Supreme Court: Testimony of a witness with disability not inferior; intersectionality need to be taken in to account while determining the case.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & Hon'ble Justice M R Shah
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021
Case Title: Patan Jamali v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgment: April 27, 2021 

Citation: 2021 INSC 272

Brief

The Supreme Court dealt with the appeal of Patan Jamali, convicted for the rape of a blind Scheduled Caste woman under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While upholding the life sentence under the IPC, the Court set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act for want of proof that the crime was committed “on the ground” of the victim’s caste (pre-2016 law). 

Emphasizing that the testimony of a witness with disability cannot be considered inferior to that of their able-bodied counterparts only on account of the disability, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for raping a girl with visual impairment, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. 

The Court recognised the overlapping identities at play and highlighted the increased vulnerability of women with disabilities to sexual violence. It emphasised the need for legal responses to acknowledge this dual vulnerability, as women with disabilities are often seen as ‘easy targets’ for sexual violence due to societal perceptions regarding their diminished capacity and their inability to speak out.

The court emphasised that threats against women with disabilities in India are not uncommon and can lead to feelings of powerlessness. However, the court clarified that by this they did not mean to subscribe to the stereotype that persons with disabilities are weak and helpless, rather aim to highlight the increased vulnerability in such cases, and cited reports such as the 2018 report by Human Rights Watch. The court also gave certain guidelines including the need for Awareness-raising campaigns, in accessible formats, to inform women. 

Key Facts

• The victim (PW2), a blind woman from a Scheduled Caste, was raped by the appellant, an acquaintance of her family, while her mother was nearby.
• The appellant was apprehended at the scene.
• Trial and High Court convicted him under both IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.

Key Observations

• Credibility of Disabled Witnesses: Disability does not diminish a person’s competence or credibility as a witness. A blind survivor’s testimony, if cogent and trustworthy, stands at par with any other witness.
• Intersectionality: The Court recognised that multiple marginalisations—being a woman, from a Scheduled Caste, and disabled—compound vulnerability to violence.
• Judicial Sensitivity: Special care is needed in recording testimony of disabled survivors, ensuring reasonable accommodation and avoiding prejudice.
• SC/ST Act Interpretation: Under the pre-2016 wording of Section 3(2)(v), the prosecution must prove the offense was committed solely “on the ground” of caste. The Court noted post-2016 amendments (“knowing that” and expanded presumptions) but did not apply them as the incident occurred in 2011.

Decision

• SC/ST Act: Conviction set aside for lack of proof on the “on the ground of” requirement.
• IPC Section 376(1): Conviction and life imprisonment upheld, considering the heinous nature of the offense and the victim’s compounded vulnerabilities.

Importance

This judgment reinforces that:

• Testimonies of persons with disabilities must be assessed on merit, not presumed incapacity.
• Courts must adopt an intersectional lens when dealing with marginalized survivors.
• Law enforcement and prosecution should handle disabled victims’ cases with sensitivity and without bias.
• It sets a precedent for respecting and upholding the credibility of disabled witnesses in sexual violence cases.

Read the judgement 

Read the final judgement in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh embedded below:

USA: Justice Department moves unopposed motion to intervene as Plaintiff in a Disability Discrimination Suit Against City of Chicago Regarding Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities

Dear Colleagues,

This is a disability rights enforcement action by the Justice Department of United States of America against the City of Chicago, seeking to remedy the city’s failure to provide people who are blind, including those who are deaf-blind or have low vision, equal access to pedestrian safety information at intersection crossings, which the city provides almost exclusively through visual-only pedestrian signals.  The United States has sought declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief for this violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

Having moved an unopposed motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this disability discrimination lawsuit filed by private plaintiffs American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Maureen Heneghan and Ray Campbell against the City of Chicago under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the Department of Justice found in its investigation that the allegations were true.

The complaint alleges that the city of Chicago fails to provide people who are blind, have low vision, or are deaf-blind with equal access to pedestrian signal information at intersections. Pedestrian signal information, such as a flashing “Walk/Don’t Walk” signal, indicates when it is safe to cross the street. 

Accessible pedestrian signals (APSs) are devices that provide pedestrians with safe-crossing information in a non-visual format, such as through audible tones, speech messages, and vibrotactile surfaces. Since at least 2006, Chicago has recognised the need to install APSs for pedestrians with visual disabilities. Yet, while Chicago currently provides sighted pedestrians visual crossing signals at nearly 2,700 intersections, it has installed APSs at only 15 of those intersections. 

Thus over 99% of Chicago’s signalised intersections subjects people who are blind, have low vision, or are deaf-blind to added risks and burdens not faced by sighted pedestrians, including fear of injury or death which in contravening the ADA and Section 504 that require that individuals with disabilities have equal access to public services, including access to pedestrian crossing information that is critical for safety and for full participation in community life.

Petition seeks to ensure that Chicagoans with disabilities are provided equal access to city services, particularly those services whose purpose is public safety.

The motion and complaint seeking intervention were jointly filed by the Disability Rights Section of the department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois.