Supreme Court of India: Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India (15 Dec 2017) [Judgement included]

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Case Number & Title: WP Civil 243 of 2005  |  Rajive Raturi Vs. Union of India 

Date of Order: 15 Dec 2017

Cases Referred/ quoted:  Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Vs. Union of India & Anr. ; 

Bombay HC: Can’t fix cut-off for filling up identified and reserved posts for persons with disabilities

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Justice NARESH H. PATIL AND Justice Z.A. HAQ, 

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2014

Case Title: Karanti Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 27 Sep 2017

Brief: 

A division bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice ZA Haq has ruled that it was necessary to prepare a merit list of visually impaired people, and consider candidates from this list, without fixing benchmark or cut-off marks for filling up reserve seats for persons with disabilities. 

There cannot be any benchmark or cut-off for filing vacant posts earmarked for people with disabilities, said the  Bench. The court struck down the decision of the Union Ministry of Fnance to not appoint a visually impaired candidate to its economic and policy research department, as no one could cross the bench-mark fixed by it.

The bench said it was necessary for the department to prepare a separate merit list of visually impaired people, and consider candidates from this list according to merit, without fixing benchmark or cut-off marks. “In our view, once the post was identified and reserved for visually impaired person, then fixing cut-off marks for selection of the person for that post was impermissible,” observed the court. 

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Kranti Goyal, a visually impaired person, who had applied for the post of research officer in the Economic and Policy Research Department. He approached the high court after the department decided not to select any visually impaired candidates on the grounds that none of them could cross the cut-off of 210 of 350 marks in the written examination. The petitioner said the department had set the same benchmark for candidates from the general category and the visually impaired category – and merely granted 7% extra marks to visually impaired people.

The court held that by fixing cut-off marks for the visually impaired people on par with the general category candidates, the ministry and the department had acted arbitrarily and contrary to the object of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It said granting 7% grace marks was not a sustainable criteria.

The court has now directed the central department to prepare a separate merit list for visually impaired people and select a candidate from among them.

Read the Judgement

California Federal Judge allows Website Accessibility Lawsuit to continue under Title III, ADA

Dear Colleagues,

Within a week after a Florida federal judge handed down a trial verdict finding that Winn Dixie had violated Title III of the ADA by having a website that could not be used by the blind plaintiff, U.S. District Judge John Walter of the Central District of California ruled that blind plaintiff Sean Gorecki could continue his lawsuit against retailer Hobby Lobby about the accessibility of its website. The retailer had asked the court to dismiss the case on various grounds, all of which were rejected by the judge. The case will now move forward.

This decision is significant for several reasons:

The decision illustrates that two judges in the same United States District Court can have diametrically opposite views on the very same issue. In March of this year, U.S. District Judge James Otero dismissed a lawsuit brought by a blind plaintiff against Domino’s Pizza about its allegedly inaccessible website. Judge Otero found that Domino’s had met its obligations under the law by providing telephonic access via a customer service hotline, and that requiring Domino’s to have an accessible website at this time would violate its constitutional right to due process. On the due process point, Judge Otero noted that neither the law nor the regulations require websites to be accessible, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had failed to issue regulations on this topic after seven years. As further evidence that covered entities have not been given fair notice of their obligations under the ADA, he cited the DOJ’s official statements from the beginning of the website rulemaking process that (1) it was considering what legal standard of accessibility to adopt, and (2) telephonic access could be a lawful alternative to having an accessible website. Based on these due process concerns, Judge Otero invoked the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine which “allows courts to stay proceedings or dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.”

In stark contrast, U.S. District Judge John Walter in the Hobby Lobby case rejected the due process argument and held that the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine did not apply. With regard to the due process argument, Judge Walter stated that “for over 20 years, the DOJ has consistently maintained that the ADA applies to private websites that meet the definition of a public accommodation” and that “Hobby Lobby had more than sufficient notice in 2010 to determine that its website must comply with the ADA.” Judge Walter also held that the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine did not apply because it only applies to cases whose resolution require the “highly specialized expertise” of a federal agency. Judge Walter found that this case is a “relatively straightforward claim that Hobby Lobby failed to provide disabled individuals full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by its physical stores by not maintaining a fully accessible website.”

Judge Walter reserved judgment on what Hobby Lobby would have to do to make its website accessible until after a decision on the merits. The Court specifically noted that the plaintiff was not asking for conformance with a specific technical rule such as the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.

Because Judge Walter’s decision was on a motion to dismiss and not a final judgment, Hobby Lobby does not have the right to appeal the decision at this time. We predict that the case will settle before the court reaches the merits of the case.

Sources: 

1. Plaintiffs Score Another Victory in a Website Accessibility Lawsuit

2. Public Accommodations are Starting to Win Website Accessibility Lawsuits

Supreme Court of India asks compliance report of new RPwDAct 2016 in 12 weeks | IA No. 10 of 2015 in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation case [Judgement Included]

Court:         Supreme Court of India

Bench:         Justice Dipak Misra,  Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Case No. :     I.A. NO.10 OF 2015 in  WP (Civil) No. 116 OF 1998, 

Case Title :   Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation  Vs. U.O.I. & Anr 

Date of Judgement:  25 April, 2017

Author: Justice Dipak Misra

--------------------

Dear Colleagues,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in a major move to ensure speedy justice to persons with disabilities, has passed directions to implement the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 enforced by the Govt. of  India on 19 April 2017. In an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India and Another, reported as (2014) 14 SCC 383, and on the application filed by intervener "Sambhavana Organisation",  the bench of  Justices Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar passed the directions to all the States and Union Territories to file compliance report within 12 weeks on the Act of 2016.

The Intervener, Sambhavana Organisation - a self help group of persons with disabilities had also filed an application citing examples of over seven Universities that were discriminating against persons with Blindness and Vision Impairments while filing up various teaching and non-teaching posts. The intervener also cited instances that UGC that funds these universities has not taken any action on implementation of the provisions of the Disabilities Act particularly the reservation in employment and successive employment notification systemically failed to give the rightful representation to the stakeholders with visual disabilities.

The bench observed, "The 2016 Act visualizes a sea change and conceives of actualization of the benefits engrafted under the said Act. The whole grammar of benefit has been changed for the better, and responsibilities of many have been encompassed. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory to scan the anatomy of significant provisions of the Act and see that the same are implemented. The laudable policy inherent within the framework of the legislation should be implemented and not become a distant dream. Immediacy of action is the warrant."

The bench referred to certain provisions to highlight the salient features of the Act of 2016 and stressed that more rights have been conferred on the disabled persons and more categories have been added. That apart, access to justice, free education, role of local authorities, National fund and the State fund for persons with disabilities have been created. The 2016 Act is noticeably a sea change in the perception and requires a march forward look with regard to the persons with disabilities and the role of the States, local authorities, educational institutions and the companies. The statute operates in a broad spectrum and the stress is laid to protect the rights and provide punishment for their violation. 

The Court directed, "When the law is so concerned for the disabled persons and makes provision, it is the obligation of the law executing authorities to give effect to the same in quite promptitude. The steps taken in this regard shall be concretely stated in the compliance report within the time stipulated. When we are directing the States, a duty is cast also on the States and its authorities to see that the statutory provisions that are enshrined and applicable to the cooperative societies, companies, firms, associations and establishments, institutions, are scrupulously followed. The State Governments shall take immediate steps to comply with the requirements of the 2016 Act and file the compliance report so that this Court can appreciate the progress made. The Bench directed the SC registry to send its order to chief secretaries of all states and directed them to take immediate steps to comply with its direction by 16 Aug 2017.

The Court directed that compliance report to be filed by the States shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner (Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation), learned counsel for the Union of India as well as to the learned counsel for the applicant/intervenor (Sambhavana Organisation) so that they can assist the Court.

Read the Order Dated 25 April 2017 in matter titled Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India and Another  embedded below:

What are the 21 Disabilities Covered in the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016

The number of recognized disability conditions was increased from 7 to 21 in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (hereinafter RPWD Act 2016). The RPWD Act 2016 (Act 49 of 2016) was enacted by the Indian Parliament to fulfill India’s obligation to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitis (UNCRPD). It received the assent of Hon'ble President of India on 27th Dec 2016 and notified in Gazette of India on 28th Dec 2016. The Act came in to effect on 19 April 2017 vide a notification.

The new list of recognized disabilities added as an annexure to the Act includes three blood disorders, people of Short Stature, Acid Attack Survivors, Parkinson disease, Chronic neurological conditions, Multiple Sclerosis etc. 

Following are the 21 disabilities included in the RPWD Act 2016:

1. Blindness
2. Low-vision
3. Leprosy Cured persons
4. Hearing Impairment (deaf and hard of hearing)
5. Locomotor Disability
6. Dwarfism
7. Intellectual Disability
8. Mental Illness
9. Autism Spectrum Disorder
10. Cerebral Palsy
11. Muscular Dystrophy
12. Chronic Neurological conditions
13. Specific Learning Disabilities
14. Multiple Sclerosis
15. Speech and Language disability
16. Thalassemia
17. Hemophilia
18. Sickle Cell disease
19. Multiple Disabilities including deaf-blindness
20. Acid Attack victim
21. Parkinson’s disease

Here is the Schedule to the RPWD Act 2016 reproduced: 

THE SCHEDULE

[See clause (zc) of section 2]

SPECIFIED DISABILITY

1. Physical disability.—

A. Locomotor disability (a person's inability to execute distinctive activities associated with movement of self and objects resulting from affliction of musculoskeletal or nervous system or both), including—

(a) "leprosy cured person" means a person who has been cured of leprosy but is suffering from—

(i) loss of sensation in hands or feet as well as loss of sensation and paresis in the eye and eye-lid but with no manifest deformity;

(ii) manifest deformity and paresis but having sufficient mobility in their hands and feet to enable them to engage in normal economic activity;

(iii) extreme physical deformity as well as advanced age which prevents him/her from undertaking any gainful occupation, and the expression "leprosy cured" shall construed accordingly;

(b) "cerebral palsy" means a Group of non-progressive neurological condition affecting body movements and muscle coordination, caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring before, during or shortly after birth;

(c) "dwarfism" means a medical or genetic condition resulting in an adult height of 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimeters) or less;

(d) "muscular dystrophy" means a group of hereditary genetic muscle disease that weakens the muscles that move the human body and persons with multiple dystrophy have incorrect and missing information in their genes, which prevents them from making the proteins they need for healthy muscles. It is characterised by progressive skeletal muscle weakness, defects in muscle proteins, and the death of muscle cells and tissue;

(e) "acid attack victims" means a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.

B. Visual impairment—

(a) "blindness" means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, after best correction—

(i) total absence of sight; or

(ii) visual acuity less than 3/60 or less than 10/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with best  possible correction; or

(iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 10 degree.

(b) "low-vision" means a condition where a person has any of the following conditons, namely:—

 (i) visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or less than 20/60 upto 3/60 or upto 10/200  (Snellen) in the better eye with best possible corrections; or

(ii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of less than 40 degree up to 10 degree.

C. Hearing impairment—

(a) "deaf" means persons having 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

(b) "hard of hearing" means person having 60 DB to 70 DB hearing loss in speech frequencies in both ears;

D. "speech and language disability" means a permanent disability arising out of conditions such as laryngectomy or aphasia affecting one or more components of speech and language due to organic or neurological causes.

2. Intellectual disability, a condition characterised by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning (rasoning, learning, problem solving) and in adaptive behaviour which covers a range of every day, social and practical skills, including—

(a) "specific learning disabilities" means a heterogeneous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental aphasia;

(b) "autism spectrum disorder" means a neuro-developmental condition typically appearing in the first three years of life that significantly affects a person's ability to communicate, understand relationships and relate to others, and is frequently associated with unusal or stereotypical rituals or behaviours.

3. Mental behaviour,—

"mental illness" means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but does not include retardation which is a conditon of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.

4. Disability caused due to—

(a) chronic neurological conditions, such as—

(i) "multiple sclerosis" means an inflammatory, nervous system disease in which the myelin sheaths around the axons of nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination and affecting the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other;

(ii) "parkinson's disease" means a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movement, chiefly affecting middle-aged and elderly people associated with degeneration of the basal ganglia of the brain and a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

(b) Blood disorder—

(i) "haemophilia" means an inheritable disease, usually affecting only male but transmitted by women to their male children, characterised by loss or impairment of the normal clotting ability of blood so that a minor would may result in fatal bleeding;

(ii) "thalassemia" means a group of inherited disorders characterised by reduced or absent amounts of haemoglobin.

(iii) "sickle cell disease" means a hemolytic disorder characterised by chronic anemia, painful events, and various complications due to associated tissue and organ damage; "hemolytic" refers to the destruction of the cell membrane of red blood cells resulting in the release of hemoglobin.

5. Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness which means a condition in which a person may have combination of hearing and visual impairments causing severe communication, developmental, and educational problems.

6. Any other category as may be notified by the Central Government.

————