Disability rights:
On Monday, we had 3 matters listed. The first was in the Supreme Court, concerning a challenge to a Calcutta High Court judgment which had set aside the appointment of around 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal, owing to alleged irregularities in the selection process. We represented 18 blind teachers. We were led by Dr. Muralidhar, and the court heard rejoinder arguments in the matter. We made 3 submissions. First, that the persons we represented were blind teachers who had no knowledge of the High Court proceedings and who, despite being untainted, would stand terminated if the High Court judgment was affirmed. Second, that retention of the OMR sheets done for the period of 1 year here by the SSC was standard practice. And, third, that if a subject-wise breakdown is done of the tainted candidates, there are many subjects in which there is no taint whatsoever.
The Court asked us to give the names of the blind teachers in a separate list which we handed over. Judgment has now been reserved in the matter.
The second was Rekha Sharma’s case in the Supreme Court, concerning the grant of a reserved vacancy to a blind candidate in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Exams. We filed our rejoinder in the matter, but the matter did not reach on Monday.
The third was Molshree Agarwal’s matter in CAT, concerning the denial of reservation to those with specific learning disabilities in the Civil Services Exam. This matter was renotified to 13th February, on which date it was heard at length [shared below].
On Tuesday, we had an important meeting with the Government concerning the Sugamya Bharat application. A number of outstanding issues were discussed, concerning the launch of the iOS version of the app, ensuring a more responsive and streamlined grievance redressal mechanism, resolution of long-pending grievances, involvement of the SCPDs, etc. A number of important decisions were taken on the technical and operational fronts which are now being implemented.
We also had a crucial hearing listed in the Bombay High Court in Suyash Patil’s matter who is a candidate with speech and hearing impairment whose seat was cancelled by GMC Jalna. GMC Jalna had to explain its stand on this date. They argued that they had cancelled the seat as the medical reassessment of the Petitioner by AIIMS Nagpur had found him eligible to pursue medicine but not in PwD quota.
We reiterated our argument that AIIMS Nagpur went beyond its remit in re-quantifying the Petitioner’s disability when their only role was to assess his functional competence to pursue medicine. We showed the judgments on the point and the well-documented record of his hearing impairment. We stated that he is willing to undergo a fresh quantitative evaluation, should the court so direct. After hearing all sides, the Court reserved judgment in the matter and renotified it to 21st February.
On Wednesday, our PIL in the Delhi High Court was listed which raises 2 issues – dealing with the rampant practice of stray animal attacks against persons with disabilities and evolving a framework for the use of service animals in India. On the first issue, the Government of NCT of Delhi had not submitted their status report as to what steps they are taking pursuant to the action plan that was agreed on in November, and they were given 4 weeks to do so.
On the service animals front, the Department of Empowerment for Persons with Disabilities filed a status report, indicating that a committee has been formed which is working on evolving suitable guidelines. We made 2 suggestions: first, the committee should have some representation of persons with disabilities. And, second, a timeline should be laid down within which the committee must conclude its deliberations. On the first point, the Court recorded the same as a direction in the order and orally stated that the CCPD Office should be involved in this exercise.
On the second issue of timelines, the Court orally directed the Government to evolve a roadmap with timelines to ensure the process is taken to its logical conclusion.
On Thursday, Molshree Agarwal’s matter was heard at length in CAT. The DoPT took the stand that the exclusion of SLD was pursuant to recommendations of an expert committee and that our case was not maintainable as it was filed in the 2024 cycle and now we are in the 2025 cycle. They further argued that any intervention from the CATT now will disrupt the ongoing examination proceedings which have already commenced.
When it was our turn, we argued that exempting a government establishment from the ambit of reservation has to be pursuant to a specifically prescribed procedure under the RPwD Act which was not followed here. We further argued that reservation has to be against both identified and unidentified posts, and so the non-identification of posts for those with SLD at the current stage will not have any bearing. We finally showed them a previous judgment as per which it was held by CAT that reservation for SLD and multiple disabilities is mandatory and merely reserving posts for multiple disabilities will not suffice.
We are happy to report that after almost 3 hours of arguments which stretched over 2 days, the CAT granted us interim relief. It allowed the applicants to apply for the Civil Service Exams and held that they are to be considered in categories D and E. It further expressed doubt as to whether the process followed for the exclusion of SLD was legally proper. It listed the matter for final hearing on 29th April.
We filed one new PIL in the Supreme Court, on behalf of Civil Services aspirants with disabilities whose case is that they are being compelled to share their own scribe details by the application deadline of 18th February when the exam is on 25th May. It is their further case that there is no way to modify scribe details in case of an emergency. We are aiming to have the matter listed before the 18th Feb deadline.
Other human rights work:
On Monday, our contempt petition on behalf of 3 children in the EWS Category was listed in the Delhi High Court, whose case it is that they have not been given their entitlements i.e. books and uniforms, despite the High Court’s clear directions. The matter got renotified to 23rd May.
On Tuesday, our case was listed on behalf of a street vendor whose vending business had been shut down due to the non-processing of his vending application by the MCD. The Court extended interim protection, thereby enabling him to continue his vending business.
We filed a new writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was listed on Friday. It raises the issue of a private unaided school refusing to allow the Petitioners, 4 children in the OBC Category, from sitting for their upcoming final exams due to non-payment of fees. Notice was issued in the matter and it was renotified to 24th February.