Central Administrative Tribunal directs CAG to appoint a meritorious candidate with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi

Bench:  Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) & Hon’ble Mr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Case No:    OA No. 339/2022

Case Title: Amit Yadav Vs. Comptroller & Auditor General &Anr. 

Date of Order : 23 January, 2023

Brief:

The CAT Principal Bench directed the CAG to appoint the applicant with Mental Illness disability to the post of Auditor and added that such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The court held the approach of the CAG as discriminaotry.

In order to raise awareness on the mental illness as a disability, the bench went on to discuss an illustrative list of celebrities diagnosed with OCD and bipolar disease, who have either talked about or living with the symptoms of the condition, have reached their peaks in their career. Among many people from other other countries, the list also highlighted Deepika Padukone, film actress who faced OCD during her career.  

The applicant is a person with benchmark disability (PwBD) having a disability of 55% under the Mental illness category suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) & Bipolar disorder. He has been on medication for the same since 2017.

He appeared in the recruitment process and successfully qualified the exam and was recommended for appointment as Auditor in Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. But the CAG returned his dossiers to SSC on 28.09.2019 claiming that the applicant is not suitable for the post of Auditor and that he may be re-allocated to any other suitable department.

That Section 34 provides for another 1% reservation jointly for two new recognized categories PwBDs under clauses (d) & (e) of sub-section 1 of Section 34. PwBDs with Autism, Intellectual Disability, Mental Illness (MI), Specific Learning Disability (SLD) have been categorized under clause (d) & Multiple Disabilities under clause (e).

The SSC in its official advertisement dated 05.05.2018 just extended the right of reservation to these newly recognized disability categories under the heading “Other PwD” category  but did not mention specific posts reserved for these new categories. The advertisement provided that vacancies will be notified in due course and the candidates belonging to new categories were asked to apply under “Other PwD category”.   Thus the post of Auditor remained recognized for other PwD which includes mentally ill in both the lists of vacancies notified in due course.

The felt that the Section 34 of the RPWD Act clearly rules that there has to be one percent reservation for the PwDs categorized under clauses (d) and (e) and not (d) or (e) i.e. reservation has to be made available to both the categories under clauses and not either of the two. Therefore, the correct course of action would have been to provide reservation to both the categories i.e. under clause (d) and (e) jointly whoever amongst them secures merit would be allotted the post. In this case, the applicant has been recommended as per correct interpretation of law because he was also qualified in the merit list along with other candidates under Multiple disability falling under clause (e). Thus, in the correct course of action, both should have been appointed against one percent reservation.

Explaining the neded of facilitating persons with Mental Illnesss at workplace, the court said, "Bipolar is mood swings, emotions, impulse, what is needed is right kind of professional assistance and  rehabilitation. The persons having bipolar disease are victim of circumstances. Such persons should be facilitated in a friendly and pleasant way that makes them feel relaxed and calms the nervous system. The bipolar persons neither can be treated with bias nor can be regarded as shame to the society. The stand adopted by intending department, i.e., CAG by itself is discriminated to the provisions of Section 34 of the 2016 Act qua the categories which are sought to be capable of performing function as Auditors. The action of the respondents defeats the purpose of RPWD Act. The paramount interest of the State is to sub-serve the aims and objects of the Act and, therefore, the persons with mental illness without any intelligible differentia cannot be discriminated qua the other diseases which fall in the zone of consideration under the provisions of RPWD Act.

The court while allowing the OA,  held that the return of dossier by CAG to SSC was bad in law and thus quashed and set aside the same. It further said that the applicant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act. Thus in the event, applicant is found unsuitable for the post of “Auditor” by the Independent Medical Board, he shall be entitled to alternative offer of appointment to alternative suitable equivalent assignment/post in another department in consultation with Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and SSC while re-assigning/re-allocating the applicant to an alternative post, it become necessary that his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected.

Read the judgement/ order below:

Delhi High Court Affirms Equality for Deaf Athletes: Government Directed to Consider Parity with Para Sportspersons

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Case No.: W.P.(C) 1839/2020

Case Title: Virender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Decided on: 19 January 2023

Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:462

Background

The Delhi High Court was called upon to address an important issue concerning the rights of deaf sportspersons and their entitlement to equal recognition and benefits available to para athletes.

The petitions were filed by renowned deaf athletes, including Virender Singh, all of whom possessed disability certificates certifying 100% hearing and speech impairment. The petitioners contended that despite bringing laurels to India in international deaf sporting events, they were being denied several benefits that were already extended to para sportspersons under various governmental schemes.

During the pendency of the petitions, the Government introduced several policies recognizing para athletes and extending cash awards and incentives to athletes with disabilities. However, the petitioners highlighted three continuing areas of discrimination:

1. The Deaf Asian Games had not been included among recognized deaf sporting events.
2. Deaf athletes were excluded from the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS).
3. Deaf sportspersons were denied post-retirement benefits equivalent to those available to Olympic and para athletes.

The petitioners sought parity with para sportspersons, arguing that such exclusion violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and the principles underlying the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Issues Before the Court

The Court considered the following questions:

1. Whether deaf sportspersons are entitled to treatment equal to para sportspersons in governmental sports policies.
2. Whether the exclusion of deaf athletes from schemes such as TOPS and post-retirement benefits was legally sustainable.
3. Whether the Court could direct the Government to formulate or modify sports policies granting specific benefits.
4. Whether the Government was required to reconsider the concerns raised by deaf athletes in light of constitutional equality.

Key Observations of the Court

Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that considerable progress had already been made by the Government during the pendency of the litigation by extending recognition, awards and incentives to para athletes as well as athletes participating in blind and deaf sports.

The Court, however, noted that certain important concerns still remained unresolved. The Bench unequivocally observed that:

There can be no doubt that deaf sportspersons and para sportspersons must be treated equally and neither category can be discriminated against the other.

While recognizing the principle of equality, the Court also emphasized the constitutional limitations upon judicial review in matters involving governmental policy. The formulation of sports schemes, financial incentives, and welfare programmes falls primarily within the executive domain. Courts ordinarily do not substitute governmental policy with judicial directions unless such policy is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's observations in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that policy choices are best left to the Government, subject to constitutional scrutiny.

The Court nevertheless found merit in the specific grievances raised by the petitioners and held that the Ministry ought to examine them fairly.

Directions Issued by the Court

Instead of issuing a mandatory direction extending the benefits immediately, the Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to consider the petitioners' representation on the following issues:

• Inclusion of the Deaf Asian Games within the recognized category of deaf sporting events.
• Extension of the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) to deaf athletes.
• Grant of post-retirement benefits to deaf sportspersons on par with Olympic and para athletes.

The Court directed the Ministry to take a fair and reasoned decision within three months.

Recognizing the urgency arising from ongoing sporting events, the Court further directed that if any interim assistance could be provided to deaf athletes, the same should be considered within four weeks.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of while leaving all other remedies open.

Significance of the Judgment

Although the Court stopped short of issuing positive directions compelling policy changes, the judgment is significant for several reasons.

First, the Court expressly recognized that deaf athletes and para athletes are entitled to equal treatment. This judicial affirmation strengthens the constitutional principle that disability-based classifications within sports welfare schemes must satisfy equality standards.

Secondly, the judgment reflects judicial sensitivity towards the unique challenges faced by deaf athletes, who have historically received comparatively less institutional support than para athletes.

Thirdly, the decision illustrates the delicate balance between enforcing constitutional equality and respecting executive discretion in policy formulation. Rather than rewriting sports policy, the Court ensured that the Government meaningfully reconsidered the issues raised by the petitioners.

Finally, the judgment reinforces the broader objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by encouraging inclusive sporting policies and equal opportunities for athletes with disabilities.

Commentary

The decision marks an important step towards the recognition of deaf sports as an integral component of India's disability sports ecosystem.

Historically, deaf athletes have often occupied a grey area within sports policy. While para athletes have gradually received institutional recognition through dedicated schemes, deaf sportspersons have frequently remained outside the ambit of flagship programmes despite representing India at international competitions.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh's observation that there should be no discrimination between deaf sportspersons and para sportspersons carries considerable persuasive value for future policy development. Even though the Court refrained from mandating specific policy outcomes, it clearly established the constitutional expectation of parity.

The judgment also demonstrates judicial restraint. Instead of assuming the role of policymaker, the Court respected the executive's domain while ensuring that disability rights concerns receive serious and timely consideration.

In the long run, the case contributes to the evolving jurisprudence that disability rights extend beyond accessibility and reservation to include equal participation in sports, recognition of sporting excellence, and equitable access to governmental welfare schemes. It serves as an important reminder that inclusivity in sports requires not only participation opportunities but also equal recognition, institutional support, and post-career security for all athletes with disabilities.

Read the Judgement:

Virender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 1839/2020

Delhi HC directs Yash Raj Films to make Pathaan movie accessible by providing audio description and subtitles for visually and hearing impaired users.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh
Case No:    W.P.(C) 445/2023
Case Title: Akshat Baldwa & Ors. Vs. Yash Raj Films & Ors. 
Date of Hearing/Order : 16 January, 2023
Next Date of Hearing: 06 April, 2023
Final judgement on : 26 Sep, 2023

Brief:

The Delhi High Court on 16 January 2023 directed Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles in Hindi language for the OTT release of its upcoming movie Pathaan to make it accessible for hearing and visually impaired persons. The movie is scheduled to be released in theatres on January 25 and will be screened on Amazon Prime later in April.

Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the producer Yash Raj Films to prepare audio description, close captioning and subtitles of the movie within two weeks and submit it to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for a decision on re-certification by February 20. The court directed that a decision on recertification of the film be taken by March 10.

The court was hearing a plea seeking direction to make captions in the movie accessible for visually and hearing impaired persons and sought inclusion of audio description, close captioning and subtitles in the film in consonance with the rights of persons with disabilities.

The plea was moved by various persons with disabilities,  that included  a law student, lawyers and Executive Director of the National Association for the Deaf, seeking enforcement of various rights and accessibility requirements as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and that the films released in India are not catering to the needs of the disabled. 

Rahul Bajaj, one of the petitioners appearing in person, submitted that while subtitles having been approved by the CBFC, the audio description and the closed captioning have not been made available and that even subtitling has been made only in English language and not in the language of the movie in question which makes it almost impossible for hearing and visually impaired persons to enjoy the film. Directions were also sought on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to notify required standards in this regard.

Noting that the petition raises “very important issues” as to accessibility of entertainment to the hearing and visually impaired persons, the court said that as per Section 42 of RPwD Act, the government has an obligation to take measures to ensure that all content is available in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.

“In the context of films ... special measures would have to be taken for the hearing and visually impaired persons inasmuch as the experience of watching a film in the movie theatre cannot be denied to such persons,” the court said.

Justice Singh also impleaded the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation, Film Producers Association and Ministry of Electronics an Information Technology as respondents in the matter.

Issuing notice to the respondents, the court said they shall place their stands on or before February 28..

“In the meantime, insofar as the theatrical show exhibition of the film, if the producer wishes to do so, they may contact the app providers to explore the possibility of providing audio description and subtitling to be done for future films,” the court said while listing the matter for hearing on April 6.

Below is the Order dated 16 Jan 2023

Supreme Court issued notice to Centre on a PIL seeking constitution of District Level Committee for enforcement RPWD Act

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha

Case Title: Seema Girija Lal And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. 

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 29329/2021 

Date of Order: 13 Jan 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 17 July 2023

Brief:

A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) issued notice to the Union of India and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in a plea seeking enforcement of rights of persons with disabilities by constituting District Level Committees for each district to implement the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 [“RPwD Act”].

The petitioner,  a member of a group called “Together We Can” which is forum for parents, professionals, and other stakeholders working for rights of children with disabilities. 

The petition highlighted that the RPwD Act inter alia recognise the need to have a micro level selfcheck mechanism to ensure the needs of persons with disabilities are met and the Act is properly implemented at the lowest level. Section 72 of the RPwD Act envisages constitution of a ‘District-Level Committee’ [“DLC”] for each district for this purpose. These DLCs are meant to comprise of not just state officials but also respectable members of the local community. DLCs give teeth to the RPwD Act. Having a grassroot-level supervisory body like the DLC in place can be the safest way to ensure enforcement of the provisions of a statute.

The bench in its order stated –

"Petitioner has highlighted that diverse provisions of RPwD Act 2016 haven't been implemented by the States. Petitioners have placed on the record a copy of the fifth meeting of the Central advisory board of disability held on 24 June 2022 under the auspices of the Ministry of social Justice and Empowerment.. The minutes of the meeting indicate that as of the date of the meeting -

1. Only 10 states had constituted separate departments for dealing with entitlements of persons dealing with disabilities;

2. Only 12 states have independent commissioners;

3. The States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Ladakh are yet to notify rules under the statute. They have not constituted the state advisory boards.

The petitioner also submitted that Section 72 of the act which envisaged a District level Committee for each State for the purpose of ensuring that the needs of persons with disabilities are met was yet to be fully implemented. Further, though Section 101(2)(a) empowers the State governments to frame rules regarding the functions of the district level committees, without the formulation of specific rules, the committees would remain ineffective."

Accordingly, the bench issued the following direction –

"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."

Read the Copy of the order below: