From: Asudani, Rajesh
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:13 PM
To: 'accessindia@accessindia.org.in'; 'vib-in...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: My take on the working draft of new disability act
Friends as you know, working draft of new disability law is public, and state
consultations are taking place throughout India.
I have gone through it, and have put forth some comments prima facie.
I will be discussing them in the forthcoming state consultations in Maharashtra.
I am aware that not all of you would want to go through this lengthy mail, but
am putting my comments here so that anybody who is interested may get back to
me with their opinions.
Sorry for cluttering the inboxes.
So, those averse to law, quit reading here........
Statement of objects and reasons, preamble, Introductory
Preamble:
A. it should be sixty fourth year of Union of India and not sixty third as
mentioned.
Section 2 definitions
A. Definition of appropriate government is semantically confused. It needs to
be properly worded and clarified to demarcate jurisdiction of central and state
governments.
B. In the definition of barrier, the word "prevents" should be used in
addition to already used words impedes/obstructs. This is so, because the words
used give an impression of partial non realization of participation and leave
out wholesale and full non realization thereof. In the same definition, the
words "cultural" should be inserted in addition to mentioned categories of
obstruction. This would cover practices like removing calipers while
worshiping, and would be akin to giving equal spiritual rights to disabled as
was being craved for by some committee members. In the same definition of
barriers, instead of "participation in society" the words "Participation in all
domains of activities" should be used. This is so because society is a general
and diffused term and may be interpreted to mean sociocultural activities and
not formal activities.
C. in the definition of disadvantage, the word "whom" should be used in place
of "who" in the explanation.
D. in the definition of person with disability:
A. enumeration of impairments should not start with "Physical" but should be
alphabetical viz: "Developmental, intellectual, mental, physical and sensory".
This is so, as putting physical first is sans any criteria and gives misleading
impression of primacy of physical impairments over others.
ii. Along with hindering full and effective participation in society,
the nature of impairments affecting functioning in domains of life, in
interaction with barriers or otherwise also, must be recognized.
iii. Operational criteria in form of "requirement of technical or human
aid for performance of various activities in effective and safe manner" and
disability being the condition making persons more vulnerable in comparison to
similarly situated persons without impairment", should also be recognized.
IV. The phrase "on equal basis with others" used at various places is
enigmatic. What is precisely meant by others is left to conjecture. And persons
with disabilities are not only to be placed at par with non disabled as far as
rights and dignity is concerned, but they
are to be regarded human beings with certain impairments who have their own
specific rights and needs also which may not be reflected by prescription of
"on equal basis with others".
E. The definition of person with disability supposedly applies to entire act.
Categories of impairments specified in section 22 for programmatic entitlements
are presumably included in it. However, act fails to clearly lay down this
thing. It may result in persons with disabilities mentioned in section 22 being
only recognized for part iv and not for all other parts. So, clear mention of
dual definition of disability in act is called for. It should say that the
definition in section 2 is inclusive of disabilities in section 22, and in
section 22 it should say that these disabilities are valid for entire act in
addition to criteria laid down in section 2 definition. This should be done by
way of abundant caution as specifying impairments for specific programmatic
entitlements is beneficial, but it should in o way curtail their recognition as
disabilities for all provisions of the act. Criteria enunciated in section 2
would take care to have others also included for other provisions except part
iv.
F. Further, there seems to be no machinery whereby this definition of
disability would be concretized in respect of persons having impairments other
than mentioned in part iv. For Ex. If a dwarf person or a person with sexual
disability wishes to assert and exercise all the rights in part ii and iii,
she/he will not know whom to approach for convincing the persons denying her
equal participation that she is a person with disability. Suitable provisions
should be enunciated to this criteria to be applied in actuality.
G.
In section 22, impairments are mentioned without defining them at all, and all
is left to prescription by government. This approach is highly dangerous and we
may suffer the consequences till posterity. In effect, this act fails to lay
down who is a person with disability, and consequently target group is left to
Bureaucratic baboos. Impairments may be clearly defined in the act, and guiding
principles for devising sociomedical scale be also laid down. In impairments,
there is no need to carve out two separate disabilities from visual impairment:
blindness and low vision, as it is not done for any other impairment. The
mistake must be set right and low vision may be deemed to be mild form of
visual impairment. Sociomedical scale guidelines may stipulate that extent of
barriers and its quantification should take into account extant technology if
and only if availability of such a technological devices is guaranteed by
government or other establishments. Alternately, twin quantifications of extent
of impairments experienced with and without technology may be indicated.
However, such a quantified score should not be deemed to constitute any
evidence that the person concerned cannot inherently perform a particular
action. Further, section 22 should clearly indicate that these disabilities are
valid for all parts of the act and not only for part iv.
Guiding principles for implementation & interpretation, Lifting barriers Up To
service animals
Section 4
A. Telecommunication accessibility is merely mentioned without laying down any
specifics. Dedicated services for hearing impaired/deaf/dumb on the lines of
USA be set up to enable to communicate through telephone etc.
B. A lot is left to government schemes which unfortunately do not see the
light of the day as has been the experience.
C. In section 4E about accessibility of services, the words "service
providers" should be inserted after appropriate governments and establishments.
D. similarly service providers should be inserted in provision about
announcements.
E. In provision about conversion/adaptation of copyrighted material into
accessible format the words, "by anyone" be inserted because it is observed
that restrictions are attempted to be placed on who can do such a conversion,
and individuals are precluded from such an activity in earlier proposed
amendment of copyright act.
F. In the above provision about copyright, instead of words, "shall be fair
dealing", words, "shall not be deemed copyright violation" be inserted, because
fair dealing exemption is in vogue in USA and not in India.
G. In infrastructure accessibility, definition of public building should be
broadened to explicitly include prisons/jails/places of detentions, as more
often than not, accessibility needs are not at all taken care of in such places.
H. In making things and services accessible, legality of such
services/goods/actions should not be a prerequisite. For instance, even a thief
with a disability, if he/she suffers a consequence of inaccessibility of the
building even while stealing, should be able to demand accessibility of
building. If a website hosting pornographic material is inaccessible, its
illegal content should not be a bar against demanding its accessibility.
Mandatory observance of accessibility norms to Human resource Development
Right to equality and Non discrimination to Access to justice
Section 6
A. in subsection 7, when unjustified discrimination is done, the words, "court
of national disability commissioner" should also be inserted and court of state
disability commissioner should be mentioned.
B. In the reliefs to be granted in such situation, relief in the form of
specific relief and monetary compensation be also provided for.
C. in section 6A about proactive interventions for persons with disability
who are more vulnerable, women with disabilities, children with disabilities
and persons with multiple disability, as well as persons with severe
developmental and mental disabilities should also be included.
D. a mini code for women with disabilities from section 7A to 7G is welcome.
It basically explicitly guarantees all the important rights specifically for
women with disabilities, and also takes gender dimension into account. Further,
we may provide for more maternity/child care leave for women with disabilities,
and also aggravated punishment for any offense committed against women with
disabilities.
Children with disabilities to right to culture leisure and sports
Section 8
In the section, obligations of parents of children with disabilities and all
schools must also be laid down. Orphanages should also be specifically named
and obliged to be accessible with full government support. Even private
establishments can be given grants specifically for ensuring enabling
environment for children with disabilities. This is particularly so, as clause
Iv of definition of establishments covering all private entities may not find
favor with government and may be excluded from final version.
Legal capacity and civil political rights to protection safety of persons with
disability in situation of risk
Section 9
A. In the explanation to section 9A6 about conflict of interest, the words
should be "Supporting person is related to person with disability" and not
"Supported person".
In the same sub section, obligation to abstain from support in a transaction
where conflict of interest arises is mandatory, without providing for
alternative means of support, or defining who would decide whether conflict of
interest has actually arisen. It should be provided that person would abstain
from supporting if and only if alternative support arrangements are properly
made by XYZ, name of authority.
C. In the subsection 8, about altering support by person with disability and
its prospective effect with affecting already made transactions, an exception
for transactions fraudulent or patently unjust or against interests of persons
with disabilities should be provided for.
D. In sub section 9 about DRA framing guidelines for registration of support
and even personal assistants by PWD, a clear distinction has to be drawn
between persons with physical/sensory disabilities and persons with
mental/intellectual/developmental disabilities. The provisions may be misused
to deny legitimate assistance to former without it having been duly registered
with DRA.
C. In section 9E about denial of legal capacity of exercise thereof, complaint
has to be filed with district disability commissioner, but no such authority is
envisaged in authorities chapter. Committee would do well to harmonize work of
various subcommittees and do away with inconsistent provisions. Authority for
filing complaint about denial of legal capacity should be clearly designated.
In the same subsection the phrase "As expeditiously as possible" should be
omitted at the end...
Section 10
A. Eradicating impairments or absence of some functions/bodily structures
through medical measures, and mitigating their disabling effects through
technological
measures and through appropriate modifications in structures and procedures
should be viewed as integral part of right to life and primary responsibility
of government and state. So, relevant provisions should be incorporated in
section 10, like state to bear costs of all corrective/remedial steps for
improvements, making donations of body parts like cornea etc. binding after
death etc.
B. any act or omission causing impairments resulting in disability should be
punished vigorously. For example if one chops off a hand, one is punished for
previous hurt for maximum of seven years. However, this results in disability
and punishment should be exemplary. So, enhancement of three to five years may
be proposed. Case of aruna shanbag is relevant where the offender has served
seven years for causing grievious hurt to her, and the hapless woman is
bedridden in a comatose state for 38 years. Acid attacks are one more example
where eyesight may be lost and person will only be punished for grievious hurt.
Please note this suggestion is different from section 10 (3) where exercise of
limb or faculty of person with disability is being impaired, and it is also
different from penalty clause where offence due to disability is an aggravating
factor. This is about causing disabling impairment.
Right to Liberty till protection from exploitation Abuse and violence
Section 13
A. Subsections 1 to 7 are restrictive in nature as they relate to exercise of
rights under the present act merely. This is uncalled for and all provisions
for access to justice should be applicable in general and not only to
particular case of exercise of rights under this act. This restrictive
formulation may also have an adverse impact on construction of subsections 8 to
11 which are broad in their scope. If any restrictive provision for enforcing
rights under present act is required, it is that legal services authority would
make available, at the option of person with disability, free legal services
for litigation brought by such persons to enforce rights under this act before
state or national courts of commissioners or in any other court.
B. While ensuring accessibility and reasonable accommodation, jails prisons
and all centers of detention must be specifically mentioned.
C. Government must be obliged to appoint interpreters/facilitators/enablers
in courts etc. in order to enable disabled to adopt their preferred modes of
communications.
Section 14
A. Communication reducing identity of persons with disabilities to mere
impairment, and other examples furnished in the sections be made penal offences.
Sections 15 and 16
A. Specific offences of exploitation/violence should be incorporated as penal
offences under this very act itself, instead of leaving them to be punished
under relevant sections of IPC.
B. Whole procedure of prevention of abuse and rehabilitation cannot be left
to police, and district branches of state disability court are a must for this.
C. Necessary element of motive while defining violence/abuse/exploitation be
done away with as it is often impossible to prove it, effect suffices which is
tangible more often than not.
D. Willful failure to inform relevant authorities about abuse etc. be also
penalized.
Right to privacy till right to exercise franchise, stand for election and hold
public office.
Section 17
A. Specific obligation be cast upon any persons supporting persons with
disabilities not to compromise with privacy of supported person. For Ex. It
would cover not revealing voting choices of a disabled voter by escort
accompanying him/her to anybody, if it a secret ballot, even though the
disabled person herself may reveal such information.
Section 18
Accessibility of communication be specifically made a part of freedom of speech
and expression. Even though it has been dealt with separately elsewhere, but
its enunciation here would serve rights based approach.
Section 19
A. Independent living provisions should specifically mandate builders and
anybody constructing residences to let or sell, not to discriminate on the
basis of disability, and be made a ground for obtaining specific relief.
Section 20
A. Voidability of marriage has been provided on the ground of non-awareness of
disability, but at the same time disability per se has been rejected as the
ground of voidability. It may give rise to confusion. It should be clarified
whether non-disclosure or non-awareness of disability is equated with fraud
generally where marriage is voidable with a time period of disclosure of
concealed information and only if parties have not lived together thereafter,
or such non awareness is given special treatment, if yes, what that treatment
should be?
B. Similarly being underage is generally ground for voidability, here it is
made ground for marriage being void. Clarifications are required whether it is
done keeping in mind disability of one or both partners?
C. Ground of irreconcilable differences does not exist in marriage law.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is being contemplated. Clarifications are
required.
Section 21
A. While saying that all persons with disabilities are competent to vote and
hold public office, it is unclear how ground of unsoundness of mind is proposed
to be dealt with. At least the persons who are incapable to apprehend
reality/consequences of their acts in the ordinary course of events have to be
excluded from this. Section 84 of IPC laying down exemption from criminal
liability on the ground of insanity gives a good definition of insanity.
Otherwise we should press for removing that section also in the name of
equality.
B. Section does not mention representation to public bodies from parliament
to Panchayat. At least, representation of disabled on all constitutional bodies
and some tiers of governance in form of nominations or through any other
suitable method has to be put forth in the law.
Capability Development till Establishment of the Education Reform Commission
Section 22
By carving out separate part iv for programmatic entitlements and including
education, employment, etc. these essential rights of persons with disabilities
have been reduced to mere entitlements and have been put at the mercy of
government programmes. True that provisions are mandatory, but I apprehend that
we will have to pray for mandamus each time we are required to enforce them.
Further, their realization depends on formulation of schemes and programmes.
Rajasthan high court had drawn this vital distinction in Dr. Vijay agarwal's
case, viz: between provisions requiring formulation of government schemes for
realization and those not requiring any such governmental schemes. It has
placed vital employment and education provisions in later category and thus
ensured their mandatory and fundamental nature. Here, separate part of
capability development and programmatic entitlements is named, which may
furnish a readymade excuse to state that relevant schemes have not yet been
formulated. Path ahead is covered with thorns.
b. My comments on definitions may be seen. Mere mention of impairments, without
defining them, no guidelines for sociomedical scale, needless carving of two
categories from visual impairments without doing so for any other impairment,
no explicit mention that these disabilities are valid for entire act, etc. hold
valid here.
C. Menace of fake disability certificates is not at all mentioned anywhere let
alone being corrected/penalized.
D. Disabilities records and certificates be accepted throughout nation, even if
issued by one state as they should be declared as records under article 261
of constitution and full faith and credit clause be applicable to them. This is
a must as at present, disability certificate does not enjoy an all India
validity and even some governments like Delhi are coming up with residence
requirements for issuing disability card. Further, disability certificate has
to be approved/endorsed by N number of departments in order to avail department
specific benefit/concession/facility, ex. Transport etc. So, it should be laid
down in no uncertain terms that disability certificate is a valid document for
all establishments.
D. In mentioning hearing impaired and speech impaired, it should be mentioned
as hearing impaired and/or speech impaired. Present phraseology is susceptible
to be misinterpreted as hearing and speech impairment both must be present in a
person to qualify her/him as disabled.
Section 23
A. In definition of parent, step mother and step father should be mentioned.
B.
In definition of support following things should be clarified:
Exemption from second and third language cannot be left to discretion of school
administration, suitable authority either DRA or education commission should
provide for it.
Amanuensis better called scribe provisions should be separately carved out and
should include the following as it is the existing law sanctioned by HC
guidelines and is keeping in requirement of disabled students.
Scribe includes writer for blind/low vision/dyslexic/anybody unable to write
permanently or temporarily
It also includes interpreter for hearing impaired before or during exam; and
also any other human support during exam
Scribe should not be eligible to appear for the same exam at the time she/he is
acting as scribe or in past three years;
No other preconditions can be imposed on the scribe.
Scribe has to be arranged by student with disability or by exam conducting body
at her/his request, in later case competence of scribe should be ensured.
Violation of these guidelines should be deemed to be failure to provide
reasonable accommodation/enabling environment and would attract penalties.
C. Right to education for children with disabilities has been made into a
programmatic entitlement, deluding its very fundamental nature. No provision is
made for reservation in schools. Child has a right to be admitted to
appropriate neighborhood School. It means school equipped for disabled
students. No mandatory provisions exist to have all schools or at least a
majority of them made enabling for students with disabilities. All left to
government programmes and schemes without any sanctions.
E. Provision about relaxation of minimum qualification for admission to
higher education is left to vagaries of authorities. At least relaxation on the
lines of SCs and STs could have been provided. Nothing is said about non
admission due to admission criteria biased against persons with disabilities.
F. About six percent reservation, it should be mandated that where in a
given course there are less number of seats, seats may be pooled across various
branches/streams and six percent reserved. It should also be provided that
where in a college/schools there are less number of seats, seats may be pooled
university wise or according to body conducting that course. A very good and
beneficial provision that of reserving one percent seats for wards of parents
with disabilities has vanished. It should be reintroduced as the disability of
either or both parents does place the child at a greater disadvantage and may
be partially compensated for by such affirmative action.
G. From subsection 23O one gets an impression as if neighborhood schools
have to be established specially and no obligation is caste on all schools to
be suitably equipped for disabled students. To begin with at least government
run schools and any schools receiving grant may be so obligated.
H. Subsections 23Q and 23S are same verbatim. This shows carelessness...
I. Provision about being on the school management committee should also be
extended to parents with disabilities.
J. Education reform commission should suggest pedagogical methodology for
teaching of inclusive curriculum not only to children with disabilities but to
every one disabled or not alike. From existing provisions, one gets impression
that commission is to design a separate inclusive curriculum for disabled
children and suggest measures for its adoption into mainstream. There should be
clarity in drafting the provisions, as our country is replete with fools to
draw all sorts of exclusionary and negative interpretations.
K. All disability scholarships and benefits etc. should be mandated to be
given in addition to other scholarships/benefits like merit scholarships or
caste scholarships and not in exclusion to them, as disability is a supervening
difficulty.
Employment work and Occupation till right to social security
Section 24
A. In subsection 1, the words, "working conditions etc." should be added while
providing for non discrimination in employment.
B. In proviso to subsection 2, the word "support" has been mentioned without
defining it. We cannot presume that it would have same meaning as in section
23 on education.
C. In the same proviso, it is not clear whether disability is acquired, or
a disabled employee who has disability at the time of recruitment also can
claim benefit of the subsection concerning undue stress.
D. In subsection 3 about facilitating reasonable accommodation,
"modification in work processes and procedures" has to be provided in
explanation.
E. The subsection about reasonable accommodation, better called enabling
environment, should be couched in more mandatory language.
F. Nothing is provided for financial aspect of facilitating reasonable
accommodation. In our opinion, government, concerned establishment, and DRA
national disability fund, all have to bear the financial costs of such
enablement.
G. In subsection 2 of explanation, it said that any person with disability,
if eligible, has a right to compete for the post and occupy it if selected.
Now, the eligibility criteria more often than not, lay down medical standards
debarring certain impairments from the job. The subsection should clearly
provide that a person with disability has a right to be considered for the post
with reasonable accommodation/enabling technology etc. Of course, this is
easier said than done, in India.
H. Subsection 3 about non transferability of employees with disabilities
except on the ground of job exigencies and expertise of the employee, should be
more specific. It should provide that employees with disabilities are exempt
from routine transfers, but they can be given request transfer to centers of
their choice or places in or around their native towns. This would incorporate
already existing government GRs on the subject and would also guard against
absolutistic interpretations to which existing language of the subsection is
susceptible to the detriment of disabled employees. Under existing phraseology,
even genuine request for transfers are liable to be rejected. Grounds of job
exigencies in conjunction with expertise of employees is fair enough, but only
if exercised conjunctively, i.e. transferring establishment has to show that
particular expertise of an employee is genuinely required at a particular place
before transferring a disabled employee.
Section 24B
A. in subsection 1 about reservation, the words "all posts in each of the all
cadres, groups and classes" should be used. This is necessary in order to put
at rest any and all controversies that have already arisen about interpretation
of existing section 33, and mandate the reservation of six percentage posts in
every class/group of employment.
B. Reservation in promotion should not be introduced in a cowardly fashion as
is done at present by mentioning it in the same breath with reservation of
vacancies in all posts. It will create needless confusion and even the
objective of ensuring reservation in the initial appointments would be
jeopardized. It seems committee has not applied its mind and has merely
included the words "promotion" to please disability sector. Separate provision
is required, and committee should come up with one.
C. Again, vacancy based reservation is continued in the new act, whereas
reservation for other weaker sections is post based, and we would do well to
adopt it.
D. Retention of list of identified jobs by way of subsection 4 providing for
preferential appointments is inadequate and misleading. It should be explicitly
mentioned that these lists are being maintained by way of guidance and securing
appointments without exhausting the scope for employment of the disabled.
Subsection 4 would confine appointments to 2010 identification, and worse
still, there will be no updation of the lists. There is no harm even in keeping
the updation of list of identified jobs alive, but mentioning explicitly that
this is illustrative in nature. Job identification has ensured jobs for some by
providing guidance and laying down specific job profiles, we should not throw
baby out with bathwater in the name of equality. Further, no jobs are
identified for newly included categories of disability like autism,
intellectual disabilities, CP, MD, MS, etc. Non discrimination in employment
is a laudable goal, but these lists are also a good means to accomplish it, and
they should be made explicitly illustrative, providing for equality and
appointment in all other posts vacancies and jobs by creating enabling
environment and reasonable accommodation. Subsection 4 may contain initial
words to the effect that this subsection is subject to subsection 1 of section
24A, providing for equality and non discrimination in employment.
E. While mentioning categories of disabilities for reserving vacancies, the
word "and", is used. It is open to misinterpretation as "Autism, intellectual
disability and mental illness", or "Cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy", as
all the disabilities persisting in the same individual to claim reservation.
so, the word "Or", instead of "and", should be used to clarify the reservation
provisions. We have to be extra careful, abundantly cautious witnessing the
shabby implementation and interpretation of the present act.
E. In subsection 24C, about no discrimination in promotion, specific grounds
like efficiency, safety of co-workers etc. laid down by supreme court in the
judgment Union of India v. Devendra kumar Pant denying promotion to an employee
with color blindness, have to be mentioned as not to be used for affecting
discrimination.
F. In section 24D about equal opportunity policy, non existent section 62,
of this act is mentioned. Such absurdities should be removed. They reflect
badly not only on the mindset of committee members, but on the disability
sector as a whole.
G. Equal opportunity policy should also mention specifics of enabling steps
and reasonable accommodation being provided to serving employees and what new
recruits can expect.
H. Specific percentage of loan schemes, self employment schemes should be
earmarked for persons with disabilities, instead of just laying down that
government shall make adequate provisions.
I. Subsection 5 of 24G, about recruited person desiring specific training
for support, should be moved to earlier subsections about employment, training
in assistive devices etc. should be clearly provided for.
J. There is urgent need for defining role of human support in employment and
doing the job. It has to be Suitably devised with adequate safeguards.
K. Again, in subsection 24I 3, obligation under section 19A3 is mentioned. It
is not clear which obligation is being talked about, as section 19 of the
present act relates to independent living.
L. Provisions about employee acquiring disability and non reduction in rank,
etc. should be consolidated into one subsection instead of spreading it over
section 24.
Right to Health till participation in cultural life leisure recreation and
sports
Section 26A
B. In this subsection about insurance by establishments, merely saying "on
equal basis with others" is not enough, but disability specific services should
also be covered.
C. In section 28 about sports culture etc. specific mandate should be
provided for government cultural and sports bodies to spend a minimum of six
percentage of their funds on including disabled. In all awards, prizes and
recognition by government, disability component should be included. Sahitya
academies etc. should be obligated to support disabled artists financially and
otherwise. All government schemes should carry a disability audit by DRA.
Regulatory and Adjudicative authorities till Annual report of the Disability
Rights
Section 29
A. the name of authority is disability rights authority. It is liable to be
misinterpreted as cattering only to rights in parts ii and iii, and not to
programmatic entitlements in part iv. Either part iv be renamed "programmatic
entitlements to secure specific rights of persons with disabilities", or this
authority be renamed "Disability rights and entitlements authority."
A. Electoral college for electing fourteen members of Disability rights
authority, DRA who should be persons with disabilities, mentions that it should
consist of organization of persons with disabilities registered under this act,
of National trust act. However, this act does not at all contain any provision
for registration of any organization. This is a grave negligent piece of
legislation. Moreover, confining electoral college to organizations is not
warranted. All persons with disabilities should have a vote in electing these
members.
B. In composition of executive board, five instead of four members with
disabilities should be incorporated to give the disabled majority in nine
member board.
C. In subsection 29G, instead of saying that contribution to national
disability fund by public sector undertakings shall be deemed fulfillment of
their corporate social responsibility, it should be said that such contribution
shall form a part of their corporate social responsibility. The present
phraseology seems to absolve them of their CSR by giving some contribution to
the fund.
D.
Sole use of national fund for functions of DRA is unjustified. It should be
mandated to be used for meeting in part expenses by establishments for
reasonable accommodation and on other measures to enforce this act.
E. DRA should be mandated to curbe derogatory portrayal of disability.
Court of the National Disability Commissioner till Penalty
Section 29R
A. Court of national disability commissioner should also be empowered to
impose penalties in the nature of pecuniary fines and award such fines as
compensations to the victim.
B. In subsection 29S2 state government must be mandated to establish required
number of benches of state disability commissioner's court, and so the word
used should be "shall" and not "may".
C. In subsection 29Z about enforcement of orders of state disability
commissioner's court, words court and commissioner are missing. This again
shows carelessness in drafting.
D. State disability commissioner's court also should be empowered to impose
penalties in the nature of pecuniary fines and award compensation.
E. There is no analogous section like subsection 29S which enumerates
functions of state disability court.
F. national disability court should be empowered to award compensation like
state disability court.
Offenses and Penalties till penalty for hate speech
Section 30
In subsection 30G about aggravation of punishments in IPC if offence is
committed on the ground that a person is person with disabilities, the clause
on the ground that person is with person with disabilities should be
substituted with "If the offence is committed against a person with disability
or her/his property". This is so, as it is next to impossible to prove that
offence was committed on the ground of disability, and here offence is not
being defined, but sentencing policy is being fine tuned in favor of persons
with disabilities. So, it is enough as aggravating factor if an offence is
committed against a person with disabilities, or it is committed at least with
the knowledge of disability.
B. penalties as mentioned elsewhere in comments
Also should be laid down.
C. in section 30B laying general penalty for violation of any provision of
this act, community service should be provided as the general penalty instead
of imprisonment, and such community service should be suitably chosen to
reflect the disability with reference to which the offence was committed or
provision violated. For ex. If there is failure to provide reasonable
accommodation/enabling environment to blind for reading the printed text, then
the person concerned may be mandated to read out to blind persons for certain
period.
Miscellaneous till power to make regulations
Section 31
A. This section does not cover all instances where appropriate government is
mandated to put in place relevant rules in various sections, prominent among
such exceptions is no rules/regulations about committee to be constituted for
devising sociomedical scale of disability.
D. section numbers are wrongly mentioned. They need to be corrected.
E. There should be a provision to lay the rules before parliament/legislature
and even for their modification by it.
With thanks and regards
(Rajesh Asudani)
Assistant General Manager
Reserve Bank of India
Nagpur
Cell: 9420397185
o: +91 712 2806846
R: 2591349
"The path from dreams to success does exist. May you have the vision to find
it, the courage to get on to it, and
the perseverance to follow it. Wishing you great journey."
-Kalpana Chawla
(An excert from the e-mail Kalpana sent to the students of Punjab Engineering
College from aboard Columbia.)
"The path from dreams to success does exist. May you have the vision to find
it, the courage to get on to it, and
the perseverance to follow it. Wishing you great journey."
-Kalpana Chawla
(An excert from the e mail sent from Columbia
-mail Kalpana sent to the students of Punjab Engineering College from aboard
Columbia.)
________________________________
Notice: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this
e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email by error, please notify us by return e-mail or telephone
and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. The
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of
viruses. The Reserve Bank of India accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any virus transmitted by this email.
Get numbers right this time, help the census with correct disability info!
Question 9 relates to disability.
