Mission Accessibility Weekly Review of 25.11.2024.
Disability rights:
On Monday, we had two hearings. The first concerned a Supreme Court writ petition on behalf of 3 visually impaired students seeking the ability to take their AIBE and CLAT-PG exams on the computer or with a scribe from a non-law background and one step below them [as opposed to a 12th grader]. The court allowed one of the petitioners to take a non-law and humanities undergraduate scribe for CLAT-PG. Lawyers for the CLAT Consortium tried to push for other limitations, such as the scribe being from a non-BBA background as contract law is a subject in BBA, but we pushed back. We stated that undue suspicion about the disabled engaging in wrongdoing is unwarranted and they can have the strictest possible invigilations to rule out any wrongdoing. The Court also orally directed the Bar Council of India to decide the pending representation of the two other petitioners seeking to write their exams on the computer favourably or stated that it would be compelled to pass an order.
The second matter was in the Bombay High Court, on behalf of a NEET-PG candidate denied admission to postgraduate medical courses because of her visual impairment. After we took the court through the Om Rathod judgment, it directed her reassessment by Dr Satendra Singh.
On Tuesday, we had 3 matters listed. The first was a matter raising the question as to how the property of an unsound-minded person is to be disposed of. We appeared for the Property Manager in this case. We suggested that the DEPwD may be directed to file a reply here, given that the issue has wide-ranging ramifications. The Supreme Court acceded to our submission and directed the UoI to take instructions from the DEPwD and file an affidavit before the next hearing.
The second matter was on behalf of a hearing and speech-impaired candidate being denied MBBS education. The medical report of the candidate’s reassessment could not be traced by the High Court registry in the last few hearings, resulting in a delay. On Tuesday, finally, the report was traced. Strangely, it finds that the candidate has no hearing impairment whatsoever while his disability certificate records it as 17%. It also records that his speech impairment is 39%. It says that he is eligible to pursue medicine but not for disability quota. Because his disability percentage is 39 and the minimum percentage for reservations is 40. We intend to push back strongly against this report in the next hearing on 3rd December.
The third hearing was in the suo motu proceedings in the Supreme Court on recruitment of visually impaired judicial officers. This matter did not reach and has been renotified. Further, we filed a fresh writ petition on behalf of a candidate with cerebral palsy who has repeatedly failed his law exams at Delhi University on the ground that his handwriting is illegible, given his disability. We argue that he should be given reasonable accommodations and his answer books should be evaluated, given that they do not lack substance.
Other human rights work:
On Thursday and Friday, we appeared in the Delhi High Court on behalf of 6 contractual female employees in the Delhi Commission for Women, not been paid their salaries since February due to a conflict between the DCW and the Delhi Women and Child Development Department. The court has issued notice, directed the Delhi Government orally to resolve the issue and renotified the matter for 6th December.