined threshold of disability, typically 40 percent or more. This distinction based on specified categories and threshold conditions, as per the topc court, creates substantial barriers.</p><p>It bench observed, “The actual benefits in the form of affirmative action are defined by a specific category of PwDs (orthopaedical, visual, hearing, mental, etc.) and tied to the context of “benchmark” disabilities, which entitles those PwDs who qualify with a certain threshold of disability (40 percent or more) to the affirmative action and other similar benefits. The nature of inclusion of specified categories only to the exclusion of other categories of disabilities, on the one hand, and the eligibility of a threshold, in the opinion of this court, constitute barriers.”</p><p>"The twin conditions of falling within defined categories, and also a threshold condition of a minimum percentage, of such disabilities, in fact are a barrier," opined the court. The Court emphasized the necessity of a more rational and inclusive approach to accommodate individuals who may not it into the established categories of PwDs in the schedule to the Act.</p><p>“The facts of this case demonstrate that the appellant is fit, in all senses of the term, to discharge the duties attached to the post he applied and was selected for. Yet, he is denied the position, for being “disabled” as he is color blind. At the same time, he does not fit the category of PwD under the lexicon of the universe contained within the Act. These challenge traditional understandings of what constitutes “disabilities”. The court has to, therefore, travel beyond the provisions of the Act and discern a principle that can be rationally applied.”</p><p>The bench was hearing an appeal against the Madras HC judgment which had ruled in favour of the respondent(TANGEDCO) asserting its right to reject the appellant's candidature on the grounds of colour blindness. The case revolved around a job application for the position of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the appellant. The appellant, who was initially considered qualified for the role, was subsequently found to be color blind during a medical examination. This raised concerns about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an engineer, which frequently involve working with color-coded power cables and wires.</p><p>As a result of these concerns, TANGEDCO rejected the appellant's candidature. The appellant challenged this decision under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Madras High Court initially ruled in his favor, directing TANGEDCO to offer him the position. However, in appeal before the division bench, the decision highlighted the evolving doctrine of proportionality, indicating that TANGEDCO's decision had a reasonable basis, even by this modern standard. Consequently, the division bench's judgment reversed the previous order, leading the appellant to seek redress from the Supreme Court. </p><p>The SC bench noted that respondent TANGEDCO had not explicitly indicated that colour vision deficiency, in any form or degree, serves as a disqualifying factor for the role of an Assistant Engineer. It emphasized that the appellant, being a graduate in electrical engineering, possessed knowledge and experience related to the role's functions. Additionally, practical experience during the course exposed the candidate to equipment defects and solutions for breakdowns. Thus, the SC bench established the need for some form of accommodation.</p><p>The Court relied on <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2016/06/supreme-court-slaps-rs10-lakhs-fine-on.html" target="_blank">Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India</a> (2016) 4 SCR 638 to highlight that when public facilities and services are designed with standards inaccessible to persons with disabilities, it results in their exclusion and a denial of rights. The concept of equality goes beyond merely preventing discrimination; it involves addressing systematic discrimination through positive rights, affirmative action, and reasonable accommodation.</p><p>The Court also cited the case of <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2021/12/supreme-court-ravinder-kumar-dhariwal.html" target="_blank">Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India</a> 2021 (13) SCR 823, which distinguishes between formal equality and substantive equality. Substantive equality aims to achieve equal outcomes, and the principle of reasonable accommodation plays a critical role in this.</p><p>The Court observed that reasonable accommodation entails accommodating disabled individuals based on their capacities. It also relied on <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2022/07/degree-of-disability-no-ground-to-deny.html" target="_blank">Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission </a> 2021 (12) SCR 311, which held “The principle of reasonable accommodation acknowledges that if disability” should be remedied and opportunities are “to be affirmatively created for facilitating the development of the disabled. Reasonable accommodation is founded in the norm of inclusion. Exclusion results in the negation of individual dignity and worth or they can choose the route of reasonable accommodation, where each individual's dignity and worth is respected.”</p><p>The court also cited <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2022/04/supreme-court-ftii-should-make.html" target="_blank">Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India</a> (2022), where the Supreme Court directed the FTII to accommodate students with colour blindness saying, "The respondent institute is a premier institute and one would expect it to encourage liberate thought process and not put courses connected with films in any conformist box".</p><p>While acknowledging the resondent's concerns about colour vision impairment, the Court reminded the TANGEDCO of its obligation to operate within the framework of "reasonable accommodation" as defined by Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act. Resultantly, the court set aside the impugned judgement of the Division bench of Madras High Court saying, “The impugned judgment cannot stand; it is set aside. TANGEDCO, the respondent corporation, is directed to appoint and continue the appellant in its service, as AE (Electrical) at the appropriate stage of the grade of pay,”.</p><p>During the hearing, the Court learnt that a member of the bar, Mr. Mehmoud Yumar Faruqi had life experiences of colour blindness -as someone living with a condition of colour blindness and had collected considerable case law and literature. The court had, therefore, requested his assistance for the proceedings. The court expressed its gratitude for his assistance. </p><p><b>Access the judgement below:</b></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKqs4TkVRtqs8V1RCkbJ94w37TdQYsh1/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-912129184089493672023-10-16T21:30:00.003+05:302023-11-08T17:54:59.056+05:30Delhi HC holds KVS recruitment advertisement as unsustainable for denying reservation to blind persons<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Court:</b> </span><span style="background-color: white;">Delhi High Court</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Satish Chandra Sharma, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Caste No</b>: W.P.(C) 9520/2018 </span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Title:</b> National Federation of Blind Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Judgement</b>: 16 October 2023</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Neutral Citation:</b> 2023: DHC: 7551-DB</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Brief:</b></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Delhi high court termed </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">a recruitment advertisement issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">as unsustainable as it excluded reservation for blind persons from the post of principal in a judgement dated 16 Oct 2023.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court said that every act of exclusion that has the effect of compelling a person with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment without their fault is an assault on their dignity . </span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">A bench opined that the advertisement issued by the KVS in August 2018 for the posts of principal, vice-principal, PGTs, TGTs, librarian distinguished PwDs and had the effect of excluding them from the race of recruitment as the distinction was purely on the basis of disability.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">“The impugned advertisement distinguishes the persons with disabilities from others and puts a restriction on their potential to participate in the recruitment process to their full ability. The distinction is purely on the basis of disability. The advertisement has the effect of excluding the persons with disabilities from the race of recruitment, in complete violation of the mandatory reservation provision. It may be noted that an act of discrimination is not only a denial of the promise of equal protection before the law. Rather, every act of exclusion is an assault on the dignity of a person. More so, when the exclusion has the effect of compelling the persons with disabilities out of a race for gaining employment, without any fault of theirs. Instead of providing an equal space to grow, we have been compelling the persons with disabilities to prove, time and again, that they are capable of a lot more than we think,” said </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">the bench</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">in its verdict.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court also said, “We may usefully note that the power of identification of posts is bound by a procedure, which, amongst other things, involves consultation with experts including persons with disabilities. The persons with disabilities are the direct stakeholders in this exercise and the legislature has aptly carved out a provision for a consultative exercise with such persons. It is a manifestation of the principles of natural justice and there can be no deviation from the statutory procedure. Exclusion of a post, without engaging in a consultative exercise, shall also be violative of the principles of natural justice.”</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench also opined that the Sangathan at the stage of recruitment and advertisement of vacancies was duty bound to reserve 4 % of the total number of vacancies, inclusive of vacancies against identified as well as unidentified posts.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court cautioned that it was impermissible to exclude subjects which cannot be taught by PwDs at the time of reservation of vacancies.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">“Once recruited, appointments can be made against the posts identified as suitable for respective categories of persons with disabilities. There is no power with the respondent or its committee to revisit and cut short the list notified by the government. The process of identification or its review is to be carried out by the appropriate government only. Further, the said exercise is to be carried out after constitution of an expert committee with due representation of persons with benchmark disabilities,” said the court directing the KVS to reserve the post of principal for blind persons, conduct an audit of the total number of vacancies in the establishment and prepare a vacancy based roster for recruitment of PwDs within three months.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">“The rights belonging to the persons with disabilities are meant to secure inclusivity and human dignity. Such rights, although statutorily enacted, find their roots in the fundamental rights of life, equality and non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Constitution. The guarantee of equal opportunity to all equally extends to the persons with disabilities and while interpreting the benevolent provisions of the statutes in this regard, the court must be mindful of the same,” the court also said.</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the Judgement in </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">W.P.(C) </span></b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>9520/2018</b> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">below:</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b6DQfQiDWMMWelc-XAqb896ZWzN5jpZq/preview" width="640"></iframe></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-8787966637676554292023-10-10T17:26:00.002+05:302023-10-10T17:26:22.633+05:30Bombay HC directs Police Cop to compensate an NDA Professor for a false probe against him for alleged fake disabilty certificate<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court:</b> Bombay High Court</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Justice Nitin W. Sambre & Hon'ble Justice R.N. Laddha</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No</b>. – Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2018 </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title</b> – Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Judgement:</b> 04 Aug 2023</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Cited as:</b> 2023:BHC-AS:29209-DB</span></p><div><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Case brief:<br /></span></b><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Slamming a police officer for falsely implicating a disabled professsor of the National Defence Academy (NDA) by carrying out a false investigation for a genuine disability certificate, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the FIR and consequential proceedings against the staffer and ordered compensation of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to one Dr. Kamal
Chandra Tiwari, an Assistant Professor at the National Defence Academy, Pune falsely
prosecuted for producing fake disability certificates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court ordered a compensation of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the employee, to be recovered from the salary of the investigation officer. The officer had ignored communication from the hospital verifying the employee's disability certificate. The employee's advocate stated that the officer's actions were vindictive.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“Such an act of the investigating officer (IO)... can be termed as causing mental agony, lowering down dignity and ill-treating the petitioner, an academician (sic),” said Justices Nitin Sambre and R N Laddha in the August 4 order released on Thursday.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">They awarded compensation of Rs 25,000 to Kamal Tiwari and directed it to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within six months. The state will recover the amount from the salary of the IO, Anand Pagare, who is currently posted as inspector at Police Training Centre, Daund.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The NDA had sent Tiwari’s 41% disability certificate issued by Sassoon Hospital, Pune, on December 1, 2012, to the facility for verification. The hospital said it couldn’t trace the original record, prompting the NDA to lodge a police complaint in May 2016 that Tiwari, who had joined as assistant professor (sociology), had produced a forged certificate. Tiwari was booked under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for
purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC.
</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In September 2016, the hospital wrote to the IO Pagare that the original record had been traced. The investigating officer Pagare intentionally and deliberately overlooked the same and purely with an intention to initiate malafide prosecution has charge-sheeted the petitioner in July 2017. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In June, the judges issued a contempt notice to IO Pagare after he “intentionally” ignored their query on whether he had looked into the record. In his reply, Pagare said he had recorded the statements of two doctors who denied signing the certificate. He said it was his first posting. The judges said he was expected to verify the certificate’s genuineness.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Tiwari’s advocate Jagdish Reddy said he suffered because of Pagare’s vindictive attitude. Pagare’s advocate Satyavrat Joshi said he regrets the bonafide mistake and tenders his unconditional apology to the court and to Tiwari.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"Such act of the Investigating Officer, in our opinion,
can be termed as causing mental agony, lowering down dignity
and ill-treating the petitioner, an academician. The prosecution
initiated by the said officer can be termed as malicious which has
not only caused harassment to the petitioner but also
immeasurable anguish. The fact that the petitioner, a handicap
person is an academician having good repute an employee of
National Defence Academy, Pune and the acts done with
clandestine manner by the Investigating Officer, in our opinion, warrant award of compensation as has been prayed by him.
Counsel for the petitioner magnanimously stated that he is not
interested in the amount of compensation which can be made
over to the Legal Services Authority, however, the Investigating
Officer should realize his mistake which should be pinching for
bias and malafide criminal prosecution against the petitioner. In
the backdrop of aforesaid observations, we deem it appropriate to
award compensation of Rs.25,000/- by Mr.Anand Pagare,
Investigating Officer to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal
Services Authority within period of six months from today." observed the bench.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench discharged the contempt notice with the following obervations:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"As far as contempt notice is concerned, we hereby warn the
investigating officer Mr Anand Pagare, Police Inspector presently
attached to Police Training Centre, Nanvij Daud, Pune to be more
diligent in carrying out his duty as a police officer. With above
warning, we discharge the contempt notice."</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the Order:</span></b></p></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FG9n6J5oe4nRCPYlXu_G-uHn0Wo2aM7K/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-6341991130572515412023-09-25T16:04:00.003+05:302023-09-25T16:16:29.017+05:30Supreme Court seeks Centre's resonse to a plea which sougth quanum of assistance to PwDs 25% higher than those given to others as per section 24(1)<p>A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks</p><p>The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a plea which sought that quantum of assistance to persons with disabilities should be 25 per cent higher than those given to others under similar social welfare schemes.</p><p>A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.</p><p>The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the apex court in the matter.</p><p>The top court noted the petitioner has relied on the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.</p><p>Section 24 of the 2016 Act deals with social security and section 24 (1) says, "The appropriate government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community: provided that the quantum of assistance to the persons with disabilities under such schemes and programmes shall be at least 25 per cent higher than the similar schemes applicable to others." Jayant Singh Raghav, president of the organisation, told the bench that proviso to section 24 (1) of the Act provides that quantum to be provided to the persons with disabilities needs to be 25 per cent additional to the others under similar social welfare schemes.</p><p>"Which are the schemes in respect of which you are claiming a 25 per cent enhancement," the bench asked.</p><p>Raghav referred to the disability pension given by different states.</p><p>"Presently, instead of issuing notice to all the states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what the Union Government has to say," the bench said.</p><p>Source: Unedited stroy from syndicate feeds</p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-45134075990524413902023-09-25T15:42:00.000+05:302023-09-25T15:42:09.824+05:30Accessibility in residential societies remains a matter of concern; petitioner, a blind person litigates to seek justice.<p><b style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana;">Court: </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana;">Delh</span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">i High Court </span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Justice <span style="background-color: transparent;">V. KAMESWAR RAO, </span>Hon'ble Justice <span style="background-color: transparent;">ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No</b>.: <span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 17.12px;">WP (Civil) No. 7642/2022</span></span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title</b>: <span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 17.12px;">Jayant Singh Raghav v Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, & Ors.</span></span></span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: verdana;">Next Date of Hearing</b><span style="font-family: verdana;">: </span><span style="color: #212529; font-family: verdana;">06/10/2023</span></p><p style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Case Brief:</span></b></p><p style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="background-color: transparent;">The petitioner Jayant Singh
Raghav, is a person with a disability has raised this litigation alleging</span> rights infringement of individuals with disabilities in accessing suitable facilities within residential communities against the Chandanwari Society (a residential housing society) with <span style="background-color: transparent;">Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as the resondents. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">The petitioner emphasizes what he perceives as a
violation of the rights of persons with disabilities to access appropriate
facilities within residential communities. He contends that the environment lacks
provisions tailored to his specific needs, obstructs equal opportunities, and
disrupts harmonious communal living.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">In response, the Chandanwari Society, represented
by the respondents, counters these claims by asserting their consistent efforts
to ensure unimpeded accessibility for the petitioner. The Society argues that
it has taken substantial measures to establish a barrier-free environment
within the apartment complex. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">Before approaching the high court, petitioner had
lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government
of NCT of Delhi, citing the society's perceived inaction. The complaint pointed
out a violation of Rule-15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule,
2017. A subsequent directive highlighted shortcomings and mandated
rectifications. However, the complaint was closed without comprehensive
justification by <a href="https://delhiscpd.blogspot.com/2021/09/jayant-singh-raghav-vs-delhi.html" target="_blank">passing an order.</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">Unsatisfied with the complaint's closure, the
petitioner turned to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds for the petition include
alleged breaches of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about non-compliance with the
"Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-free Built
Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons" 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">Differing viewpoints emerged regarding the
application of the Unified Bye-Laws where the petitioner contends that the
society's layout and infrastructure do not conform to the Unified Bye-Laws,
2016. However, the respondents assert that the apartment complex was
constructed under the Unified Bye-Laws, 1983, making substantial reconstruction
impractical after 33 years. Despite this, the respondents assert their ongoing
commitment to enhance accessibility within existing structural constraints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">Mr. Raghav is critical of the changes implemented
by the society, suggesting that they are cosmetic and, in some cases,
potentially hazardous to disabled individuals. He expresses concerns over the
safety and effectiveness of the alterations, arguing that hurried modifications
might inadvertently lead to harm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">Throughout the legal process, the petitioner filed
various ancillary applications alongside the primary writ petition, including
inter-locutary application, early hearing application, and urgent application.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">The petitioner further claims that the
modifications initiated by the respondents are confined to Tower-3 of the
society, where he resides. However, he contends that the issue extends beyond
his personal access to encompass the entire society. He emphasizes that the
concern is not solely about Common area accessibility of the block where the
petitioner resides but pertains to the community's overall inclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;">In conclusion, the case underscores the intricate
interplay between an individual with disabilities striving for equitable access
and a residential society working within practical limitations to achieve
accessibility standards. The legal journey encompasses a range of stages, from
pre-court complaints to constitutional writ petitions, highlighting the
petitioner's pursuit of enforcing rights. Consequently, the petitioner has
filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before The Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
an expedited grant of the interim relief as prayed for.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: verdana; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></p><br /><p></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-69661583841488403402023-09-15T12:34:00.014+05:302023-10-17T16:54:55.446+05:30Forced to climb staircase at the theatre, disabled man files complaint in consumer forum citing lack of accessibility, theatre directed to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Dear colleagues,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">An inaccessible cinema theatre, which had neither elevators nor
ramps despite the provisions of RPWD Act 2016 mandating accessibility in public spaces, and made a person with a disability climb the staircase to
watch actor Udhayanidhi's 'Nenjukku Neethi' movie, has been
asked to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the aggrieved person. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
passed the order based on a complaint from S Sureshkumar of
Kundrathur. He complained that he went to Gokulam Cinemas in
Poonamallee to watch 'Nenjukku Neethi' in May 2022, but realised
on entering the premises that the screen was on the second floor,
and yet it had no lifts or ramps. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The theatre employees told Suresh that he had to climb the
staircase due to which he suffered severe leg pain the same day,
said Suresh, who has locomotor disability of 60%.
He alleged that Gokulam Cinemas had violated Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by not providing lifts or ramps in the newly
built complex and the district collector too was at fault for having issued licence to the theatre hall without
proper inspection as required under section 44 of the Act of 2016.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In response, Gokulam Cinemas said Suresh was not on their premises on the said date to watch the movie and he
was trying to mislead the court with a ticket borrowed from another person. Counsel for the theatre argued that
work to install lifts could not be completed due to Covid-19 pandemic. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The forum rejected the management's argument, saying: "The contention could not be entertained as Covid-19
effects came to an end two years ago." It directed the theatre to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for the mental
agony and hardship caused, and another ₹10,000 towards Suresh's litigation expenses. The Thiruvallur district
collector has been directed to take necessary action against the theatre within four weeks.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">More such cases are on the anvil as the timelines for implementing mandatory accessibility is over. Those who have been sleeping over the accessibiltiy mandate are waking up to such music. Its high time that the establishments must get their buildings and services access audited and take remedial action. Its better late than never!</span></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-11364266543223219502023-08-24T23:00:00.022+05:302023-10-12T15:48:14.690+05:30Delhi HC passes important directions to make Court system accessible and to realise Access to Justice for persons with disabilities under Section 12 of RPwD Act 2016 and emphasizes "Active Judicial Conduct" to ensure PwD's actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court:</b> Delhi High Court</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No.:</b> W.P.(CRL) 2500 / 2022</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title</b>: Rakesh Kumar Kalra Deaf Divyang Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Decided on:</b> August 24, 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Cited as:</b> Revised Neutral citation- <b>2023:DHC:6132</b> ; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5261</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The petitioner, by way of above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, sought issuance of appropriate writ,
order or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the
respondent/State to constitute a Special Court as per Section 84 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to make the criminal trial he is facing friendly to his disability so that he can participate in it fully.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"It was crucial that this Court examine the question in view of
the issue raised by the petitioner herein as to whether the
judicial system itself has complied with the requirement of
equality apropos a person with disability who is an accused or
petitioner before the court of law, while it administers justice." expressed the court.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Court issued pivotal directions to address the critical issue of ensuring that persons with disabilities can actively participate in legal proceedings. The court emphasized that no citizen should feel denied of justice due to physical or mental disabilities, either because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure or insensitivity within the judicial system.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The case at hand involved a petitioner who had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, who had been deaf since childhood and also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder-induced eye cataract and post-traumatic fractured maligned joint stiffness, faced significant challenges in participating in trial proceedings related to allegations against them. The court recognized that these challenges infringed upon the principles of natural justice, contravened the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, and violated constitutional rights.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">To address these issues, the court referred to the importance of fair trials as a fundamental right in the Indian criminal justice system, citing the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374. The court highlighted the need to implement Section 12 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, which aimed to make legal proceedings more accessible to individuals with disabilities. It also referred to the Supreme Court's E-Committee's Standard Operating Procedure on Preparation of Accessible Court Documents.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The judgment also pointed out the inadequacy of Special Courts under the RPWD Act, as they were limited to certain offenses. The court stressed the importance of alternative methods, such as the use of braille, sign language, and assistive technology, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in legal proceedings effectively.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Additionally, the court provided a list of infrastructural improvements necessary to ensure accessibility, including facilities like wheelchairs, elevators, and sign language interpreters in courts. It called for judicial education and training to raise awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities, drawing inspiration from the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Bandu (2018) 11 SCC 163 and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 78.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The judgment underscored the need for a specific provision within the RPWD Act to address the requirements of witnesses, accused persons, advocates, and others involved in judicial trials and proceedings.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">To ensure effective compliance with Section 12(4)(c) of the RPWD Act, the court issued various directives, including the provision of essential electronic gadgets, the creation of schemes to address the needs of accused persons with disabilities, and increased public awareness about available resources. The Delhi Judicial Academy was also tasked with holding sensitization programs for judges, lawyers, court staff, and police.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Court was of the opinion that active judicial conduct to ensure access of persons with disabilities in the judicial process will ensure achieving constitutional vision of justice of ensuring fundamental and human rights of persons with disabilities and their actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to justice for persons with disabilities, particularly in the context of the specific case. The court provides a comprehensive set of directions to address the challenges faced by the petitioner and others in similar situations. These directives aim to create a more inclusive and accessible judicial system, thus upholding the constitutional vision of justice. The authorities are required to implement these directives within a three-month period.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the judgemnet here:</span></b></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZAtoy3NNGsLeE_VBnDPhWYWBLksAmsz2/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-82466089945626278402023-08-18T20:00:00.001+05:302023-10-10T16:40:37.854+05:30Delhi High Court disposes of petition on Equal Health Insurance for persons with disabilities, after IRDAI and 29 Insurance companies bring out health policies for PwDs [Judgement included]<p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="transition: all 0s ease 0s;">Court:</b> High Court of Delhi at New Delhi</span></p><p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="transition: all 0s ease 0s;">Bench:</b> Justice Pratibha M Singh</span></p><p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="transition: all 0s ease 0s;">Case No:</b> <span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: center;">W.P.(C) 6074/2019</span></span></p><p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="transition: all 0s ease 0s;">Case Title:</b> Saurabh Shukla Vs. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.</span></p><p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="transition: all 0s ease 0s;">Date of Judgement :</b> 18 August 2023</span></p><p class="userway-s7-active" data-text-align-feature-value="4" data-userway-s19-styled="true" data-userway-s7-styled="true" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; transition: all 0s ease 0s;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b style="background-color: transparent;">Brief of the Case:</b><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Please refer to our earlier post updating on the hearing dated 13 December 2022 in the present case titled "<a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2022/12/delhi-hc-right-to-life-includes-right.html" target="_blank">Delhi HC: Right to Life includes Right to Health, Referring to persons with disabilities as 'sub-standard lives' is 'unacceptable terminology', directs IRDAI to act</a>."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The matter was further listed before the Court on 17th March, 2023.
On the said date, in compliance with the directions dated 13 Dec 22, IRDAI placed
on record a status report, giving details of the tasks undertaken by IRDAI.
As per the said report, IRDAI had called a meeting of all general and health
insurance companies on 18th January, 2023, where the relevant issues were
discussed and a committee consisting of six senior officials from the various
insurance companies was constituted. The Committee was entrusted with the
following tasks: </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“i. Design and develop specific product/s for the
following: </span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span> </span> a. Persons with Disabilities (PWD) <br /><span> </span> b. Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS <br /><span> </span>c. Persons having mental illnesses</span></div><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">ii. The design and development of the products shall be
comprehensive enough to meet the insurance needs of
the respective groups. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">iii. The complete documentation shall be developed --
Proposal form, Schedule, the Policy wordings
including the various terms and conditions etc., apart
from a Customer Information Sheet (Key Features
Document).”</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Thereafter, a model policy was drafted by IRDAI and a circular dated
27th February, 2023 was issued to all general and health insurance providers,
directing them to launch products for persons with disabilities (PWD),
Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS, and those with Mental Illness, with
immediate effect. IRDAI also complied with the third direction as contained
in paragraph 26 of order dated 13th December, 2022 and the previously used
expression ‘sub-standard lives’ in Regulation 8(b) of the IRDAI (Health
Insurance) Regulations, 2016 was deleted.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Petitioner was also offered a health insurance policy by Niva
Bupa Health Insurance Company and expressed his willingness to avail of the policy, vide his email dated 1st March, 2023. However, the Petitioner
had certain contentions against the specific details of the policy offered.
Vide order dated 17th March, 2023, this Court directed the Petitioner to avail
the health insurance offered by Niva Bupa, while allowing the Petitioner to
make a representation to IRDAI on the issues of Amount of premium being
charged, Loading charges, Amount of coverage and Period of Exclusion for
Pre-Existing Diseases.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In terms of order dated 17th March, 2023, the following compliances
were to be undertaken by IRDAI:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> i. IRDAI was to take a decision on the representation by the
Petitioner and issue directions by 15th April, 2023; </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">ii. IRDAI was to convey the decision on the representation of the
Petitioner by 30
th April, 2023; </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">iii. IRDAI was to notify all the insurance companies to submit their
products in terms of circular dated 27th February, 2023 along
with model policy and file a status report. </span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy
General Manager of the Health Department of IRDAI wherein the deponent
states as under: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“2 That after the issuance of circular dated
27.02.2023, all the general and standalone health
insurance companies have filed their products for
Persons with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with
HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness with Answering
Respondent/IRDAI under the “Use and File” procedure
dated 01.06.2022. It is respectfully submitted that as per
Use and File circular insurers are not required to obtain
any prior approval for launching and marketing their insurance product. Copy of the Use and File circular
dated 01.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure A. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">3 That in compliance of the Circular dated
27.02.2023, all general and standalone health insurance
companies have also launched their products for Persons
with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with
HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness a list containing
the details of products launched in accordance to
Circular dated 27.02.2023 is annexed as Annexure B.”
</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In terms of the above averments made in the affidavit, the various
general and health insurance companies including the four Government
insurance companies namely New India Assurance Company, United India
Insurance Company Ltd, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and National
Insurance Company Ltd. have launched products for persons with
disabilities. The complete list of 29 companies who are stated to have launched
their insurance products for persons with disabilities, has been reproduced in a table in the below judgement.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">From the said table, it is clear that several insurance companies have
launched products for PwDs. However, in respect of the products which
have been launched, the Petitioner raises some objection qua the high
insurance premium and the loading charges, that is being charged. The said
consideration of the amount of premium of any company’s specific product
would be beyond the scope of this writ petition. It is, however, observed
that if any person insured is having a grievance on the amount of premium
being charged, remedies in accordance with law are available to such
persons. The Petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned authority
if he so desires. This Court however, would reiterate the decision of the
Supreme Court in <i><b><a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2022/07/degree-of-disability-no-ground-to-deny.html" target="_blank">Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 84</a></b></i>, which has also been considered by this Court in
<i><b>Akshat Baldwa & Ors. v. Yash Raj Films & Ors., 2023:DHC:345</b></i> wherein
the principle of reasonable accommodation has been highlighted to ensure
that society and indeed the state, can provide additional support and
facilities that are necessary for persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal worth and dignity.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court furhter made clear that the merits of each and every product launched
and whether the charges are reasonable or not has not been considered by
the Court and the same was left open for consideration by any appropriate
forum, which may adjudicate a challenge to the same. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The IRDAI, being the
sector regulator would also have an obligation to ensure that PwDs are not
unduly prejudiced and give suitable directions to insurance companies, after
reviewing the products launched.
21. Insofar as the decision of the IRDAI qua the Petitioner is concerned,
the decision is stated to have been taken by the IRDAI on 19th April, 2023.
The said decision of the IRDAI has been placed on record. The challenge to
the decision is on the following aspects: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">i. Amount of premium being charged and loading charges
imposed on the Petitioner etc. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">ii. Amount of Coverage
iii. Period of exclusion for pre-existing diseases </span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"The IRDAI’s decision is detailed and reasoned. The Petitioner has
already availed of the policy in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2023.
The Petitioner is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law in for
any outstanding grievances qua this decision of the IRDAI dated 17th April,
2023." observed the court.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This Court appreciated the assistance given by the parties and their
Counsels, in ensuring that insurance products for persons with disabilities
have been launched in India. The court admitted that the while the said products may not be the most
ideal for persons with disabilities, this would merely be a first step in the
process of achieving Equality for PwDs, which is the solemn intent of
legislations including the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
24. And the court thus disposed of the petition accordingly.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here is the detailed judgement: </span></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZmLLig3fj_AHI-0mkKmMMTVUl73xhvod/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-86508212817969770002023-08-05T21:00:00.063+05:302023-10-17T16:36:59.237+05:30Karnataka HC issues notice to Centre on a PIL challenging exclusion of disabilities as a variable from National Family Health Survey<p><b>Court:</b> Karnataka High Court, Bangaluru</p><p><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Prasanna B. Varale and Hon'ble Justice M.G.S. Kamal </p><p><b>Case No.: </b>WP (C) 14180 of 2023</p><p><b>Case Title:</b> Javed Abidi Foundation Vs. Union of India (Min. of Health & Family Welfare)</p><p><b>Date of Order:</b> 04.08.2023</p><p><b>Brief of the case </b></p><p>The petitioner Javed Abidi Foundation has sought a direction to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016 as a variable in the household survey questionnaire of the NFHS-6 while pointing out that disabilities was a variable in the NFHS-5.</p><p>Quoting various media reports, the petition claimed that the disabilities were excluded from NFHS-6 on the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee citing two reasons - enumerators were not trained nor qualified to ask about and evaluate disability; and enumerating disability as a variable was a time-consuming and laborious process.</p><p>The petitioner has argued that the reasons cited to exclude disabilities are unjustifiable in the light of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which states that it the right of persons with disabilities to be part of any data collection exercise and all data about disability should be disaggregated so that persons with disabilities can get the maximum advantage of any schemes and other programmes meant for their welfare. The exclusion also violative of the provisions of the RPwD Act, the petition has complained.</p><p>The PIL also disputes the claim of the Union Health Ministry that the disabilities has been already enumerated during the 76th round of the National Sample Survey of 2018 and there would be no change in those figures. The Ministry’s response to petitioner stating that the NFHS-5 contained questions in the questionnaire on disabilities on the advise of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health and other questions with a very shorter version of the question will not be advisable.</p><p>The court passed the following order:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i>"The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure-P1 and submits that though it is stated by respondent No.5 that it will not be able to collect accurate data on disability in its concurrent form and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health, there are no grounds or reasons forthcoming as to why respondent No.5 is not in a position to collect the data on disability when such an exercise was undertaken by the very respondent in the year 2019.</i></p><p><i>Issue notice returnable within four weeks.</i></p><p><i>Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, the learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1."</i></p></blockquote><p>The PIL has made following prayers in the writ and interim relief:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Writ prayers</b></p><p class="MsoNormal">a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
memorandum dated 14/06/2023 bearing reference number no.y.12011/3/2020-stats at Annexure-M is issued by the 2nd respondent stating unsustainable grounds for
exclusion of disability from NFHS 6.</p><p class="MsoNormal">b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as a variable in the household
questionnaire for the national family health survey 6 as per the petitioners
and several other representations to the respondents.</p><p class="MsoNormal">c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner at annexures-d,
e, f, k and l and to expeditiously consider his appeal at annexure-q.</p><p class="MsoNormal">d) pass such orders (s) or issue such other writ (s). </p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Interim prayer</b></p><p class="MsoNormal">issue orders to the respondents in the nature of directions
to introduce a questionnaire on disabilities by way of addendum that is similar
the questionnaire on disabilities introduced in NFHS 5 so as to include all the
21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the rights of persons with
disabilities act, 2016 as a variable in the household questionnaire for the
national family health survey 6.</p></blockquote><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-83536669217236136892023-08-02T22:00:00.001+05:302023-08-08T21:33:29.479+05:30Delhi HC summons Health Secretary, says it is unfortunate that permanent State Mental Health Authority not constituted till date.<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court</b>: Delhi High Court</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No</b>: W.P.(C) 6952/2019 & tagged case: W.P.(C) 4468/2021</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> Amit Sahni Vs. Govt of NCT of Dellhi & Ors and tagged case- Shreyus Sukhija Vs. Govt. of NCT of Dlehi & Ors.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Act:</b> Mental Healthcare Act 2017</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Order:</b> 02 Aug 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Next Date of Hear</b>ing: 15.09.2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Brief:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Observing that it is unfortunate that the permanent State Mental Health Authority under Mental Health Act, 2017, has not been constituted till date in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has asked Delhi Government’s Health Secretary to remain present before it on September 15, 2023.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">“It is made clear that in case the permanent State Mental Health Authority is constituted as per the requirement of Sections 45 & 46 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the personal appearance of the Secretary (Health), GNCTD, shall be dispensed with without further reference to the Court,” the division bench said in its order dated 02 Aug 2023.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench also directed the Delhi Government to comply with the statutory provisions under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018, including constitution of district mental health authorities.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In November 2022, the court was informed by Delhi government’s counsel that the process for reconstitution of State Mental Health Authority is underway and shall be finalised soon. However, since the same was not done, the court made the above observations.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking effective implementation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It is his case that the lack of mental health authorities is adversely affecting the treatment of mentally ill persons.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Another plea tagged with the PIL has been moved by man seeking reconstitution of the State Mental Health Authority and also for setting up of Mental Health Review Boards as provided under the </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Mental Healthcare Act 2017</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Read the Order below:</b></span></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/14dCcF1W3Wri4V2UVIVRkTdCPH4cm6hvm/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-68728813263377090722023-07-31T22:00:00.001+05:302023-08-08T22:16:16.248+05:30Bombay HC threatens contempt proceedings if State didn't provide information about implementation of 5% reservation in land allotmment to persons with disabilities at concessional rates under RPWD Act.<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court: </b>Bombay High Court </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Justice Gautam Patel and Hon'ble Justice Neela Gokhale</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No</b>.: Writ Petition No. 583 of 2020</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title</b>: Rajendra Petrus Lalzare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Order:</b> 31 July 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Next Date of Hearing</b>: 21 Aug 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Case Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Bombay High Court has issued a stern warning to the Maharashtra government for its failure to provide a meaningful response to the court's query regarding the implementation of a 5 per cent reservation in land allotment at concessional rates for disabled persons under the Disabilities Act. The court has threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against government officials if a proper reply is not filed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench expressed, "This is the most shameful state of affairs. We are not even on
the merits of the Petition, but only on the failure of the Government
to furnish a meaningful response."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The case was brought before the bench by petitioner seeking the enforcement of Section 37 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. This provision mandates that the government should create schemes favoring disabled individuals and allocate 5 per cent reservation in the allotment of land at concessional rates for various purposes, including housing, shelter, occupation, business, and recreation centers.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The petition was filed in 2020, and since then, it has been listed for periodic hearings. However, on every occasion, the government has sought adjournments to submit its affidavit, resulting in delays. In June 2022, an additional government pleader orally informed the court about the government's contemplation of issuing general directions to reserve 5 per cent of land for persons with disabilities. Despite this assurance, the government has not taken the necessary action.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench pointed out that the government's response, citing the Maharashtra Land Disposal Rules, did not address the court's specific query. The court emphasised the government's obligation to file a proper affidavit outlining the steps taken under Section 37 (c) of the Disabilities Act.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench said, "Now we are making it clear that while we are accommodating
the learned AGP on personal grounds, we will not grant further time
on the next date under any circumstances. If the Affidavit that is said to be filed in purported or ostensible compliance with orders of
this Court does not answer the question of steps taken under
Section 37(c) of the Disabilities Act, we are putting all concerned in
the Government to notice that we will have no choice but to proceed
against those officers, if necessary, in suo moto contempt for
disobedience of orders of this Court. If the matter is being stood
over by two weeks to accommodate the learned AGP, that time
should be better utilised to make amends and to clarify the stand of
the Government in accordance with the orders of this Court."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The court has granted the state government a final opportunity to file a meaningful response and set the next hearing for August 21, 2023. If the government fails to comply with this directive, the court warned that it may take suo motu contempt action against the responsible officers for disobeying its orders.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Read the Court Order below</b>:</span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v-M_MBRHigHLaFbQA9YNjiGUixnX1DWu/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-47887722167430037232023-07-25T22:02:00.001+05:302023-10-17T19:25:07.383+05:30Delhi HC directs Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University to provide 5% reservation for persons with disabilities as per RPWD Act 2016.<p><b>Court: </b>High Court of Delhi</p><p><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee</p><p><b>Case No.:</b> W.P.(C) 6605/2023</p><p><b>Case Title:</b> Justice for All Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others</p><p><b>Date of Interim order: </b>17 May 2023 [<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XviyCl1TkPugqaER0-9dqi6V3I7817zK/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">PDF 1MB</a>]</p><p><b>Date of Judgement: </b>25 July 2023 [<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XviyCl1TkPugqaER0-9dqi6V3I7817zK/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">PDF 967KB</a>]</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>Delhi High Court has taken a significant step towards promoting inclusivity and accessibility in educational institutions by instructing the city government and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University to ensure a five percent reservation for specially-abled candidates.</p><p>This directive aims to uphold the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities for education.</p><p>The order came in response to a public interest litigation that alleged the respondent university was not adhering to the provisions of the Act.</p><p>While the university claimed to have provided a five percent quota for specially-abled candidates in all courses, the court directed the Delhi government and the university to make further efforts to ensure seats designated for specially-abled persons are indeed filled by candidates from all categories of disabilities.</p><p>On 17.5.2023, the court passed an interim order directing the university to provide the appropriate reservations for candidates with disabilities in the ongoing academic session. The petitioner, brought attention to the fact that the university was only offering a three percent quota instead of the mandated five percent under the Act. In response, the university filed an affidavit, confirming that it was indeed implementing a five percent reservation for specially-abled individuals.</p><p><b>Access the Judgement dated 25 Jul 2023</b></p><p><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEww8qAbTJ9liX1xgFiRSSZzPKxmdaVM/preview" width="640"></iframe></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-58123446796358400042023-07-19T22:00:00.015+05:302023-07-22T18:38:20.986+05:30Bombay HC- RBI says it is aware of concerns of visually impaired but issueing new banknotes a huge task (Ongoing matter)<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court: </b>Bombay High Court (Mumbai)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench: </b><span face=""Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 15px;">Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Shri </span>Nitin Jamdar <span face=""Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 15px;">and Mr. Jusitce Shri Arif S. Doctor</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No.</b>: PIL/13/2019 (Original) [Previous references: WP lodging No. 2038 of 2016, WP No. 2420 of 2017]</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> National Association for the Blind (India) Vs. Reserve Bank of India and 2 Others.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Subject: </b>Inaccessibility of bank notes and coins to blind and visually impaired.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Order: </b>19 July 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Earlier Order: </b><a href="https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?bhcpar=cGF0aD0uL3dyaXRlcmVhZGRhdGEvZGF0YS9vcmlnaW5hbC8yMDIzLyZmbmFtZT0yNjY4MDAwMDAxMzIwMTlfMzcucGRmJnNtZmxhZz1OJnJqdWRkYXRlPSZ1cGxvYWRkdD0wNS8wNy8yMDIzJnNwYXNzcGhyYXNlPTIwMDcyMzEzNDM1MyZuY2l0YXRpb249MjAyMzpCSEMtT1M6NjAyNS1EQiZzbWNpdGF0aW9uPSZkaWdjZXJ0ZmxnPVk=" target="_blank">28 June 2023</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Next Date of Hearing: </b>11 October 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Case Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Reserve Bank of India in an affidavit tells the the Bombay High Court bench that while it acknowledges the concerns of visually impaired persons regarding identification of currencies, introducing new banknotes was a monumental task that is extremely complicated and time-consuming process extending over a period of 6-7 years and also entails heavy expenditure.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by the National Association ofthe Blind (NAB), claiming new currency notes and coins issued by the central bank posed difficulty for visually-impaired people in identifying and distinguishing them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The affidavit said the process adopted before introducing new series of banknotes involves multiple considerations, including incorporation of visually impaired-friendly features, security, and design features to make them counterfeit deterrent.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"The RBI is aware of and acknowledges the concerns of the visually impaired persons regarding identification of banknotes. The work on the next series of banknotes has been underway since 2017," it said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"Introducing a new series of banknotes is a monumental task. This has to be thought through carefully because having multiple series of banknotes of different sizes and features of the same denomination would cause more confusion than resolve the problem," the affidavit noted.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The central bank pointed out that the expenditure that would be incurred in introducing a new series of currencies would be high. The affidavit said the annual expenditure towards security printing was pegged at Rs 4,682 crore.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"This annual amount was not for introducing a new series but merely for printing notes to replace old, soiled, damaged notes and to meet the incremental demand of banknotes," it said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The cost of introducing a new series of banknotes will be much higher and will include expenditure towards adaptation of paper production, printing machines and the entire currency dispensation and processing eco-system to any proposed changes, the document said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The RBI urged the HC to dismiss the NAB's petition with cost claiming it has taken all necessary steps in studying the grievance highlighted in the plea and was examining the matter with due seriousness.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On Wednesday, NAB advocate Uday Warunjikar sought the court to not dispose of the plea and said the RBI has not made a positive statement in its affidavit.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">RBI counsel Venkatesh Dhond said the petitioner has a unipolar thought but the central bank has to consider several points. Dhond sought further time from the HC for the banking regulator to consider the issue. The division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Jamdar then posted the matter for further hearing after 12 weeks.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The RBI affidavit pointed out that central banks across the world generally change the design of banknotes and introduce new security features once in a decade primarily to make counterfeiting difficult.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The RBI also follows the same policy but the periodicity is not fixed and is dependent upon several factors such as number and quality of counterfeit notes detected, existence of other perceived threats to the security of the national currency and changes in national policies, it said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The affidavit maintained the last time a series of banknotes were introduced was in 2016 and this was preceded by an elaborate process of consultation among various stakeholders.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"This process included the constitution of a design committee in 2010 comprising field experts to make recommendations on the design/size of the new series of banknotes, including making them sensitive to the requirements of the differently abled persons," it said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">"Considering the needs of the visually impaired persons, features such as intaglio, identification marks, bleed lines and so on have been included in the banknotes in addition to the difference in size of various denominations though the same were reduced from the earlier series to make them aligned with international norms and to make them more wallet friendly," the RBI said.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The process also involves taking feedback from representatives of two national-level associations of visually impaired and to "the extent feasible, their concerns will be factored in the next series of banknotes", said the affidavit.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Read the Order dated 19 July 2023 below</b>:</span></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MDWx_TSDOLWI1HVo9IWKKY_k1fvqa-ED/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-41689766111591637572023-07-18T13:12:00.001+05:302023-11-08T13:20:40.392+05:30In a bid to make inspection of digitized court records accessible Delhi HC notifies rules applicable to all district courts and Tribunals under its control<p>Dear Colleagues,</p><p>The Delhi High Court has notified rules providing for electronic inspection of
the digitized Court record of the High Court as well District Courts and Tribunal under its control and supervision. This will help litigants, lawyers alike in not only savinv their time and energy but also make it more accesssible to diverse group of users with disabilities.</p><p>These Rules shall govern the procedure related to the electronic inspection of the digitized Court record of the High
Court as well District Courts and Tribunal under its control and supervision and shall be called “The Delhi High Court Rules for Electronic
Inspection of Digitized Court Records, 2023”.
The facility of electronic inspection of court record shall be in addition to the existing facility of physical inspection.</p><p>Below is the Gazette notification dated 18 July 2023 on the subject:</p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13P6DYpxOXjEm9j1z_w2sereTwVsISkv2/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-39777863776731644732023-07-17T20:30:00.001+05:302023-07-18T13:06:35.430+05:30Supreme Court directs appointment of independent Disability Commissioners in all states by 31 Aug 2023<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court: </b><span>Supreme Court of India</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span><b>Bench:</b> Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud ; Mr. Justice PS Narasimha </span>and Mr. Justice Manoj Misra </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> Seema Girija Lal And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case No.:</b> Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 29329/2021 </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Order: </b> 17 Jul 2023 </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Previous Order</b>: <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2023/01/supreme-court-bench-issued-notice-to.html" target="_blank">13 Jan 2023</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Next Date of Hearing:</b> 18 Sep 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Brief:</span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Please refer to the brief write up on the previous order passed by the court dated 13 Jan 2023 in this PIL seeking the formation of district-level committees to enforce the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, when the Hon'ble supreme court was pleased to issue a notice, without even admitting it or the registry allocating it a Writ petition number. The petition stated that India’s basic infrastructure to meet the needs of its nearly 3 crore persons with disabilities is 'visibly absent', and that the top court should take judicial notice of this concern. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The bench had then specifically passed the following order:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">"We direct that notice shall be issued to Union of India and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Ministry shall file counter affidavit within a period of a month. The affidavit shall indicate state wise the implementation. Union of India shall convene a meeting with all concerned states and state advisory boards with a view to eliciting the present status of compliance. We request Ms. Divan, ASG to assist. At this stage we're not issuing notice to state govts. Based on affidavits, we'll decide."</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">During the hearing on 17 July 2023, the Chief Justice expressed the concern that the current state of implementation of the RPWD Act 2016 revealed a distressing situation throughout the country. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Pertinently, the bench noted that disability commissioners were entrusted with several statutory duties under Section 75 and Section 80G of Act. However, a report before the Court indicated that several States and Union Territories had failed to appoint such independent commissioners as required under Section 79 of the Act. And thus it direted the appointment of such commissioners by August 31, 2023.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Court further ordered the concerned Union Ministry to coordinated with the relevant ministry of all State governments to file an updated affidavit by September 17. The States were asked to upload relevant details on the dashboard of the Central government.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The matter has now been listed for further hearing on September 18, 2023.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Read the Order dated 17 July 2023 below:</span></b></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1syznvBh066DzltJ8aLe3rl_ImaXC61x8/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-1538968034868827882023-07-11T22:30:00.001+05:302023-10-17T16:52:44.582+05:30Delhi High Court holds EPFO's action discriminatory in denying typing speed exemption to a candidate with upper limb disability. <p><b>Court: </b>Delhi High Court </p><p><b>Bench: </b>Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameshwar Rao & Honb'le Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta</p><p><b>Case No.:</b> W.P.(C) 9255/2019</p><p><b>Case title</b>: Raju Ranjan Vs. Union of India & Anr.</p><p><b>Date of Decision: </b>11 July 2023</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>A division bench of the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of an disabled individual's on the issue of exemption from the computer typing test for individuals with upper limb disabilities in a case involving the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). </p><p>The Court acknowledged that when a clerical position is designated as suitable for individuals with upper limb impairments, it becomes impermissible to subject such individuals to a pre-employment computer typing test. This is because persons with disabilities in their arm or hand may face significant challenges in maintaining the required typing speed. Consequently, such a typing test would be deemed arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.</p><p>As a result of this judgment, the Delhi High Court directed the Employees Provident Fund Organization to grant an exemption to a candidate with a disability in one arm from the computer skill test for the position of Social Security Assistant. The candidate's employment eligibility would be determined solely based on their performance in the written examination.</p><p>The petitioner, who has a 40% Locomotor Disability affecting one arm, argued that the EPFO failed to appreciate the nature of their disability, despite presenting an Exemption Certificate issued by the Competent Authority.</p><p>It was observed that the EPFO had identified the Social Security Assistant position as suitable for individuals with one arm disabilities, thereby fulfilling their legal obligation under the 1995 Act. However, the recruitment rules for this position required a typing speed of at least 5000 Key Depressions Per Hour (KDPH) for data entry work. This requirement was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory toward individuals with physical handicaps, particularly those with one arm affected, as it would be virtually impossible for them to achieve this typing speed.</p><p>The only logical application of the job advertisement would have been to grant an exemption to physically handicapped individuals with one arm affected. Regrettably, this was not done, and the EPFO did not prescribe relaxed standards for candidates with such disabilities. The petitioner, for instance, was able to achieve a typing speed of only 1935 KDPH.</p><p>The petitioner argued that the EPFO's conduct revealed that they had identified the position as a mere formality to show compliance with legal provisions, rather than a genuine intention to extend the benefits of the Act to potential beneficiaries.</p><p>Furthermore, the EPFO's actions were found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Internally, the EPFO had granted an exemption from the computer skill test to all physically challenged Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for their promotion or absorption into the Social Security Assistant position, even if the disability affected both hands or had an impact on computer operations. </p><div><b>Access the Judgement here:</b></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iWgRrKIm0juiGscuDXP5fMf3RTiKVHb3/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-72558123905974808402023-07-10T22:00:00.007+05:302023-07-22T18:35:22.063+05:30Karnataka HC- During the exam, facility of Scribe and Option of objective type questions can be availed by other disabilities too, not just by candidates with hearing impairment.<p><b>Court:</b> Karnataka High Court, India</p><p><b>Bench:</b> The Hon'ble Mr. Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal</p><p><b>Case No</b>: Writ Appeal No. 722 OF 2023 </p><p><b>Case Title:</b> Karnataka State Law University Vs. Krishna</p><p><b>Date of Judgement: </b>10-07-2023</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Karnataka State Law University challenging a single bench order directing it to conduct III Semester exam for a differently abled Law student, by providing objective type of questions instead of descriptive type of questions.</p><p>It said that the overall object of the MSJE Exam Guidelines for persons with disabilities needs to be appreciated which is providing opportunity for all to participate in the mainstream education system and that there is no stringent distinction based on the nature of disability in Exam Guidelines for alternative objective exam for students with disabilities.</p><p>Krishna, having 46% overall impairment affecting both brain and eyes, is pursuing his five years integrated law degree at Vaikunta Baliga Law College. Since he was unable to write by hand as such for the I Semester exam he utilized the facility of scribe. He was, however, informed by the college that unless permission was granted by the University, it cannot permit him to take the help of a scribe for examinations in future.</p><p>Accordingly, he made a representation to the appellant-University requesting for objective questions instead of descriptive questions and to utilize the help of a scribe in view of his disability. However, no action was taken on the representation constraining him to file a writ petition before the High Court.</p><p>The Court disposed of his petition while directing the University to consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders. Following which the University partly allowed the representation and rejected the request to provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions.</p><p>Thus the student again approached the Court which took note of the relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) making provision for providing objective questions instead of descriptive questions to the disabled students. Court declined to accept the contention of the appellant-University that the provision is applicable only to the students having hearing impairment.</p><p>It held, “Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 `persons with bench mark disability’ means person with not less than 40% of specified disability, where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms as certified by the certifying authority."</p><p>Further, it directed the University to subject the student to medical examination by Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent of the Government Health Care Institution and if it is certified that the respondent is suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% or more, provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions.</p><p>The University in appeal argued that as per the guidelines, alternative objective questions can be provided only for those students who are are person with hearing impairment and not to persons from any other disabilities. In the instant case since the student is not a person with hearing impairment but with a visual impairment and mental retardation, it contended that the benefit of the aforesaid provision cannot be extended. It was also submitted that since the student is suffering from mental retardation, objective questions which requires reasoning and intellectual skill cannot be provided.</p><p>A division bench said, “The overall object of the guidelines needs to be appreciated which is providing opportunity for all to participate in the mainstream education system. There cannot be any strict and stringent distinction on the basis of the nature of ailment. The purpose is to facilitate the specially abled persons to participate in the examination within the limits provided under the guidelines subject to required compliance in the nature of obtaining certificates from the competent authorities"</p><p>It added “Viewed from the said object, learned Single Judge taking note of the provisions describing persons with disability as provided under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has directed the appellant-University to subject the respondent for medical examination by Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon/Medical Superintendent of the Government Health Care Institution and only if it is certified that the respondent is suffering from low vision to the extent of 40% or more, to provide objective questions instead of descriptive questions to the respondent in the ensuing examination.”</p><p>Accordingly the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Law University. Read the Judgement below:</p><p><br /></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R2lP5PH6H-I-Mx4QCeRYL8QBxLAPdNBT/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-88177676821582313342023-07-10T20:30:00.028+05:302023-07-22T19:30:45.590+05:30Kerala HC- Invokes parens patriae, directs district administration and local institution to handover the daughter with autism to mother<p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Court:</b> Kerala High Court, India</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Bench</b>: Honourable Mr.
Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar & the honourable Mrs. Justice C.S. Sudha</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Title:</b> Santha Kumari v. State of Kerala & Ors. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Case Number:</b> WP(CRL.) NO. 296 OF 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Date of Judgement:</b> 10 July 2023</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Act Referred</b>: National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Brief</b>:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">No one else can give to the ward all that a mother can give to her, said the Kerala High Court while uniting a differently abled child with her mother.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Invoking <i>parens patriae</i> jurisdiction to ensure that the child is not left "at the mercy of others, </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">a Division Bench of Kerala HC, ordered the girl child with autism be united with her mother instead of being in an institution after the death of father</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The crux of the case is that the petitioner-mother was living separately from her husband after the birth of the child in question. The child resided with the father who obtained an order under Section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (hereinafter, 'Act, 1999'), appointing him as the guardian of the ward and his second wife (6th respondent) as the alternative guardian.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">After his death, the petitioner sought the child's custody who was meanwhile handed over to the Grace Home Charitable Society (5th respondent) by the local authorities. The 5th respondent insisted on concurrence of the District Administration and the Gram Panchayat however, the same was refused. Hence this petition was filed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Court observed that Section 14 does not affect in any manner, the rights of the parents of persons with disability to take care of their dependent children with disabilities, if they are not otherwise disqualified. The Court thus directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit as to whether she would be in a position to care for the ward. Ultimately, finding the petitioner fit, the Court ordered that the child be handed over to her.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>Read the Judgement below:</b></span></p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrBnjIjiDCuSpbJLuVxxEq8ids514OZO/preview" width="640"></iframe></span>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-3466109916966652362023-07-07T22:00:00.109+05:302023-07-22T09:54:34.257+05:30Orissa HC issues contempt notice to Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri on lack of accessibility and dignified access to devotees with disabiliites<p><b>Court:</b> High Court of Orissa at Cuttack</p><p><b>Bench:</b> Hon'ble Justice Biswanath Rath</p><p><b>Case No</b>: CONTC NO.3478 OF 2023 </p><p><b>Arising from Case:</b> W.P.(C).No.2697 of 2022 decided on 28.02.2022</p><p><b>Case Title: </b> Jitendra Kumar Biswal versus Gajapati Maharaja Dibya Singh Deb,
Chairman, Shree Jagannath Temple,
Puri & Ors. </p><p><b>Date of Order/Contempt Notice</b>: 07.07.2023</p><p><b>Brief:</b></p><p>A prominent disability right activist and a wheelchair user himself filed a second contempt petition in Orissa High Court following State government’s failure to provide accessible facilities for disabled particularly wheelchair user devotee's access to 12th century Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri, despite the court twice ordering to do so.</p><p>The issue was first raised by the present petitioner Jitendra Kumar Biswal (50), a
resident of Bhubaneswar, a person with disability and also a disability rights activist, who filed a PIL seeking judicial
intervention for facilitating the free movement of devotees who are wheelchair users, within the temple complex in
January 2022. </p><p>While disposing of the petition on February 28, 2022, the Hight Court had said, “In view of the urgency involved in this matter and as a
decision in the matter is required to be taken by the
administrative authority at the first hand, this court directs
that Shree Jagannath Temple Committee and chief
administrator, Puri Jagannath Temple to collectively take a
lawful decision in the matter by treating the petition as a
representation at the instance of the petitioner.”</p><p>However, Biswal filed a contempt petition when the order was not complied with. Acting on it, the HC on
December 20 last year said, “Considering this is the first contempt petition, this court disposes of the same
directing all the contemnors (chairman of temple managing committee, chief administrator, Puri Jagannath
Temple and collector, Puri) to work out the February 28, 2022 direction of this court in the disposal of the
petition/representation at least within a further period of one month.”.</p><p>But petitioner was forced to file a fresh (second) contempt petition. The petitioner expects authorities to make designated space within the inner sanctum of Jagannath Temple for
wheelchair-using devotees to offer their prayers and to have a clear view of the three deities. He also expected the authorities to make other provisions that may be required within the temple complex for the free movement of wheelchair-using devotees. </p><p>During March 2023, there were <a href="https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2023/mar/05/special-darshan-for-persons-with-disabilities-at-srimandir-likely-soon-2553343.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">media reports </a>that the Temple Administration were proposing to provide special services. According to the proposal, the PwD devotees will be carried to the sanctum sanctorum by volunteers on their back just like it is done by ‘pithoos’ at Amarnath and Vaishno Devi temples. Around 30 devotees will be taken inside the temple through the existing ramp at the north gate (Uttara Dwara) of the shrine every day.</p><p>As per the preliminary proposal, the PwD visitors will have to book their visit to the temple through a dedicated portal and produce a 100 per cent disability certificate before entry. They can be accompanied by one family member. At the Uttara Dwara, a reception centre with a bathroom has been proposed to be set up where the devotees can wait for their turn. </p><p>It was reported that the sevayats have agreed that such devotees can be provided a special darshan from 2 pm to 4 pm after the Bhoga mandapa rituals are over and when entry of general devotees is closed.</p><p>It was proposed that from the Uttara Dwara, the PwD visitors will be carried to Jay Bijaya Dwara through Ghanti Dwara for ‘darshan’ and brought back through the same route. For this purpose, the Suara and Maha Suara servitors can be roped in as they have experience of carrying head loads of bhoga in the temple. A devotee can re-book a visit to the temple only after two months of the first visit. However, these proposals have not found favour with the usergroups since this doesn't address the accessibility of the place and engages in to practices of physically lifting devotees with disabilities as sac of patotoes compromising with their dignity, respect and equal right to worship.</p><p>The contempt petition is against the following as named contemnors:- </p><div style="text-align: left;">1) Gajapati Maharaja Dibya Singha Deb, Chairman, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri<br />2) Ranjan Kumar Dash, Chief Administrator Puri, Jagannath Temple Puri.<br />3) Samarth Verma, The Collector, Puri.</div><p>The petition alleges violation of this Court’s
direction in disposal of W.P.(C).No.2697 of 2022 on 28.02.2022.
There is serious allegation that more than one year has passed in the
meanwhile and there is no compliance to the direction of this Court
in the above writ petition.
</p><p>"This Court hopes and trusts that by the next date of posting
of the matter, there shall be arrangement for removing the
inconvenience faced by the senior citizen or the handicapped people in having their visiting and observing the deities in the Lord
Jagannath temple." says the order issuing contempt notice.</p><p>Below is the copy of the order:</p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iRO42FTSJks8tPJhQMfXo7v4abDDa4sj/preview" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>In a tweet, the petitioner Mr. Jitendra Kumar Biswal, expressed his hope in following terms: </div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Hope things will now move with Hon'ble High Court issuing contempt notice to Puri King & Others asking them to show cause within 7 days why contempt proceedings shouldn't be initiated against them for failing to ensure disabled-friendly 'darshan' in Puri Jagannath temple despite… <a href="https://t.co/zg6vVDvNUW">pic.twitter.com/zg6vVDvNUW</a></p>— Jitendra K Biswal (@JBiswal) <a href="https://twitter.com/JBiswal/status/1678015050928226304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2023</a></blockquote><p>Here is the Order disposing off the original writ petition W.P.(C).No.2697 of 2022 filed by same petitioner in 28 Feb 2022.</p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ZoWhlCDX8mqpCSldo91C26B4j9R6mYM/preview" width="640"></iframe>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131563375136204790.post-54843035042512544182023-07-04T22:00:00.002+05:302023-07-13T16:03:14.666+05:30Supreme Court to RBI : Section 33 of PWD Act 1995 provides statutorily conferred right to reservation in promotional appointment in Group A to the disabled.<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Court:</b> Supreme Court of India</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Bench:</b> Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Case No.</b> : Civil Appeal Nos.529 OF 2023, </span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Case title:</b> Reserve Bank of India Vs. A.K. Nair & Ors.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Date of Judgement: </b>04 July 2023</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Cases referred/relied upon: </span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">1. <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2016/07/supreme-court-says-section-33-entitles_1.html" target="_blank">Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">2. <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2020/06/for-third-time-supreme-court-stands.html" target="_blank">Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka and Ors</a></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;">3. <a href="https://www.disabilityrightsindia.com/2021/06/supreme-court-while-upholding-kerala-hc.html" target="_blank">State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Leesamma Joseph</a>.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Brief of the Case</span></b></p><p>Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to retrospectively extend the benefit of reservation in promotions to an employee with physical disability (post-polio limb paralysis). </p><p>The Court held that the employee had a statutory right to claim reservation even in promotion towards the appointment in Class I posts, as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.</p><p>However, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, in a concurring opinion, also cautioned that reservations in promotions cannot be unduly extended to others entitled to horizontal reservations (like reservations for women, transgender persons etc.), just because persons with disabilities have been given such reservations.</p><p>"That persons with disabilities need to be accommodated, in public service, is a given. At the same time, this reasonable accommodation ought not to open gates for demands by those benefitting other kinds of horizontal reservation, for reservation in promotional vacancies in public services," Justice Bhat observed.</p><p>"It was not the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution to compromise on administrative inefficiency by culling the spirit of competition - after all, positions gained by promotions taper higher up. To ear-mark a certain portion to one class of citizens, and not others, who may have also gained initial appointments on the strength of such horizontality (such as women, retired / ex-servicemen, etc.) is not constitutionally protected – the only exception to reservations in promotions is SC / ST appointees, as provided under Article 16(4A)," the judgment stated.</p><p>The petitoner in this case, Mr. AK Nair, a Coin Manager at the RBI had appeared for the All India Merit Test in 2003 for promotion to a Class I post, but had fallen short of qualifying by three marks in general category list. His representations seeking relaxation in the same on account of his disability didn't find favour. Interestingly, the posts in question had the same cut-off, at the time, for both the general category candidates and candidates with disabilities.</p><p>In 2014, the Bombay High Court held that the RBI was required to provide reservations in promotion for candidates with disabilities on a horizontal basis with effect from 2006. However, the High Court did not give any relief to Nair, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.</p><p>"We have no doubt that Mr. Nair did have a statutorily conferred right all through to claim that reservation in promotional appointment in Group ‘A’ posts is ingrained in the PwD Act, 1995 ... The omission or failure of the RBI in condoning the shortfall in marks coupled with the neglect to identify a Group ‘A’ post suitable for reservation to accommodate Mr. Nair on promotion appears to us to be indefensible." expressed the Bench while allowing the appeal of Mr. Nair. </p><p>In the opinion authored by Justice Datta, the Court also criticised the RBI for its rigid approach in deciding the employee's claim. "Even otherwise, to reach out to persons with disabilities and grant them the facilities and benefits that the PwD Act, 1995 envisaged, it was rather harsh to apply standards which are applicable to general candidates to Mr. Nair while he competed with such general candidates for securing his promotion. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities."</p><p>The Court has granted the RBI four months time to complete the requisite formalities to release the monetary benefits due to Nair. The bench also clarified that when Nair retires in 2025, his retiral benefits should be computed taking into account the Court's ruling that his promotion should be recognised retrospectively.</p><p><b>Read the judgement: </b></p><p><iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zek1dmGDa_XHrJlQv1I4OFlNt4MZ0O-0/preview" width="640"></iframe></p>Subhash Vashishthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727295891336791596noreply@blogger.com0