Reservation on single post would amount to 100% Reservation

Dear Friends,

Many of us in the Disability sector believe that 3% reservation for the PWD can be claimed on all posts including single posts. However, the courts have several times clarified that reservation on the single posts would be discriminatory to others and is against the provisions of Constitution of India as it will tantamount to 100% reservation.
regards

SC Vashishth
To read from source, click here

Delhi HC dismisses plea for reservation to single post of VC
9/16/2009

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of a person who sought the court’s intervention to grant disability reservation to him in the appointment of Vice-Chancellor (VC) in newly-formed 15 universities.

A bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Manmohan, dismissed the petition as withdrawn as there was only one post for the VC which could not be covered under any reservation clause.

Petitioner P R Ramanujam, who is suffering from locomotive disability and working as a professor of distance education and director of staff training and research institute in IGNOU, applied for the post of first VC in the newly formed 15 universities established under the Central University Act, 2009.

Mr Ramanujam contended that there was a statutory mechanism providing three per cent reservation to persons with disabilities, therefore, his name should be considered under the reserved category. Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhioke and Government Standing Counsel Ravinder Agarwal told the court that in this case reservation of any type could not be granted because there was only one seat for the post of VC and if reservation was granted, it would mean 100 per cent reservation. On this, the petitioner withdrew his petition.
UNI

Delhi High Court directs Union of India to amend Insurance Rules for the Disabled Employees

Dear Friends,

Many govt. employees were voicing their concerns on the in equal treatment meted out to them by the Govt's Postal Life Insurance Scheme where with a normal premium, the non-disabled employees were given a cover up to Rs. 5 lac while the disabled employees were given merely a cover of just Rs. 1 lac, that too with an increased premium and lot of hiccups.

Citing UNCRPD and equality principles that Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens - including those experiencing disabilities, the matter was filed before Delhi High Court by Advocate Pankaj Sinha (an emerging lawyer with blindness who currently work with Human Rights Law Network, Delhi).

The Court not only admitted the petition on the first date itself, but also directed the Solicitor General to appear in person and respond to the discrimination. I am so happy to share this news with you today - not only because this is a welcoming move by the Delhi High Court where a case is being fought citing UNCRPD but also because Mr. Pankaj Sinha has been my associate in the past and I am proud to have groomed him in the human rights and especially disability rights discourse - to which he was initially never inclined as he always wanted to be a criminal lawyer.

Cheers to Pankaj and Cheers to the Human Rights Law Network (read Mr. Collin Gonsalves)! and also to Mr. Rajiv Raturi, Director- Disability Rights Initiative, HRLN. Would post the detailed judgement once the final verdict is delivered by the Court.


Here is the detailed article by an enthusiast reporter Ms. Sangeeta Sharma from United News Of India(UNI). She supplements that the centre had sought 6 weeks time to ammend the concerned rules on the 07 October 09 (the date of hearing). Ms. Sangeeta can reached at snguni@gmail.com.

regards

S.C. Vashishth, Advocate

Delhi HC directs Centre to amend its insurance rules for disabled

8/31/2009

The Delhi High Court directed the Central government to reconsider its postal insurance rules and to treat the persons with disability at par with other people. Appearing on behalf of the government, Solicitor General (SG) Gopal Subramanium assured the court that the government will take broad base consultation with experts and also take advice from the insurance regulator and draft a fresh policy which will have no disparity for the disabled.A bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Manmohan directed the government to file their reply to the court within four weeks as to what will be their stand in this regard.

Fixing the matter for October 7, the court told the SG to revisit the Postal Insurance Policy as they have taken all disabled under one category. "When fixation of the policy is to be done, then you must consider the distinction between various types of disability as well as mortality factor caused by it. Moreover, life expectancy and other factors should also be taken into account," Justice Shah said.

A petition in this connection was filed by one Vikas Gupta, an Assistant Professor in Department of History, Delhi University, who is visually impaired. In his petition he said,"Rules of the postal insurance for government employees is discriminatory as it gives a cover of Rs 5 lakh to a normal person, but a handicap has to pay much more premium and gets an insurance cover of Rs one lakh only."

The Lawyer for the petitioner Mr Pankaj Sinha, also a visually impaired, and lawyer Ms Roma Bhagat told the court that Article 25 E of United Nations Convention On Rights for Personal Disability (UNCRPD) prohibit discrimination in the insurance policy. Ms Bhagat told the court that their research has shown that those who are hearing impaired, visually impaired or orthopedically impaired are less prone to accidents as they have less mobility and are more cautious.

She told the court that there is no data available in India to show the cause of death as the death certificate does not mention it. Also, there is no data to suggest that disabled are more prone to accidents so why they have to pay more to get a less insurance cover, Ms Bhagat said.

Contested Motherhood - Ms. Jo Chopra, LRF

Dear Friends,


Ms. Jo Chopra, Latika Roy Foundation, Dehradun is a fond mother and activist for the inherent human rights of those experiencing disabilitiies and particulary intellectual disabilities. This is subsequent to my earlier post reflecting my senior colleague Collin Gonsalves, Advocate, Supreme Court of India presenting the legal views and social implications of the judgement.


Click here to read from source: The Hindu - Contested motherhood
JO CHOPRA

Can the State order an intellectually-disabled person to have an abortion even though she wants to have the baby? A look at some of the issues regarding sexuality and disability…

What kind of sexuality education do children with disability need? Do people with disability even have sex lives? Do they have the right to reproduce and raise their own babies?

Of the issues confronting people with disability, sexuality is the most charged. A recent case brought many of the most compelling strands of this complex tapestry together and it took the Supreme Court to settle it.

A young woman with a mental handicap, living in a government institution as a State ward, had been raped repeatedly by two guards there. At 19, she became pregnant. When her condition was detected, the State determined she should have an abortion. The woman insisted she wanted to keep the child.
The matter went to court and it was decided she should be compelled to have the abortion. An advocate for the woman filed an appeal in the Supreme Court where, given the urgency, a speedy verdict was rendered: no woman, even one with a mental handicap, can be compelled to have an abortion.

Many people weighed in on this case but many important issues were ignored or not analysed:
A disabled woman was raped. People with mental handicaps are statistically more likely to be sexually abused. They are accustomed to being dependent on adults for many of their basic personal needs and submissive in their response to them. Vulnerable People with developmental disabilities may lack the social skills to assess a dangerous situation and the judgment to get out of it or raise an alarm. They are exposed to more “caregivers” than typically developing people. The more people one is intimately involved with, the higher the chance that one will be an exploiter.

The woman became pregnant. People with developmental disability are often assumed to be both asexual and infertile. While some disabilities do have an associated infertility component (only around 50 per cent of women with Down Syndrome, for example, are fertile), most otherwise healthy adults have the same chance of being able to reproduce as anyone and many have the same sex drive as normal people.

Her pregnancy was ordered to be terminated by the High Court, in spite of her insistence that she wanted the baby. Here is the heart of the issue. Can a person with an intellectual disability make a decision? Is intellectual capacity required for parenthood? What about the baby’s right to life? Is the State justified in forcing someone to undergo an invasive procedure?

Many who agreed with the court’s decision nonetheless believed the baby would have to be taken from the mother and reared by the State. It’s important to look carefully at biases and assumptions here.

Are we sure that a woman with a cognitive disability is incapable of taking care of her child? In theory, there is no reason to assume she couldn’t manage, albeit with support. Most able women need support to bring up their babies too. Motherhood is demanding and a high IQ may be one of the least important pre-requisites. As long as the mother is loving and attentive, as many mentally handicapped women are, and, crucially, has support from the community, a baby could prosper in her care.

Granted, that baby might not get the perfect intellectual environment, but is academic success the only goal in life? Does it guarantee happiness? A child brought up by a mother with intellectual impairment might still be deeply loved and cared for and might be satisfied and content — not things to be lightly discarded.

In spite of such logic, arguments were made about the State’s compelling interest in seeing that this child not be born. Because the baby would have to be brought up by the State, better not to allow it to be born in the first place. This reasoning is both specious and dangerous.

Many people who are not wards of the State might still be judged incompetent to bring up children. The socialite more interested in parties than in a baby’s needs, the workaholic whose ambition supersedes her parenting responsibilities, the habitual drinker, the poor woman living hand to mouth, the child bride, the list goes on.


Are we prepared to terminate the pregnancies of such women? The Supreme Court said no. Human rights cannot be granted to some people and denied to others without ensuring that eventually they will be denied to all.

What if the baby were born with a disability, as many opponents of the Supreme Court decision hinted darkly was likely?The real issue

What if it were? And here is the true heart of the matter. Disability is, I believe, “The Last Frontier” in the battle against discrimination and injustice. While people are indeed denied basic human rights for all sorts of reasons all over the world, no civilised person ever tries to justify it. When women are raped, when prisoners are tortured, when children are abused, when war crimes are committed, the civilised world recoils in horror. We speak out against human rights violations wherever we see them and so we should and so we must. Except when it comes to people with disability.

Abortion of girls because they are girls is called what it is: murder, brutality. Abortion of babies with disability is routine, sanctioned and worse, expected. In the U.S., it is estimated that 95 per cent of babies detected with Down Syndrome are aborted. Women who elect to have their babies anyway are made to feel irresponsible, reckless and unfairly burdening society. Chilling decisions
Eminent philosophers (Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton is one example) speak openly of the moral right of parents to abort handicapped babies before they are born and afterwards too. At the moment, it is acceptable only in early infancy, before parents have gotten “attached”. But as ethicists admit, if it’s acceptable to abort a disabled baby before birth, what’s wrong with doing it later? This opens the door to chilling possibilities.

Sexuality offers a prism through which we can better understand ourselves, the people around us and the values we hold most dearly. When we use it to look at disability, we may find, to our dismay, we are not the people we thought we were. Although we speak of tolerance and diversity, many of us are uncomfortable with people with disabilities making choices in their lives, distressed by the idea of them having sexual relationships and appalled by the vision of them bringing more people like themselves into the world.

The Last Frontier. It’s later than we think.

The writer is the Director of the Latika Roy Foundation ( http://www.latikaroy.org/) in Dehradun, a Resource Centre for People with Special Needs.

Dear Friends,

Here is some news from the long awaited case which has not been concluded by the Hon'ble High Court as yet. The Govt. of Delhi is still contemplating assigning one special teacher for three schools which doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the promise of Inclusive Education that Govt. of India has tried to bring out in its recent Right to Education Bill ready for the assent of the President of India.

What you have to say?
regards
SC Vashishth



To read from source click here

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)'s much-hyped decision to screen Bollywood movies such as Taare Zameen Par to educate teachers on ways to handle disabled students has angered the Delhi High Court.
The court suggested the Delhi government should instead form a committee to identify these children and treat them in a special manner to make their future bright.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Manmohan said Taare Zameen Par did not cover all aspects of disability, but was confined only to dyslexia.

The court observed that just by watching a film, a teacher won't be able to understand how to handle the special students.

"Proper mapping must be carried out by the government and the MCD to identify the number of disabled students. Secondly, the appointment of special, qualified teachers to take care of these students is an important aspect. The state must look into this matter seriously," Shah said.

The court suggested that a committee comprising a member each from the NCERT, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the MCD be formed to oversee the process.

The bench also said designated schools should have transportation facilities for these students.
The Delhi government said there were 1,746 MCD and 922 government schools, and the process of identifying disabled students was tough and could only be completed by next June.

The government counsel said it planned to appoint one teacher for every three schools. "If we go by the 1: 3 ratio, we would require 300 teachers in government schools and 600 teachers in the MCD schools with the required qualifications to teach these students," the chief justice said.

MCD schools have been facing major problems in teaching disabled students due to paucity of specially trained teachers. As it is, it is hard to find fully equipped schools to teach them. Though the MCD claims it has two or three students with disabilities in almost every school, the teachers have many a times expressed its inability to teach such students.

"Disabled students face many hurdles. First, the schools are reluctant to admit them. Even if they do, the teachers don't know how to handle them. The result: the children do not learn anything," Ashok Agarwal, the counsel of the petitioner, an NGO, said.

Agarwal said the government carried out mapping of such students in 2007. But with the help of 19,000 personnel, it was able to track only 1,511 students, he noted, questioning the efficacy of the procedure the government adopted for the exercise.

"Even after two years, the government is saying it is still carrying out the mapping process. It's a delaying tactic. Those students, who were identified, have not even been admitted to schools.
The government will take a year to identify these students. It is wasting an academic year of these students," Agarwal said.

"Disabled students face many hurdles. First, the schools are reluctant to admit them. Even if they do, the teachers don't know how to handle them. The result: the children do not learn anything," Ashok Agarwal, the counsel of the petitioner, an NGO, said.

Agarwal said the government carried out mapping of such students in 2007. But with the help of 19,000 personnel, it was able to track only 1,511 students, he noted, questioning the efficacy of the procedure the government adopted for the exercise.

"Even after two years, the government is saying it is still carrying out the mapping process. It's a delaying tactic. Those students, who were identified, have not even been admitted to schools.
The government will take a year to identify these students. It is wasting an academic year of these students," Agarwal said.

The court's suggestions:

• The Delhi government must form a committee to identify disabled students and treat them in a special manner.
• The MCD and the government must carry out proper mapping to identify the total number of such students in the government schools.
• The state must appoint qualified teachers to take care of them.
• A committee comprising a member each from the NCERT, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the MCD should supervise the entire process.

Reflections on SC judgement on Efficiency a ground for denying promotion to PWD

Dear Friends,

After my last post on the subject, I studied the detailed judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Union of India Versus Devendra Kumar Pant & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 2007 and following are few reflections on the same:

• The whole debate around Medical standards for Persons with disabilities is actually confusing to many disabled people including those with visual impairments that this judgement might affect them adversely. There is a general fear that on one hand the employers might use the clause of efficiency & medical standards against the persons with disabilities to deny them promotional avenues and on the other hand, people without a certain nature and extent of disabilities (read -disabilities not covered under PWD Act) might usurp the rights and facilities of those who are presently allowed the benefits under the Persons with Disabilities Act.

• In this case, the Hon'ble Court failed to take in to cognizance that for a person with any disability to be eligible to a post for recruitment & reservation, there exist a List of Identified Jobs which can be held and performed by that category of persons with disability. The separate question of medical standards and disability will not arise here as the jobs have been identified taking in to account all such factors.

• Although the identification list of no consequence in the present case as it relates to the right to promotion which can not be denied to the person on the grounds of Disability acquired. If the person is unable to do the job, reasonable accommodation must be tried and use of modern technology should be promoted to help him settle in new role. If even that fails, he can be shifted on equivalent posts within the same department.

• The court has coined a new interpretation of Efficiency as a necessary condition besides minimum medical standards under Section 47 which is not in sync with the spirit of PWD Act. The purpose of Section 47 is not to recruit a person afresh but rehabilitating an employee who has acquired disability during his service, hence including clauses of medical standards and efficiency seem to be misplaced. Also Efficiency is subjective and when attached to disabilities can be misinterpreted and misused by bureaucrats, employers etc in their own way allowing grounds for discrimination rather than reducing and minimizing them.

• Incidentally, none of the posts in question i.e. Junior Research Assistant, Senior RA and Chief RA, are identified for persons with Blindness or Low vision, therefore, it hardly affects the rights of visually challenged in the Country.

• Though the respondent is not a person with disability in terms of the Medicalised definitions given in the Persons with Disabilities Act as neither the Colour blindness is defined as a type of disability nor the disability of the respondent has been assessed to be above 40%. However, Section 47 is a social security and human rights provision to ensure continuity of support from the Government in case an employee of the Government acquires disability during his service.
  Thus, to me here, the degree and extent of disability is of no relevance for the purposes of Section 47 (1) as the said person should be allowed to save his job under this provision, even if his disability is less than 40% for the simple fact that he is not claiming the 3% reservations available for the three categories of disabilities.

• If degree and percentage of disability is made relevant here to attract this section, then any employee acquiring less than 40% disability would be left without any rights and social security that this Section intends to guarantee.

• However, in case his disability is more than 40 %, he would be surely authorized to claim other benefits available to Persons with disabilities under the PWD Act besides saving his job under Section 47 (1).

• Therefore, if the Hon’ble Court had shown a little bit of judicial craftsmanship, it may have been possible to expand the definition of disability to include within its ambit the lack of or reduction in colour perception. On earlier occasions, Delhi High Court had considered a person with heart ailment as person with disability to save his job under section 47. This would have given a wider and appropriate interpretation to the Section 47.

• However, in the instant case, the issue was of denial of promotion and not saving the job.
  As claimed by the Respondent, the job of the all the three levels is same and earlier the post of Junior Research Assistant, Senior Research Assistant were suitable for Medical Category B3 and B2 respectively while the Chief Research Assistant was required to have B1 medical category (that requires person to be free from colourblindness). The same stood revised in 1990 as B1 for all three successive posts.

• However, the old employees were allowed to continue on their existing posts even if they were below B-1 (post revision category). The respondent is Medical Category B-2 currently and holding the post of Senior Research Assistant for which currently B-1 is the requirement as per revised standards of 1990. If the job is almost similar, then the rule of medical standards seems highly misplaced. Also if the old employees with lower medical categories can continue to hold and work on the present posts (now requiring B-1) without being a risk to safety, security and efficiency, then the same employees could also be promoted using same logic.

• However, looking at the judgement from a cross disability perspective, and from the perspective of UNCRPD, the Hon'ble Court has once again perpetrated the age old view of looking at impairments from the medical point of view i.e. the individual's condition and impairment in the body is seen as the problem and not the inaccessible social structures around. In fact the whole human rights agenda has been thrown to the back burners.

• The UNCRPD doesn’t make mention of degree and extent of disability in terms of percentage and types, the way PWD Act does, Hence, it perpetrates the medical model of disability. The domestic Act is desperately in need of amendments to be in sync with UNCRPD.

• Also the employer, i.e. RDSO did not explore any possibilities of reasonable accommodation which could make possible conditions of work of higher post which amounts to discriminatory exclusion. Whether Chief Research Assistant work during night and whether the job could be done easily with special equipments/devices was never explored in this case. The whole attempt was to declare him to be 'medically unfit' for the promotion by blindly following the revised medical standards. Colour Blindness is not a disease but a condition, thus discrimination on this ground is surely against the tenets of UNCRPD, if not of PWD Act which is constrained by medicalised definitions of various disabilities.

The judgement has left a bitter taste in the mouth of activists in the field and the disappointment is because of the inability of the Apex Court to arrive at a reasonable conclusion after considering all issues involved in the case and the UNCRPD & human rights philosophy.

regards

SC Vashishth, Advocate