A platform to share the periodic updates on developments in disability law, policy formulation and related fields across the world with special focus on India. It analysis successes and failures in the struggle of restoring disability rights through Court Intervention and general discourse on Human Rights of People with Disabilities.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Insurance Company denies health insurance on the basis of disability - Court of Chief Commissioner approached
Monday, November 12, 2018
Delhi HC - JNU should work out the mandate of the RPWD Act, so that every person with disability, who qualifies get admission. [Judgement Included]
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3817/2018
Case Title: National Federation of Blind Vs. Union of India
Date of Judgement: 12 Nov 2018
Cases refereed:
- Sambhavana v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 3919/2014 decided on March 4, 2015;
- Students Federation of India and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P(C) 3032/2017 decided on October 1, 2018
- and the Supreme Court in the cases of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2017)14 SCC 1; Union of India and Ors. v. National Federation of Blind and Ors. 2013 10 SCC 772,
Brief:
The petition is filed seeking relief that the selection to M.Phil / Ph.D and Ph.D. courses in respondent Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU) has to be on relaxed standards and on the basis of the marks obtained both in written examination and viva-voce.
The bench observed that, "We cannot ignore the fact that Dharamveer Yadav despite qualifying the selection process could not get admission as there was only one reserved seat for a disabled candidate and not two. Also, we find that many reserved seats, at least 15 have gone waste as no person with disability could get qualified, against the said seats. In such an eventuality and in peculiar facts of this c ase, the Court is of the viewthat the Respondent No.3 shall increase the intake to 8 in the “Comparative Political Theory” stream, which shall be supernumerary, which shall get lapsed after Dharamveer is awarded the degree. His admission shall also consume one seat of the unfilled seats reserved for PWD, which could not be filled for want of candidates".
The further observed, "That apart, this court is of the view that the respondents cannot dilute the mandate of the Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, and reduce the reservation to less than 5%."
The bench clarified, "It is for the University to work out the mandate of the Act, so that every person with disability, who qualifies get admission. But in no case they can violate the mandate."
Read the judgement below:
Monday, September 3, 2018
LPG dealership not a poverty alleviation scheme so as to come under Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, opines Bangalore HC
The High Court has refused a plea by an organisation working for the welfare of physically challenged persons to reserve five per cent of LPG dealerships to such people. The HC said that it cannot apply Section 37 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as the LPG dealership given by State-owned oil companies are not government welfare schemes where this rule needs to be applied.
Karnataka Rajya Vikalchetanara Rakshana Samiti approached the HC against Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum and the Union Government challenging a notification by these companies that wanted to select 238 LPG distributors.
As per the RPD Act, the reservation for physically challenged persons is five per cent. But the notification had reserved only 6 distributorships for the physically challenged instead of 11, it was argued. This was less than 3 per cent.
The HC however said that the distributorship is not a welfare measure. It said, “In the overall comprehension of the matter, we are satisfied that even if the award of LPG distributorships, essentially a matter of commercial contract, is a welfare measure and leads to manifold empowerment and all-round development of society, it cannot be termed as a notified scheme for poverty alleviation and development.”
The court also said that poverty alleviation in LPG is directed at consumers and not distributors. So, reservation for distributors under the Act was not possible. It said, “Needless to reiterate that the availability of LPG to the persons below poverty line may be correlated with the poverty alleviation, but that relates to the consumers and not to the distributors.”
The division bench of Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav refused to consider the distributorship licencing as a poverty alleviation scheme. It said, “The award of LPG distributorships is taken up essentially by the three State-owned oil companies and is not any notified scheme of the appropriate Government or local authorities, which could be classified as a poverty alleviation and development scheme.”
Noting that three per cent of the distribution agencies are already reserved for physically challenged persons, the HC said, “The provision for reservation by the respondent Oil Companies, who are the agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, prima facie indicates their attention to the requirements of the persons belonging to different classes and categories. However, for that matter, we find no reason to issue a mandamus to provide for extra reservation for persons with disabilities by operating Section 37” of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
However, the HC said that claims of other concessions in application fee and financial assistance can be sought by making appropriate representation to the concerned authorities.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Supreme Court: MCI Expert Committee's opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee
Case No: WRIT PETITION (C) No. 669 OF 2018
Case title: Purswani Ashutosh (Minor) Through Dr. Kamlesh Virumal Purswani Vs Union of India & Ors
Date of Judgement: 28 Aug 2018
Brief:
The Petitioner, who appeared for the NEET UG Examination for the 2018-19 session was denied benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities, despite having low vision impairment and being eligible for 5% reservation for specific benchmark disability under the RPwD Act, 2016 and MCI's Medical Education Regulation 4(3).
An MCI expert committee determined that individuals with a visual impairment below 40% would not be admitted to the MBBS course. Aggrieved by this he approached the Court.
The question which arises in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is, whether a person with benchmark disability of low vision, within the meaning of Section 2(r), read with Clause 1B of the Schedule, of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 can be denied the benefit of reservation for admission to the MBBS Medical Course.
The court said that the argument of MCI that Section 32 is not attracted since it only provides for reservation to higher educational institutions and not to technical institutions imparting technical education, appears to be fallacious since higher educational institution is a generic term which would include institutions imparting all kinds of higher education, including technical education, whereas technical institution is a specific term for those institutions which only impart technical education.
The court, rejecting the opinion of the committee, held that its opinion cannot be allowed to override a statutory provision (Medical Regulations) mandating medical institutions to provide 5% reservation to persons with disabilities. It held that the RPwD Act, 2016 as well as Medical Regulations by MCI was binding on the institution and thus no expert committee's opinion could be given primacy over the same. Thus, it held that the petitioner cannot be denied admission if he qualifies as per his merit in the category of persons with disabilities.
Judgement:
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Delhi HC directs IIT Delhi to re-admit and coach student with disability expelled for failing [Judgement Included]
“26. It is not in dispute that SC and ST are separate class by themselves and the creamy layer principle is not applicable to them. Article 46 of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. These socially and economically backward categories are to be taken care of at every stage even in the specialized institutions like IITs. They must take all endeavour by providing additional coaching and bring them up at par with general category students. All these principles have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 6 SCC 1.”