Disability rights:
On Monday, we had two matters listed. The first was Mukesh Kumar’s matter in the Delhi High Court. This case raises the question as to the powers of Disability Commissions to adjudicate disputes and deliver orders. The DEPwD and CCPD Office were yet to file their replies and were given a final opportunity to do so. Accordingly the matter was renotified to 3rd March.
The second was Deepak Rai’s matter in the Bombay High Court, concerning the alleged failure of IIT Bombay to provide him the requisite accessibility and reasonable accommodation measures. Lawyer for IIT Bombay suggested referring the matter to mediation. They suggested 4 names. We suggested Adv. Kanchan Pamnani’s name. it was our say that a lawyer with a visual disability would be better equipped to understand Deepak’s issues and have subject matter expertise.
Accordingly, a mediation panel of Justice RD Dhanuka, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and Adv. Pamnani was formed and given a 4 week period to try and resolve all outstanding issues. Deepak’s rights as a person with a disability were directed to be protected in the meantime.
On 28th, Tuesday, we had 2 matters listed.
The first was in the Supreme Court and concerned the issue of whether the property manager of a mentally ill person can make a will on behalf of the mentally ill person. On this, on the previous date, the court had directed DEPwD to place its views on record. On Tuesday, the Court was of the view that the Mental Health Act requires the property manager to take a district court’s consent for making a gift/mortgage/lease of the person’s property and that this would apply to wills also. It was their say that a will can only be made by a person of sound mind and nobody can make it on behalf of the person. They said that the Manager’s intent here of wanting to have the property be used for the benefit of the mentally ill was good but that this could not be allowed. They acknowledged that it was a hard case but said that ruling in the Manager’s favour could have disastrous consequences. We pointed out that the RPwD Act has enough safeguards to prevent abuse of authority by guardians but they were not inclined. They have now allowed us to approach the District Court for permission to get the will sanctioned if that court thinks the law so allows.
Second was a CCPD hearing on the issue of inaccessibility of digital platforms. We had submitted a list of around 90 inaccessible platforms to the CCPD Office in 2022 and 2023 plus they had taken suo motu cognizance of the inaccessibility of around 100 more platforms. On Tuesday, the CCPD reiterated that all platforms had been directed to submit an accessibility audit report by an IAAP-certified auditor but that no platforms had done so. Apart from a handful of private platforms, compliance by others was very low. It was clarified that an STQC certification would not constitute sufficient compliance as that is mostly automated and is not comprehensive enough.
Accordingly, all platforms were directed to appoint an IAAP-certified accessibility auditor no later than 5th February. They would thereafter be given a month to comply. Those failing to appoint such an auditor by 5th, and whose website continues to have accessibility issues, would be handed down the first set of fines starting 6th February. And the second round of fines would be imposed in March.
On Wednesday, we had 3 matters listed. The first was in CAT on the exclusion of those with SLD from the ambit of reservation in the Civil Services. We pointed out to the CAT that the 2025 CSE notification again has this omission and the Court directed the DoPT to come back with instructions. The Court orally agreed with us that this is clearly contrary to the statute and cannot be accepted. They renotified the matter to 4th Feb.
The second was Suyash Patil’s matter in the Bombay High Court, concerning his exclusion from pursuing the MBBS course. On Wednesday, the matter did not reach and was renotified to Thursday.
On Thursday, we argued the matter at length. The AIIMS Nagpur report finds Suyash eligible to pursue medicine but not in PwD quota. It finds his speech impairment as 39% and hearing impairment as 0%. The Court asked if we are seeking admission in PwD quota, to which we said yes. We told them that the sole purpose why AIIMS Nagpur was asked to give a report was to assess Suyash’s ability to pursue medicine. A re-quantification of his disability was clearly beyond their remit.
We showed them the Om Rathod and Omkar Gond judgments as per which disability assessment boards are not to requantify the disability. The quantification is already done in the disability certificate and UDID.
Secondly, we said that how can it be that he had a hearing impairment on Tuesday in his right ear and the same suddenly vanished on Wednesday? We showed them his disability certificate which has found his hearing impairment to be irreversible and permanent. We also said that JJ Hospital had also found him to have hearing impairment, and this was not even a matter under dispute.
We said we are open to getting examined by any court-appointed doctor, so that the truth comes out.
Finally, we showed how GMC Jalna had cancelled his provisional admission which the Court had itself granted. This was because GMC Jalna wanted the AIIMS Nagpur report to be produced which Suyash did not have, and that too on a gazetted holiday of Diwali. We pointed out that the report had gotten misplaced by the High Court registry and only came to light in December.
The Court gave us a patient and attentive hearing. They asked the other side as to why Suyash’s admission had been cancelled. The other side tried to show that we are perennially dissatisfied, earlier as he was found ineligible and later because he was not found in PwD quota. We pointed out that this is the very predicament that the government and NMC was asked to come back on in October and they have not. Court renotified the matter to 4th Feb to obtain GMC Jalna’s reply.
The third case on accessibility and reasonable accommodation measures in CLAT and AIBE exams did not reach in the Supreme Court and has been renotified to May.
In terms of new filings, we filed a PIL along with the AICB in the Supreme Court, on behalf of candidates aggrieved by the SSC’s policy changes with respect to grant of own scribe in the Combined Graduate Level Exam and who suffered due to the poor quality of scribes provided by the SSC. That case should get listed sometime this week.
Other human rights work:
Our cases against the DCW were listed in the Delhi High Court, concerning their inability to pay the salaries of their contractual employees whose cases had come to us through legal aid channels. After the Court had directed the DCW to file a compliance affidavit in the previous hearing, salaries for March-July, 2024, have now come and the remaining period is left. The matter did not reach and was renotified to 8th May. We will take steps to have an early hearing.