Supreme Court seeks Centre's resonse to a plea which sougth quanum of assistance to PwDs 25% higher than those given to others as per section 24(1)

A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to respond to a plea which sought that quantum of assistance to persons with disabilities should be 25 per cent higher than those given to others under similar social welfare schemes.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on the petition filed by Delhi-based organisation 'Bhumika Trust' and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the apex court in the matter.

The top court noted the petitioner has relied on the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Section 24 of the 2016 Act deals with social security and section 24 (1) says, "The appropriate government shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development formulate necessary schemes and programmes to safeguard and promote the right of persons with disabilities for adequate standard of living to enable them to live independently or in the community: provided that the quantum of assistance to the persons with disabilities under such schemes and programmes shall be at least 25 per cent higher than the similar schemes applicable to others." Jayant Singh Raghav, president of the organisation, told the bench that proviso to section 24 (1) of the Act provides that quantum to be provided to the persons with disabilities needs to be 25 per cent additional to the others under similar social welfare schemes.

"Which are the schemes in respect of which you are claiming a 25 per cent enhancement," the bench asked.

Raghav referred to the disability pension given by different states.

"Presently, instead of issuing notice to all the states, we will issue notice only to the Union of India and we will then see what the Union Government has to say," the bench said.

Source: Unedited stroy from syndicate feeds

Accessibility in residential societies remains a matter of concern; petitioner, a blind person litigates to seek justice.

Court: Delhi High Court 

Bench: Hon'ble Justice V. KAMESWAR RAO,  Hon'ble Justice ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Case No.: WP (Civil) No. 7642/2022

Case Title: Jayant Singh Raghav v Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, & Ors.

Next Date of Hearing: 06/10/2023

Case Brief:

The petitioner Jayant Singh Raghav, is a person with a disability has raised this litigation alleging rights infringement of individuals with disabilities in accessing suitable facilities within residential communities against the Chandanwari Society (a residential housing society) with Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as the resondents. 

The petitioner emphasizes what he perceives as a violation of the rights of persons with disabilities to access appropriate facilities within residential communities. He contends that the environment lacks provisions tailored to his specific needs, obstructs equal opportunities, and disrupts harmonious communal living.

In response, the Chandanwari Society, represented by the respondents, counters these claims by asserting their consistent efforts to ensure unimpeded accessibility for the petitioner. The Society argues that it has taken substantial measures to establish a barrier-free environment within the apartment complex.

Before approaching the high court, petitioner had lodged a complaint with the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Government of NCT of Delhi, citing the society's perceived inaction. The complaint pointed out a violation of Rule-15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rule, 2017. A subsequent directive highlighted shortcomings and mandated rectifications. However, the complaint was closed without comprehensive justification by passing an order.

Unsatisfied with the complaint's closure, the petitioner turned to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds for the petition include alleged breaches of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about non-compliance with the "Harmonized Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons" 2016.

Differing viewpoints emerged regarding the application of the Unified Bye-Laws where the petitioner contends that the society's layout and infrastructure do not conform to the Unified Bye-Laws, 2016. However, the respondents assert that the apartment complex was constructed under the Unified Bye-Laws, 1983, making substantial reconstruction impractical after 33 years. Despite this, the respondents assert their ongoing commitment to enhance accessibility within existing structural constraints.

Mr. Raghav is critical of the changes implemented by the society, suggesting that they are cosmetic and, in some cases, potentially hazardous to disabled individuals. He expresses concerns over the safety and effectiveness of the alterations, arguing that hurried modifications might inadvertently lead to harm.

Throughout the legal process, the petitioner filed various ancillary applications alongside the primary writ petition, including inter-locutary application, early hearing application, and urgent application.

The petitioner further claims that the modifications initiated by the respondents are confined to Tower-3 of the society, where he resides. However, he contends that the issue extends beyond his personal access to encompass the entire society. He emphasizes that the concern is not solely about Common area accessibility of the block where the petitioner resides but pertains to the community's overall inclusion.

In conclusion, the case underscores the intricate interplay between an individual with disabilities striving for equitable access and a residential society working within practical limitations to achieve accessibility standards. The legal journey encompasses a range of stages, from pre-court complaints to constitutional writ petitions, highlighting the petitioner's pursuit of enforcing rights. Consequently, the petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before The Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking an expedited grant of the interim relief as prayed for.

Forced to climb staircase at the theatre, disabled man files complaint in consumer forum citing lack of accessibility, theatre directed to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation

Dear colleagues,

An inaccessible cinema theatre, which had neither elevators nor ramps despite the provisions of RPWD Act 2016 mandating accessibility in public spaces, and made a person with a disability climb the staircase to watch actor Udhayanidhi's 'Nenjukku Neethi' movie, has been asked to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the aggrieved person. 

The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed the order based on a complaint from S Sureshkumar of Kundrathur. He complained that he went to Gokulam Cinemas in Poonamallee to watch 'Nenjukku Neethi' in May 2022, but realised on entering the premises that the screen was on the second floor, and yet it had no lifts or ramps. 

The theatre employees told Suresh that he had to climb the staircase due to which he suffered severe leg pain the same day, said Suresh, who has locomotor disability of 60%. He alleged that Gokulam Cinemas had violated Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by not providing lifts or ramps in the newly built complex and the district collector too was at fault for having issued licence to the theatre hall without proper inspection as required under section 44 of the Act of 2016.

In response, Gokulam Cinemas said Suresh was not on their premises on the said date to watch the movie and he was trying to mislead the court with a ticket borrowed from another person. Counsel for the theatre argued that work to install lifts could not be completed due to Covid-19 pandemic. 

The forum rejected the management's argument, saying: "The contention could not be entertained as Covid-19 effects came to an end two years ago." It directed the theatre to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused, and another ₹10,000 towards Suresh's litigation expenses. The Thiruvallur district collector has been directed to take necessary action against the theatre within four weeks.

More such cases are on the anvil as the timelines for implementing mandatory accessibility is over. Those who have been sleeping over the accessibiltiy mandate are waking up to such music.  Its high time that the establishments must get their buildings and services access audited and take remedial action. Its better late than never!

Delhi HC passes important directions to make Court system accessible and to realise Access to Justice for persons with disabilities under Section 12 of RPwD Act 2016 and emphasizes "Active Judicial Conduct" to ensure PwD's actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2500 / 2022

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Kalra Deaf Divyang Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Decided on: August 24, 2023

Cited as:  Revised Neutral citation-  2023:DHC:6132  ; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5261

Brief:

The petitioner, by way of above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, sought issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent/State to constitute a Special Court as per Section 84 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to make the criminal trial he is facing friendly to his disability so that he can participate in it fully.

"It was crucial that this Court examine the question in view of the issue raised by the petitioner herein as to whether the judicial system itself has complied with the requirement of equality apropos a person with disability who is an accused or petitioner before the court of law, while it administers justice." expressed the court.

The Court issued pivotal directions to address the critical issue of ensuring that persons with disabilities can actively participate in legal proceedings. The court emphasized that no citizen should feel denied of justice due to physical or mental disabilities, either because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure or insensitivity within the judicial system.

The case at hand involved a petitioner who had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, who had been deaf since childhood and also suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder-induced eye cataract and post-traumatic fractured maligned joint stiffness, faced significant challenges in participating in trial proceedings related to allegations against them. The court recognized that these challenges infringed upon the principles of natural justice, contravened the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, and violated constitutional rights.

To address these issues, the court referred to the importance of fair trials as a fundamental right in the Indian criminal justice system, citing the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374. The court highlighted the need to implement Section 12 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, which aimed to make legal proceedings more accessible to individuals with disabilities. It also referred to the Supreme Court's E-Committee's Standard Operating Procedure on Preparation of Accessible Court Documents.

The judgment also pointed out the inadequacy of Special Courts under the RPWD Act, as they were limited to certain offenses. The court stressed the importance of alternative methods, such as the use of braille, sign language, and assistive technology, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in legal proceedings effectively.

Additionally, the court provided a list of infrastructural improvements necessary to ensure accessibility, including facilities like wheelchairs, elevators, and sign language interpreters in courts. It called for judicial education and training to raise awareness of the needs of persons with disabilities, drawing inspiration from the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Bandu (2018) 11 SCC 163 and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 78.

The judgment underscored the need for a specific provision within the RPWD Act to address the requirements of witnesses, accused persons, advocates, and others involved in judicial trials and proceedings.

To ensure effective compliance with Section 12(4)(c) of the RPWD Act, the court issued various directives, including the provision of essential electronic gadgets, the creation of schemes to address the needs of accused persons with disabilities, and increased public awareness about available resources. The Delhi Judicial Academy was also tasked with holding sensitization programs for judges, lawyers, court staff, and police.

The Court was of the opinion that active judicial conduct to ensure access of persons with disabilities in  the judicial process will ensure achieving constitutional vision of justice of ensuring fundamental and human rights of persons with disabilities and their actual, practical and meaningful participation in the judicial process and fair trial.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring access to justice for persons with disabilities, particularly in the context of the specific case. The court provides a comprehensive set of directions to address the challenges faced by the petitioner and others in similar situations. These directives aim to create a more inclusive and accessible judicial system, thus upholding the constitutional vision of justice. The authorities are required to implement these directives within a three-month period.

Read the judgemnet here:

Delhi High Court disposes of petition on Equal Health Insurance for persons with disabilities, after IRDAI and 29 Insurance companies bring out health policies for PwDs [Judgement included]

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh

Case No:  W.P.(C) 6074/2019

Case Title: Saurabh Shukla Vs. Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Date of  Judgement : 18 August 2023

Brief of the Case: 

Please refer to our earlier post updating on the hearing dated 13 December 2022 in the present case titled "Delhi HC: Right to Life includes Right to Health, Referring to persons with disabilities as 'sub-standard lives' is 'unacceptable terminology', directs IRDAI to act."

The matter was further listed before the Court on 17th March, 2023. On the said date, in compliance with the directions dated 13 Dec 22, IRDAI placed on record a status report, giving details of the tasks undertaken by IRDAI. As per the said report, IRDAI had called a meeting of all general and health insurance companies on 18th January, 2023, where the relevant issues were discussed and a committee consisting of six senior officials from the various insurance companies was constituted. The Committee was entrusted with the following tasks: 

“i. Design and develop specific product/s for the following: 

     a. Persons with Disabilities (PWD) 
     b. Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS 
     c. Persons having mental illnesses

ii. The design and development of the products shall be comprehensive enough to meet the insurance needs of the respective groups. 

iii. The complete documentation shall be developed -- Proposal form, Schedule, the Policy wordings including the various terms and conditions etc., apart from a Customer Information Sheet (Key Features Document).”

Thereafter, a model policy was drafted by IRDAI and a circular dated 27th February, 2023 was issued to all general and health insurance providers, directing them to launch products for persons with disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS, and those with Mental Illness, with immediate effect. IRDAI also complied with the third direction as contained in paragraph 26 of order dated 13th December, 2022 and the previously used expression ‘sub-standard lives’ in Regulation 8(b) of the IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations, 2016 was deleted.

The Petitioner was also offered a health insurance policy by Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company and expressed his willingness to avail of the policy, vide his email dated 1st March, 2023. However, the Petitioner had certain contentions against the specific details of the policy offered. Vide order dated 17th March, 2023, this Court directed the Petitioner to avail the health insurance offered by Niva Bupa, while allowing the Petitioner to make a representation to IRDAI on the issues of Amount of premium being charged, Loading charges, Amount of coverage and Period of Exclusion for Pre-Existing Diseases.

In terms of order dated 17th March, 2023, the following compliances were to be undertaken by IRDAI:

 i. IRDAI was to take a decision on the representation by the Petitioner and issue directions by 15th April, 2023; 

ii. IRDAI was to convey the decision on the representation of the Petitioner by 30 th April, 2023; 

iii. IRDAI was to notify all the insurance companies to submit their products in terms of circular dated 27th February, 2023 along with model policy and file a status report. 

Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy General Manager of the Health Department of IRDAI wherein the deponent states as under: 

“2 That after the issuance of circular dated 27.02.2023, all the general and standalone health insurance companies have filed their products for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness with Answering Respondent/IRDAI under the “Use and File” procedure dated 01.06.2022. It is respectfully submitted that as per Use and File circular insurers are not required to obtain any prior approval for launching and marketing their insurance product. Copy of the Use and File circular dated 01.06.2022 is annexed as Annexure A. 

3 That in compliance of the Circular dated 27.02.2023, all general and standalone health insurance companies have also launched their products for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), Persons afflicted with HIV/AIDS and those with Mental illness a list containing the details of products launched in accordance to Circular dated 27.02.2023 is annexed as Annexure B.”

In terms of the above averments made in the affidavit, the various general and health insurance companies including the four Government insurance companies namely New India Assurance Company, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and National Insurance Company Ltd. have launched products for persons with disabilities. The complete list of 29 companies who are stated to have launched their insurance products for persons with disabilities, has been reproduced in a table in the below judgement.

From the said table, it is clear that several insurance companies have launched products for PwDs. However, in respect of the products which have been launched, the Petitioner raises some objection qua the high insurance premium and the loading charges, that is being charged. The said consideration of the amount of premium of any company’s specific product would be beyond the scope of this writ petition. It is, however, observed that if any person insured is having a grievance on the amount of premium being charged, remedies in accordance with law are available to such persons. The Petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned authority if he so desires. This Court however, would reiterate the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 84, which has also been considered by this Court in Akshat Baldwa & Ors. v. Yash Raj Films & Ors., 2023:DHC:345 wherein the principle of reasonable accommodation has been highlighted to ensure that society and indeed the state, can provide additional support and facilities that are necessary for persons with disabilities to lead a life of equal worth and dignity.

The court furhter made clear that the merits of each and every product launched and whether the charges are reasonable or not has not been considered by the Court and the same was left open for consideration by any appropriate forum, which may adjudicate a challenge to the same. 

The IRDAI, being the sector regulator would also have an obligation to ensure that PwDs are not unduly prejudiced and give suitable directions to insurance companies, after reviewing the products launched. 21. Insofar as the decision of the IRDAI qua the Petitioner is concerned, the decision is stated to have been taken by the IRDAI on 19th April, 2023. The said decision of the IRDAI has been placed on record. The challenge to the decision is on the following aspects: 

i. Amount of premium being charged and loading charges imposed on the Petitioner etc. 

ii. Amount of Coverage iii. Period of exclusion for pre-existing diseases 

"The IRDAI’s decision is detailed and reasoned. The Petitioner has already availed of the policy in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2023. The Petitioner is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law in for any outstanding grievances qua this decision of the IRDAI dated 17th April, 2023." observed the court.

This Court appreciated the assistance given by the parties and their Counsels, in ensuring that insurance products for persons with disabilities have been launched in India. The court admitted that the while the said products may not be the most ideal for persons with disabilities, this would merely be a first step in the process of achieving Equality for PwDs, which is the solemn intent of legislations including the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 24.  And the court thus disposed of the petition accordingly.

Here is the detailed judgement:  

Karnataka HC issues notice to Centre on a PIL challenging exclusion of disabilities as a variable from National Family Health Survey

Court: Karnataka High Court, Bangaluru

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Prasanna B. Varale and Hon'ble Justice M.G.S. Kamal 

Case No.:  WP (C) 14180 of 2023

Case Title: Javed Abidi Foundation Vs. Union of India (Min. of Health & Family Welfare)

Date of Order: 04.08.2023

Brief of the case 

The petitioner Javed Abidi Foundation has sought a direction to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016 as a variable in the household survey questionnaire of the NFHS-6 while pointing out that disabilities was a variable in the NFHS-5.

Quoting various media reports, the petition claimed that the disabilities were excluded from NFHS-6 on the advise of a Technical Advisory Committee citing two reasons - enumerators were not trained nor qualified to ask about and evaluate disability; and enumerating disability as a variable was a time-consuming and laborious process.

The petitioner has argued that the reasons cited to exclude disabilities are unjustifiable in the light of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which states that it the right of persons with disabilities to be part of any data collection exercise and all data about disability should be disaggregated so that persons with disabilities can get the maximum advantage of any schemes and other programmes meant for their welfare. The exclusion also violative of the provisions of the RPwD Act, the petition has complained.

The PIL also disputes the claim of the Union Health Ministry that the disabilities has been already enumerated during the 76th round of the National Sample Survey of 2018 and there would be no change in those figures. The Ministry’s response to petitioner stating that the NFHS-5 contained questions in  the questionnaire on disabilities on the advise of Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health and other questions with a very shorter version of the question will not be advisable.

The court passed the following order:

"The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Annexure-P1 and submits that though it is stated by respondent No.5 that it will not be able to collect accurate data on disability in its concurrent form and the primary focus of NFHS is maternal and child health, there are no grounds or reasons forthcoming as to why respondent No.5 is not in a position to collect the data on disability when such an exercise was undertaken by the very respondent in the year 2019.

Issue notice returnable within four weeks.

Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, the learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1."

The PIL has made following prayers in the writ and interim relief:

Writ prayers

a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the memorandum dated 14/06/2023 bearing reference number no.y.12011/3/2020-stats at Annexure-M is issued by the 2nd respondent stating unsustainable grounds for exclusion of disability from NFHS 6.

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 as a variable in the household questionnaire for the national family health survey 6 as per the petitioners and several other representations to the respondents.

c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner at annexures-d, e, f, k and l and to expeditiously consider his appeal at annexure-q.

d) pass such orders (s) or issue such other writ (s). 

Interim prayer

issue orders to the respondents in the nature of directions to introduce a questionnaire on disabilities by way of addendum that is similar the questionnaire on disabilities introduced in NFHS 5 so as to include all the 21 disabilities mentioned in the schedule to the rights of persons with disabilities act, 2016 as a variable in the household questionnaire for the national family health survey 6.

Delhi HC summons Health Secretary, says it is unfortunate that permanent State Mental Health Authority not constituted till date.

Court: Delhi High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula 

Case No: W.P.(C) 6952/2019 & tagged case: W.P.(C) 4468/2021

Case Title:  Amit Sahni Vs. Govt of NCT of Dellhi & Ors  and tagged case- Shreyus Sukhija Vs. Govt. of NCT of Dlehi & Ors.

Act: Mental Healthcare Act 2017

Date of Order: 02 Aug 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 15.09.2023

Brief:

Observing that it is unfortunate that the permanent State Mental Health Authority under Mental Health Act, 2017, has not been constituted till date in the national capital, the Delhi High Court has asked Delhi Government’s Health Secretary to remain present before it on September 15, 2023.

“It is made clear that in case the permanent State Mental Health Authority is constituted as per the requirement of Sections 45 & 46 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the personal appearance of the Secretary (Health), GNCTD, shall be dispensed with without further reference to the Court,” the division bench said in its order dated 02 Aug 2023.

The bench also directed the Delhi Government to comply with the statutory provisions under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018, including constitution of district mental health authorities.

In November 2022, the court was informed by Delhi government’s counsel that the process for reconstitution of State Mental Health Authority is underway and shall be finalised soon. However, since the same was not done, the court made the above observations.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Amit Sahni seeking effective implementation of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It is his case that the lack of mental health authorities is adversely affecting the treatment of mentally ill persons.

Another plea tagged with the PIL has been moved by man seeking reconstitution of the State Mental Health Authority and also for setting up of Mental Health Review Boards as provided under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

Read the Order below:

Bombay HC threatens contempt proceedings if State didn't provide information about implementation of 5% reservation in land allotmment to persons with disabilities at concessional rates under RPWD Act.

Court: Bombay High Court 

Bench: Hon'ble Justice Gautam Patel and Hon'ble Justice Neela Gokhale

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 583 of 2020

Case Title: Rajendra Petrus Lalzare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Date of Order: 31 July 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 21 Aug 2023

Case Brief:

The Bombay High Court has issued a stern warning to the Maharashtra government for its failure to provide a meaningful response to the court's query regarding the implementation of a 5 per cent reservation in land allotment at concessional rates for disabled persons under the Disabilities Act. The court has threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against government officials if a proper reply is not filed.

The bench expressed, "This is the most shameful state of affairs. We are not even on the merits of the Petition, but only on the failure of the Government to furnish a meaningful response."

The case was brought before the bench by petitioner seeking the enforcement of Section 37 (c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. This provision mandates that the government should create schemes favoring disabled individuals and allocate 5 per cent reservation in the allotment of land at concessional rates for various purposes, including housing, shelter, occupation, business, and recreation centers.

The petition was filed in 2020, and since then, it has been listed for periodic hearings. However, on every occasion, the government has sought adjournments to submit its affidavit, resulting in delays. In June 2022, an additional government pleader orally informed the court about the government's contemplation of issuing general directions to reserve 5 per cent of land for persons with disabilities. Despite this assurance, the government has not taken the necessary action.

The bench pointed out that the government's response, citing the Maharashtra Land Disposal Rules, did not address the court's specific query. The court emphasised the government's obligation to file a proper affidavit outlining the steps taken under Section 37 (c) of the Disabilities Act.

The bench said, "Now we are making it clear that while we are accommodating the learned AGP on personal grounds, we will not grant further time on the next date under any circumstances. If the Affidavit that is said to be filed in purported or ostensible compliance with orders of this Court does not answer the question of steps taken under Section 37(c) of the Disabilities Act, we are putting all concerned in the Government to notice that we will have no choice but to proceed against those officers, if necessary, in suo moto contempt for disobedience of orders of this Court. If the matter is being stood over by two weeks to accommodate the learned AGP, that time should be better utilised to make amends and to clarify the stand of the Government in accordance with the orders of this Court."

The court has granted the state government a final opportunity to file a meaningful response and set the next hearing for August 21, 2023. If the government fails to comply with this directive, the court warned that it may take suo motu contempt action against the responsible officers for disobeying its orders.

Read the Court Order below:

Delhi HC directs Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University to provide 5% reservation for persons with disabilities as per RPWD Act 2016.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench:  Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Case No.:  W.P.(C) 6605/2023

Case Title: Justice for All  Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others

Date of Interim order: 17 May 2023 [PDF 1MB]

Date of Judgement: 25 July 2023 [PDF 967KB]

Brief:

Delhi High Court has taken a significant step towards promoting inclusivity and accessibility in educational institutions by instructing the city government and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University to ensure a five percent reservation for specially-abled candidates.

This directive aims to uphold the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities for education.

The order came in response to a public interest litigation that alleged the respondent university was not adhering to the provisions of the Act.

While the university claimed to have provided a five percent quota for specially-abled candidates in all courses, the court directed the Delhi government and the university to make further efforts to ensure seats designated for specially-abled persons are indeed filled by candidates from all categories of disabilities.

On 17.5.2023, the court passed an interim order directing the university to provide the appropriate reservations for candidates with disabilities in the ongoing academic session. The petitioner, brought attention to the fact that the university was only offering a three percent quota instead of the mandated five percent under the Act. In response, the university filed an affidavit, confirming that it was indeed implementing a five percent reservation for specially-abled individuals.

Access the Judgement dated 25 Jul 2023

Bombay HC- RBI says it is aware of concerns of visually impaired but issueing new banknotes a huge task (Ongoing matter)

Court: Bombay High Court (Mumbai)

Bench: Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Shri Nitin Jamdar and Mr. Jusitce Shri Arif S. Doctor

Case No.: PIL/13/2019 (Original) [Previous references: WP lodging No. 2038 of 2016, WP No. 2420 of 2017]

Case Title: National Association for the Blind (India) Vs. Reserve Bank of India and 2 Others.

Subject:  Inaccessibility of bank notes and coins to blind and visually impaired.

Date of Order: 19 July 2023

Earlier Order: 28 June 2023

Next Date of Hearing: 11 October 2023

Case Brief:

The Reserve Bank of India in an affidavit tells the the Bombay High Court bench that while it acknowledges the concerns of visually impaired persons regarding identification of currencies, introducing new banknotes was a monumental task that is extremely complicated and time-consuming process extending over a period of 6-7 years and also entails heavy expenditure.

The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by the National Association ofthe Blind (NAB), claiming new currency notes and coins issued by the central bank posed difficulty for visually-impaired people in identifying and distinguishing them.

The affidavit said the process adopted before introducing new series of banknotes involves multiple considerations, including incorporation of visually impaired-friendly features, security, and design features to make them counterfeit deterrent.

"The RBI is aware of and acknowledges the concerns of the visually impaired persons regarding identification of banknotes. The work on the next series of banknotes has been underway since 2017," it said.

"Introducing a new series of banknotes is a monumental task. This has to be thought through carefully because having multiple series of banknotes of different sizes and features of the same denomination would cause more confusion than resolve the problem," the affidavit noted.

The central bank pointed out that the expenditure that would be incurred in introducing a new series of currencies would be high. The affidavit said the annual expenditure towards security printing was pegged at Rs 4,682 crore.

"This annual amount was not for introducing a new series but merely for printing notes to replace old, soiled, damaged notes and to meet the incremental demand of banknotes," it said.

The cost of introducing a new series of banknotes will be much higher and will include expenditure towards adaptation of paper production, printing machines and the entire currency dispensation and processing eco-system to any proposed changes, the document said.

The RBI urged the HC to dismiss the NAB's petition with cost claiming it has taken all necessary steps in studying the grievance highlighted in the plea and was examining the matter with due seriousness.

On Wednesday, NAB advocate Uday Warunjikar sought the court to not dispose of the plea and said the RBI has not made a positive statement in its affidavit.

RBI counsel Venkatesh Dhond said the petitioner has a unipolar thought but the central bank has to consider several points. Dhond sought further time from the HC for the banking regulator to consider the issue. The division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Jamdar then posted the matter for further hearing after 12 weeks.

The RBI affidavit pointed out that central banks across the world generally change the design of banknotes and introduce new security features once in a decade primarily to make counterfeiting difficult.

The RBI also follows the same policy but the periodicity is not fixed and is dependent upon several factors such as number and quality of counterfeit notes detected, existence of other perceived threats to the security of the national currency and changes in national policies, it said.

The affidavit maintained the last time a series of banknotes were introduced was in 2016 and this was preceded by an elaborate process of consultation among various stakeholders.

"This process included the constitution of a design committee in 2010 comprising field experts to make recommendations on the design/size of the new series of banknotes, including making them sensitive to the requirements of the differently abled persons," it said.

"Considering the needs of the visually impaired persons, features such as intaglio, identification marks, bleed lines and so on have been included in the banknotes in addition to the difference in size of various denominations though the same were reduced from the earlier series to make them aligned with international norms and to make them more wallet friendly," the RBI said.

The process also involves taking feedback from representatives of two national-level associations of visually impaired and to "the extent feasible, their concerns will be factored in the next series of banknotes", said the affidavit.

Read the Order dated 19 July 2023 below: