Madras HC seeks report on prisoners with mental disabilities

High Court seeks report on the conditions of mentally challenged prisoners

Express News Service - MADURAI  31st August 2013 

Admitting a public interest litigation seeking treatment for mentally affected prisoners, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has sought a report from the Superintendent of Prisons in Tamil Nadu about the conditions of the convicts and trial prisoners suffering from mental disorders.

The Principal Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice R K Agrawal and Justice N Paul Vasantha Kumar has given two weeks time to the prison authorities to submit the report.

In his petition, N Muthukumar, deputy general secretary of Tamil Puligal, said he was arrested and confined a cell in Block No 1 in the Madurai Central Prison for participating in an agitation on June 13. During his stay in the jail, he noticed that prisoners lodged in Block 2 displayed some abnormalities. On enquiring with long-time inmates, he learnt that Block 2, was dubbed as ‘Maiyam’ (Centre) where prisoners of unsound mind were lodged.

There are 22 prisoners suffering from various psychological disorders and 13 convicts, who are insane, presently in the said block. Every day, prison authorities provide tablets to these inmates but no proper mental health treatment was given citing lack of infrastructure.

Only prisoners who were in advanced stage of mental illness were referred for treatment outside. Sometimes neurologists and psychiatrists visited them in their cells.

Petitioner’s counsel Alagumani contended that the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, the Prisoner Act 1900 and the Mental Health Act 1987 clearly spell out how such prisoners must be treated. But this was violated grossly by the Madurai Prison authorities. In other prisons too similar conditions prevailed.

Hence he prayed for proper treatment for the mentally ill inmates.

Source: Express News Service

Deaf medical student denied Interpretor during clinical training

Dear Colleagues,

The lawsuit deals with the accommodations that needs to be provided to persons with disabilities  to ensure an equalizing environment. An interesting read from the New York Times.

Deaf Student, Denied Interpreter by Medical School, Draws Focus of Advocates

By JOHN ELIGON

Published: August 19, 2013

Speaking with the parents of a sick infant, Michael Argenyi, a medical student, could not understand why the child was hospitalized. During another clinical training session, he missed most of what a patient with a broken jaw was trying to convey about his condition.

His incomprehension, Mr. Argenyi explained, was not because of a deficiency in academic understanding. Rather, he simply could not hear.

Mr. Argenyi, 26, is legally deaf. Despite his repeated requests to use an interpreter during clinical training, administrators at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb., have refused to allow it. They have contended that Mr. Argenyi, who is able to speak, communicated well enough without one and that patients could be more hesitant to share information when someone else was present. They added that doctors needed to focus on the patient (not a third party) to rely on visual clues to make a proper diagnosis.

Mr. Argenyi took a leave of absence at the end of his second year, in 2011, after suing Creighton for the right to finish his medical training with an interpreter. The case, scheduled to go to trial on Tuesday in Federal District Court in Omaha, is attracting the attention of the federal government and advocates who are concerned that it could deal a setback to continuing efforts to achieve equality for people with disabilities.

“I couldn't understand so much of the communication in the clinic,” Mr. Argenyi wrote in an e-mail. “It was humiliating to present only half of a history because I had missed so much of what was communicated. I was embarrassed every time I would miss medicine names that I knew from classes but couldn't understand when the patient or a colleague spoke them.”

Despite making tremendous strides over the past four decades with the passage of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities remain underrepresented in higher education and in the work force. In the medical field, people who are deaf or hard of hearing remain less likely to hold high-skilled positions than those without impairments.

Universities tend to provide requested accommodations after admitting a student who they know has a disability, proponents for the deaf say. And most arrangements for the deaf are settled long before any issues reach a courtroom, said Curtis Decker, the executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, a federally financed association of legal services programs.

But, he said of Mr. Argenyi’s lawsuit, “It’s a very important case because, I think, if it’s successful it will send a very powerful message to the university community that the law does cover them and the law is clear about the accommodations that they need to provide.”

Creighton officials maintain that they have provided Mr. Argenyi with the necessary tools for him to succeed in medical school.

“Michael Argenyi is a very bright, capable young man who Creighton believes will make a good doctor,” said Scott Parrish Moore, the lead counsel for Creighton.

After being accepted to Creighton four years ago, Mr. Argenyi asked the university to provide a real-time captioning system for lectures and a cued speech interpreter. (Mr. Argenyi, who does not know sign language, can read lips. An interpreter helps by mouthing words while using hand signals to clarify sounds.) These were the same accommodations that Mr. Argenyi, who had a diagnosis of profound deafness when he was 8 months old, received for much of his schooling, from grade school through undergraduate studies at Seattle University.

Creighton provided Mr. Argenyi with just one of the aides that his audiologist had recommended — an FM system, which amplifies the sounds he hears in cochlear implants. The university also provided note takers for lectures, priority seating and audio podcasts.

Soon after classes began, Mr. Argenyi told school officials that the accommodations were inadequate and that he was missing information. He sued in federal court in Omaha in September 2009, arguing that the university was legally required to pay for and provide necessary aides.

Mr. Argenyi said he hired his own interpreter and transcription service, which cost him more than $100,000 during his two years in medical school. The breaking point, he said, came during his clinical work in his second year when Creighton refused to allow him to use an interpreter, even if he paid for it himself. The university did allow Mr. Argenyi to use interpreters during a couple of clinics while the Justice Department was trying to broker a settlement, but stopped when a deal could not be reached.

Mr. Argenyi is pursuing degrees in public health and social work at Boston University, which is providing his requested transcription services, while the lawsuit is pending.

Source: New York Times with the headline: Deaf Student, Denied Interpreter by Medical School, Draws Focus of Advocates.

SC directs the Govt. to give suitable jobs to employees with Mental Illness

Dear Colleagues,

In a path-breaking development, the Supreme Court while quoting Section 47 has set aside the Order of Compulsory retirement of the 1977 batch IAS officer and directed DoPT to pay him the full salary, except the subsistence allowance already received, for the period from the date of initiation of departmental proceeding till his date of superannuation.

Though, the Supreme Court has done some justice with the case, but it is loo late and too less. The said has been suffering at the hands of whimsical department who not only suffered at the hands of inquiry committee instituted in 1993 that took 11 years to give its finding declaring him insane. The officer was compulsorily retired thereafter.

There are various candidates who, having lived with mental illness and rehabilitated after a regular course of medication are not given any benefit of reservation or of preference in appointment in the civil services or any other service under the government. The draft of new Act though includes mental illness as one of the condition eligible for reservation in jobs under the disability quota however, one never know how long will this process take for the law to take shape and extend benefits to those living with disabilities not included in the existing Act. The act itself is discriminatory towards many other conditions since it is based on a medical model and goes strictly by the medical conditions, hence in effect renders many others excluded though equally or more marginalized and disabled.

Here is the news coverage from Hindustan Times.

Give mentally-disabled a suitable job: SC

Bhadra Sinha, Hindustan Times  New Delhi, August 19, 2013

State administration cannot dispense with ore reduce rank of a government servant if he or she acquires disability including mental illness or retardation during service, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Quoting the provisions of The Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 a bench of Justice GS Singhvi and Justice SJ Mukopadhyaya held that if a person is found unsuitable for the post he or she holds on account of acquired disability during service, he or she should be moved to another post suitable to his or her state.

The bench further held that under section 47 of the Act if it wasn't possible to adjust such a person against any post, the government authority ought to keep him or her on a supernumerary post until a suitable one is available until the employee attains the age of superannuation.

With these observations the court recently directed the Union Ministry of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to pay consequential benefits to a 1977 batch IAS officer, Anil Kumar Mahajan, who was compulsorily retired from service on October 15 2007 after a disciplinary inquiry declared him insane. The inquiry report came 11 years after it was instituted in 1993 when he worked with the Bihar government.

At the time of inquiry the officer was placed under suspension twice. His representation for a voluntary retirement was turned down by the DoPT on the ground he hadn't completed the minimum service of 20 years. Later, however, the ministry compulsorily retired him.

Mahajan later challenged the findings of the disciplinary proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which turned down his plea.

However, on his appeal the SC set aside the order of compulsory retirement and said: "The appellant was appointed in the service of respondents as an IAS officer and joined in the year 1977. He served for 30 years till the order of his compulsory retirement was issued on October 15, 2007. It is not the case of the respondents (DoPT) that the appellant was insane and in spite of that he was appointed as an IAS Officer in 1977."

Observing "some problem was going on between the appellant and authorities of the state (Bihar)," the court said: "In view of the aforesaid finding, we are of the view that it was not open to the authorities to dispense with the service of  appellant or to compulsory retire him from service."

The court further said: "The High Court also failed to notice the relevant fact and without going into the merit allowed the counsel to withdraw the writ petition merely on the basis of the finding of Inquiry Officer."

Since in normal course Mahajan would have retired from service on July 31, 2012, the SC directed DoPT to pay him the full salary, except the subsistence allowance already received, for the period from the date of initiation of departmental proceeding till his date of superannuation.

Source: Hindustan Times

Punjab & Haryana HC reinstates employee with Cerebral Palsy

Dear Colleagues,

Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the sacking order issued by the District Judge Karnal against a Clerk with disability (Locomotor disability due to Cerebral Palsy).

Brief Facts

Is this matter, the petitioner - an educated and brilliant young man with disability had on his own merit cleared the recruitment test to the post of Clerk in the District & Sessions Court, Karnal, Haryana, India. The petitioner cleared written test,  general  knowledge  and  the proficiency  test  in  operation  of computers   and also the computer  practical  test  and personal interview.  The competent medical authority had also declared  the  petitioner  as  a case  of cerebral palsy (100% handicapped) and fit for office work under the handicapped category before joinning the government service. Thus out  of  the  71  advertised posts,  only 63 candidates were selected and the petitioner, as per his merit, was placed at Sr.No. 26. and accordingly appointed to the post of Clerk on 23.10.2010.

However, within two months of joining the District & Sessions Judge,  Karnal, vide an order dated 5.2.2011 terminated the services of the petitioner stating therein that  his services are no longer  required.   The stand taken by the respondent was that  the  services  of  the petitioner  have  been terminated as per the terms of his appointment  letter,  according to which the petitioner  was appointed purely on temporary basis and was kept on probation for a period of two years. As per Clause 4 of the  appointment  letter,  the  services of the petitioner  could  be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and without prior notice.  As the petitioner  was unable to perform any kind of  office work with his own hands and of  his own,  he being suffering from cerebral  palsy,  he could not  be continued in service.  As  per  the respondents,  petitioner  is unable  to  perform  any  work  on  the computer and, therefore, faced with this situation, the services of the petitioner  have  been dispensed  with  as  per  the  terms  of  his appointment  without  casting any stigma on him. The respondent also submitted that  the officials in the office of  District  and Sessions Judge have been helping the petitioner at  every step and at  every moment still he was unable to do any office work and, thus, respondent was left  with no option but  to take a decision to dispense with the services of the petitioner in the interest of office administration.

The Judgement

While referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri's case, Justice Masih asserted that “such cases have to be handled with sensitivity and not with bureaucratic apathy". The Hon'ble SC in the above case had laid down that the beneficial piece of social  legislation is to enable persons with certain forms of disability to live a life of purpose and human dignity.  Such type of cases have to be handled with sensitivity and not with bureaucratic apathy and when person has been found to be fit and suitable for a post, which  has  been  identified  and  reserved  for  a  particular category, the employee cannot be terminated and efforts be made to provide a congenial  atmosphere to the said employee keeping in view his disability and mechanical orders should not be passed in a routine manner. 

The court concluded that the "petitioner may be slow in handling the computer but  could perform the duties on a computer and can be assigned such a task, which can be handed over to him in the office primarily relating to computer.  The detail  of  the Sections  where the work  is  done on computers,  has been given in the replication,  which indicates that there are  plenty  of  places  where  the  petitioner  can  easily  be accommodated where he can perform his duties as a Clerk in the light of his qualifications while keeping in view his capacity, capability and  competence.  With  same  support, encouragement  and cooperation, this Court is quite sure that the petitioner would be able to perform his duties and the object  of  the Disability Act  would be given effect to in true spirit." 

Click here for full Judgement: : CWP No. 3087 OF 2011 (Ritesh Sinha  VERSUS State of Haryana and others)    

Learnings from the judgement:

This case indicates the mindset of the authorities who attach incapacity to the disabilities. The residual abilities are not looked at. What is focussed on is what is lacking in the individual.  Despite a favourable order reinstating the petitioner, I as a disability rights activist find two major issues with the judgement:

(a) It is silent on the issue that despite clearing the test on his own merit and standing 26th in the order of merit out of 63 selected candidates, why was the petitioner adjusted against the disability quota. By adjusting him so, the respondents have taken away the employement opportunity from one prospective person with disability. And the worst.. it went without check! The Employer is happy having appointed one in the disability quota and the employee is least bothered against what quota he is getting in since his purpose is served. There is no accountability and checks to stop this menace! 

(b) The High Court did a blunder by calling the petitioner to be examined again with regard to his feasibility of  performing appropriate office job in the High Court itself and then assigning the Registrar (Administration) to check the performance & ascertain as to whether the petitioner was in a position to operate the computer, give appropriate commands etc. and submit a report. The court in this case couldn't have taken over the duties of the selelection committee who had already found him fit for being appointed on the said post of clerk.

The acknowledgements

Congratulations to my colleague Adv Veena Kumari of HRLN Chandigarh who took up this case and ensured that it reached its logical conclusion.  

Media Coverage by the Tribune

High Court quashes sack order of disabled person 

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 6

In a first, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took upon itself the task of testing the abilities of a candidate suffering from spastic cerebral palsy. It has also called upon the employers to shed the “mechanical approach” and appreciate the situation of a “disabled person” from the human rights perspective.

The call by Justice Augustine George Masih came on a petition filed by Ritesh Sinha against Haryana and other respondents. Suffering from spastic cerebral palsy, he had challenged the order passed by Karnal District and Sessions Judge on February 5, 2011, terminating his services as a clerk.

Challenging the orders, counsel for the petitioner Veena Kumari submitted that the respondents “were insensitive to the difficulties a disabled person is faced with”.

During the course of hearing, the Karnal District and Sessions Judge submitted a report stating that the petitioner could not even start a computer. He could not even move a paper from one place to another. After the petitioner’s counsel disputed the report, the High Court, vide a September 28, 2012, order directed that “it would be appropriate and also in the interest of the petitioner himself to be examined with regard to his feasibility of performing an appropriate office job in the High Court itself”.

In his report, Harnam Singh Thakur, High Court Registrar (Administration), made it clear that the petitioner could do some work on the computer, though slowly.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri's case, Justice Masih asserted that “such cases have to be handled with sensitivity and not with bureaucratic apathy….

Quashing the order, Justice Masih added: “With support, encouragement and cooperation, this court is quite sure that the petitioner would be able to perform his duties and the object of the Disability Act would be given effect to in true spirit”.

Delhi HC questions MSJE why disabled can't function as surgeon

Court questions 3% reservation for differently-abled MBBS degree holders

Sunday, Jul 28, 2013, 12:59 IST | Place: Delhi | Agency: DNA

Ayesha Arvind

The Delhi High Court has questioned the 3% reservation for differently-abled persons holding MBBS degree only in non-surgical posts. While hearing a plea pertaining to such an appointment, the Court asked, "Does the Centre feel that differently-abled persons with valid MBBS degrees are unfit to perform their duties as doctors in surgical procedures?" The Court has sought a clarification from the ministry of social justice and empowerment in this regard.

A bench of Justices Pradip Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao has also directed the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities to appear in the Court on Monday. The Court order follows a plea in which an ENT surgeon has challenged the appointment of an orthopedically-handicapped (OPH) candidate for the same post in AIIMS for which he too had applied.

The surgeon, Dilip Samal, had applied for the post of senior resident/demonstrator at AIIMS in July last year under the OBC category. He challenged the appointment of an OPH candidate after his RTI query revealed that the selected candidate had scored less than the qualifying marks in written test. Samal was later informed by the AIIMS authorities that as per procedure those who qualify under the OPH category are adjusted in the respective category, irrespective of the marks and merits in the entrance exam.

Samal then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for relief. In January this year, the CAT had set aside the selection of the OPH candidate Mohammad Mubashshirul Haq. It had ruled that the AIIMS had not notified any relaxed standards of suitability for the OPH candidates while inviting applications or any time thereafter. AIIMS, in turn, challenged CAT’s ruling before the High Court.

The Court took note of the fact that Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the DoPT guidelines mandate that authorities first identify posts to be reserved in medical facilities for persons with disabilities and specifically earmark them.

And that these seats cannot be adjusted with vacancies under other categories.

“Two issues arise out of the plea. The first being whether it is mandatory in law to identify seats reserved for differently-abled persons in medical specialities when applicants are invited from eligible candidates. The other issue which arises is a directive issued by the ministry of social justice and empowerment, government of India, requiring reservation in the medical field only in non-surgical posts,” the Court said.

“It is the second issue which troubles us more than the first. Prima facie, we find it strange that the ministry of social justice and empowerment would be of the opinion that differently-abled persons per se would be unfit to perform duties as a doctor in a discipline which requires surgical procedures to be performed,” it said.

DNA India