WEEK OF 11TH NOVEMBER, 2024
Supreme Court Hearing on Accessibility in Electronic Media
On Tuesday, 12th November 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Sankit Foundation concerning the accessibility of electronic media content for persons with disabilities (PwD), particularly those with hearing impairments. Despite the absence of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), which risked adjournment, the Court allowed an intervention application filed on behalf of Amar Jain.
Counsel for the petitioner, Rahul Bajaj, emphasized the necessity of implementing the principles laid down in the Rajiv Raturi judgment. He urged the Court to direct the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to prescribe minimum mandatory norms to ensure accessibility for PwDs. The bench, led by Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, expressed reluctance to issue such directions in the ASG’s absence but requested that a copy of the Rajiv Raturi judgment be provided to the ASG’s junior counsel. The case awaits further action, with hope resting on the Ministry’s serious consideration of these issues.
Mission Accessibility in Bombay High Court: Three Significant Matters
On Thursday, 14th November 2024, Mission Accessibility (MA) appeared in three cases related to the rights of PwDs, listed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Suyash Patil’s Case
The first case involved Suyash Patil, a candidate with speech and hearing impairments, who was provisionally admitted to an MBBS program following an order dated 17th October 2024. However, his college, secured through stray vacancy counseling, refused admission without a medical evaluation report. MA highlighted to the Court that the report had not yet been received, frustrating the earlier provisional admission order. The Court directed MA to implead the college and raise relevant claims. The unresolved status of the medical report raises concerns about its potential adverse findings.Gowri Vivekanand’s NEET-PG Disability Assessment Challenge
The second matter involved Gowri Vivekanand, a postgraduate medical aspirant with 60% visual impairment. Disqualified by the NEET disability assessment board, she was unable to participate in the first round of NEET-PG counseling. MA cited recent Supreme Court judgments supporting educational opportunities for PwDs. While the opposing counsel argued these precedents applied only to undergraduate education, MA referenced the Venugopal Iyer judgment, wherein a candidate with 100% visual impairment was allowed to pursue postgraduate psychiatry. The Court permitted the National Medical Commission (NMC) to file its response and listed the matter for further hearing on 22nd November 2024.Bank’s Discrimination Against a PwD in Goa
In the third case, listed before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, MA represented the Goa State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (SCPD) in a dispute involving discriminatory treatment by a bank. The bank had refused to reactivate the account of a person with intellectual disabilities due to incomplete KYC documentation. Despite the caregiver’s explanations and requests, the bank insisted on Aadhaar and a guardianship certificate, even refusing to engage with the SCPD.
The SCPD subsequently directed the bank to conduct community service at the disabled person’s school, issue a public apology, and sensitize its officials. The bank challenged this order, arguing it merely adhered to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) mandates and contending the SCPD lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Bombay High Court initially stayed the SCPD’s order, but MA sought to have the stay vacated. The matter is now listed for hearing on 21st November 2024.