Disability rights:
On Monday, we had two matters listed. The first was Rekha Sharma’s matter in the Supreme Court. Rekha Sharma is a blind candidate who sat for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Exams, 2024, but did not get selected. She secured above the minimum qualifying marks and it is her case that the cut off for the PwBD category was arbitrarily set. The High Court filed its reply, arguing that they had 2 seats for blind and low vision candidates which have already been filled up.
We took time to file our rejoinder on Monday. One of the two candidates the High Court refers to qualified on their own merit in the ST category. Further, the High Court does not talk about the carry forward or interchange of unfilled vacancies in the PwBD Category.
Second, Kishan Makhecha’s case was listed in the Gujarat High Court. He works in ICICI Bank as an Assistant Manager and has not been promoted in over 6 years. It is his case that his able-bodied colleagues have stolen a march over him and that he has not been promoted due to his disability-related reasons.
The High Court, at the outset, enquired as to whether he has the right to be promoted, given that ICICI Bank is a private bank. We said no, but he has the right not to be denied career progression because of his disability, and S. 20(3) of the RPwD Act also contains this right.
Next, they asked how we can establish that the non-promotion is because of the disability. We said because of 3 reasons. First, if an organizational chart is sought from the Bank of all the people recruited in Kishan’s batch and their current position, the discrimination will become clear.
Second, he has been doing the work of a Deputy Manager since July 2024 but has not been given corresponding post and pay. This is so because he has been working in their operations branch and only Deputy Managers are allowed to do so as per their own policy.
Third, the 2 reasons they have cited for not giving him promotion are his unwillingness to take on more work and his unwillingness to relocate to a different location. On the first one, he has already been doing the work of a Deputy Manager and on the second one, he is unable to locate because he consults a specific doctor in Junagad due to his spinal issue and has to make several visits a month.
The Court noted that the matter is already pending before CCPD. To which we pointed out that it was filed in July last year and has still not been resolved. We prayed for a direction for time-bound adjudication to CCPD and for liberty to come back to High Court in case of non-compliance with CCPD’s order. This is because CCPD’s directions are only recommendatory. The Court was inclined to grant these reliefs. They asked us to serve the petition to the CCPD Office and ICICI Bank and renotified the matter for 3rd Feb and said this can be disposed of on this basis.
On Tuesday, we had 3 matters listed. The first was in the Supreme Court concerning the issue of testamentary disposition of the property of a mentally ill person. This matter did not reach and was renotified to the coming Tuesday.
In the Delhi High Court, we had a writ petition listed, filed by us, on the issue of movies not having accessibility features and ticket-booking platforms not displaying information about accessibility features and the platforms themselves being inaccessible.
The Court directed the CBFC to file an affidavit on the publication of information as to which movies are certified with accessibility features. They asked MEITY to publish information on ticket booking platforms having to display information about movie screenings having accessibility features. Lastly, BookMyShow was asked to file an affidavit on the inaccessibility of its ticket booking platform.
In a related case filed by Suman Bhokray, the Court also directed CBFC to file a counter on the issue of ensuring theatre-agnostic universal accessibility solutions.
Finally, in CAT, we had Molshree Agarwal’s matter listed, on the issue of those with Specific Learning Disability being excluded from the ambit of reservation in the Civil Service Exams. We told the Court that the notification for the next cycle was going to come on 22nd Jan, and it was our apprehension that it would also exclude those with SLD. The Court said that this issue will take time to get resolved and asked us to supply the petition to DoPT which we have done.
The notification released on 22nd Jan does indeed exclude those with SLD, and we have filed an application to get it either stayed or to direct that reservation be provisionally granted for those with SLD, pending the outcome of this case.
On Wednesday, 2 matters were listed in the Supreme Court.
The first was Deepak Rai’s SLP concerning the issue of his case in the Bombay High Court not being heard even once despite having been filed more than 9 months ago. On the issue of grant of reasonable accommodations to him in IIT Bombay. The Court requested the Bombay High Court to take up the matter, at least qua the grant of interim relief, on the next date of 27th Jan, i.e. tomorrow. The matter is listed quite lower down tomorrow also, and we therefore plan on bringing the Supreme Court’s order to the Bombay High Court’s attention, so it can be fixed for hearing soon.
The second was a case concerning the grant of reasonable accommodation and accessibility measures in the CLAT and AIBE exams. This matter did not reach and was listed to next Wednesday, 29th Jan.
New filings/cases:
We filed a couple of new applications with respect to the issue of a large number of movies coming on Netflix and Amazon Prime without accessibility features which should get listed soon.
We also took up a low bono case of a large number of blind and low vision candidates in the Combined Graduate Level exams not being able to take their own scribes to the exams due to the SSC playing fast and loose with them and will file it in a couple of days.
We took up a pro bono matter on behalf of Prabhat Mishra, a candidate for the UP College Exams to become Assistant Professor and not getting a seat due to the non-maintenance of a separate waitlist for PwBD candidates by the exam-conducting authority. The matter has not been taken up for hearing for more than a year despite being mature for hearing. We will be filing an SLP to request the SC to urge the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench to hear the matter in an expedited manner as it concerns a totally blind individual. We will file it this week.
Finally, we took up a case on the inaccessibility of two leading digital platforms in India for which we have been receiving many complaints. That has been filed and should get filed early this week.
Lastly, in the Justice Connect helpline, we answered 8 queries on issues ranging from land acquisition, to scribe related norms to allegations of disability discrimination in a leading Delhi University college.
Other human rights work:
On Thursday, a case filed by us on behalf of a street vendor whose hawking business was stalled by the police and whose application for a tehbazari has not been processed for 2 years was listed alongside other connected matters. The High Court extended the protection granted to him from having his stall shut down in the first hearing till the next hearing date.
The police tried to evict him on Friday. We spoke with the police and informed them about the orders. They had some concerns with the vendor doing some activities such as putting up a tent, cylinder and stools which we are working to find a solution to.
New filings/cases:
We filed an application on behalf of an ex-contractual employee in the Delhi Commission for Women who has been terminated by them but continues to get work given to her without getting any compensation for the same.