The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents to strictly enforce Section 44 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by issuing planning permission only after ensuring that the plan submitted for approval is compliant with the Harmonized guidelines and standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.

The PIL has been filed by one Vaishnavi Jayakumar.

The Petitioner further sought direction that  completion certificate should be issued  only after inspection/access audit of the building to ensure that the building has been constructed in compliance with the Harmonized guidelines and standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021.  

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that without complying with the aforestated provisions, the building permission and the completion certificate are issued.  

“We cannot entertain the petition in abstract. If any act is done contrary to the law, then the person has got the right to agitate. In case the permissions are granted in violation of law, it is open for the aggrieved person to agitate against the same. If the petitioner could lay her hands on such building permission and completion certificate, being issued without adhering to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Harmonized Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021, then the petitioner can agitate in respect of the same”, observed by the Division Bench of  Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy.

The Sikkim High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed centered around applying the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly, sections 33 and 34 thereof, within the State of Sikkim.

The said two provisions are in respect of identification of posts for reservation and reservation by the appropriate Government of a certain percentage of posts in every Government establishment.

The High Court had earlier given the State of Sikkim an opportunity to file their report in the form of an affidavit, which has been filed by the competent authority of the State of Sikkim in the meanwhile. Reply thereto has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

After perusing the papers before the Court , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai noted that the following statement has been made on behalf of the State of Sikkim in paragraph 11 of the report in the form of an affidavit:-

“11. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the State Government has been complying the provisions of 1995 Act as well as 2016. However, in regard to Section 33 clause (ii) of the PWDs Act, 2016 regarding the constitution of committee, the State Government shall take necessary and appropriate steps for the same within a reasonable period of time by duly constituting a committee. The said committee shall comply Section 33 (iii) of the PWDs Act, 2016 by taking periodic review as per the requirement of the said clause.”

Having regard to the above statement made on behalf of the State of Sikkim, the Bench is of the view that no further order is required to be passed in respect of the instant Public Interest Litigation, since the Bench has assured by the State of Sikkim that they are taking appropriate action in the matter.

“It is expected that the State of Sikkim shall take all necessary steps within a reasonable time-frame and not cause unnecessary delay in implementing the statutory mandate as contained under sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016”, said the Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking to admit the petitioner for medical undergraduate course for academic year 2021-2022 under disabled category in order of merit and as provided by Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

A division bench of Justices L. Nageshwar Rao and B.R Gavai was hearing the plea of a petitioner, who is suffering from locomotor disability with congenital agenesis of all fingers of left hand with 45 % disability. The nature of disability specified above is permanent in nature.

The petitioner applied and appeared for the NEET UG 2021 examination. The petition avers that the petitioner secured NEET All India Rank 570779; Category Rank 177726 and PwD rank 1335 and thus is eligible for admission for MBBS under-graduate course in the PwD category.

The Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 provide that the minimum degree of disability should be 40% (Benchmark Disability) in order to be eligible for availing reservation for persons with specified disability, but under Appendix H, it is provided that in case of Physical Disability/ Locomotor Disability, parameters such as (i) both hands intact, (ii) with intact sensations, (iii) sufficient strength and (iv) range of motion, will be considered.

Also read: Hijab controversy: Karnataka High Court adjourns hearing to Tuesday

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the respondent, including the Central government, to give ‘benefit of reservation’ in employment to those suffering from Thalassemia, Sickle Cell Anaemia and Haemophilia, falling in the category of benchmark disabilities.

The PIL filed before the apex court by petitioner Deepak Kansal sought a prompt intervention of the top court as there are apparent violation of the rights of persons suffering from Thalassemia, Sickle Cell Anaemia and Haemophilia with notable disabilities.

The petition further claimed that persons having such disabilities should be included in the ambit of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Also Read: Supreme Court rejects plea seeking compensation of Rs 2 crore for families of Covid-19 deceased, criminal action against officials

It was stated in the PIL that there is a violation of Rights as these persons were not being provided ‘benefit of reservation’ in employment under Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and thereby, this had violated the very basic human right as well as the fundamental right of such disabled persons.

“The question arose, for the kind consideration of the apex court as to whether the respondent has rightly denied reservation in employment under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, to the persons with benchmark disability, as to whether the respondent has not discriminated benchmark disabled, persons by denying the benefit of reservation in employment under Section 34 of the Act, who are getting the benefit of the reservation in education,”

-the plea reads.

Thalassemia is an inherited blood disorder that causes a body to have less haemoglobin than survival. Sickle Cell Anaemia, on the other hand, is a group of inherited red blood cell disorder, which causes the cells to misshapen and break down. The red blood cells become hard and sticky to look like a C-shaped matter, therefore, resemble farmer tool- sickle. Haemophilia is a rare condition that affects the blood’s ability to clot.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up the PIL seeking directions to the Centre to issue specific guidelines to ensure students with disabilities participate equally with others in online classes. 

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice Hrishikesh Roy directed the registry to list the matter to an appropriate bench.

The PIL, filed by Advocate Sanchita Ain, seeks protection and enforcement of the fundamental right to equality and right to life of students with disabilities with regard to the conduct of online classes and examinations by educational institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

“The universities, colleges are conducting online classes during the pandemic without considering the various challenges faced by students with disabilities and meeting their access needs and without providing reasonable accommodations to them. Students with disabilities are in a deplorable state with no access to lectures, study materials or assistance for those students who need individualized support.” said the plea.

 “While persons with disabilities have been struggling in every field during this pandemic and the issues of lack of digital accessibility and exclusion of persons with disabilities have never stared us at our face as during these times, the question of introducing inclusive technologies for a post COVID world in the field of education is the most crucial owing to the impact it would have on generations to come,” the plea stated. 

“The Petitioner organization is before the Hon’ble Court against the blatant act of discrimination against the students with disabilities for not issuing specific directions to ensure that the students with disabilities can participate and benefit equally with others in the field of education while attending online classes and also to take into consideration the plight of such students while finalizing the examination schedule,” it claimed

Also Read: Oxygen concentrators black marketing case: Supreme Court issues notice on plea seeking release of seized material

“Denial of reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination under Section 2(h) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter, “RPWD C Act”) and is thus a violation of persons with disabilities under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the plea said. 

The plea also submitted, “Students with disabilities have suffered the most among all the students in the wake of COVID-19 crisis. The online system of education is set on standards that make it out of reach of students with disabilities, leading to their exclusion in the field of education. This further denies students with disabilities to have equal opportunities in future and to live a life of purpose and human dignity. Therefore, unless positive measures are taken by the government to ensure that in reality students with disabilities are enabled to exercise and enjoy their rights equally with others, the current system of education is discriminative against students with disabilities as well as violates their right to live with dignity and enjoy life at par with others.”

Source: ILNS