[AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari
-Original Message- From: worldopin...@googlegroups.com [mailto:worldopin...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of avinash shahi Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:33 PM To: jnuvision; accessindia Cc: worldopinion Subject: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India,ByJayna Kothari The Future of Disability Law in India A Critical Analysis of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 Jayna Kothari OUP India 240 pages | 215x140mm 978-0-19-807762-6 | Hardback | 15 March 2012 Price: £25. Reviewed By V. VENKATESAN In her book, Jayna Kothari takes us through the debates on equality in the context of disability. The Indian Constitution does not have any substantive equality provisions under the Fundamental Rights chapter in favour of disabled persons. There is no guarantee from the state to prevent discrimination due to disability. It is unfortunate that our founding fathers did not realise the need for such a provision. As the author explains, disability results in consequences that include marginalisation in every sphere of life, be it denial of education, employment, recreation, income, identity or social recognition. This has, in turn, led to the invisibility of disabled people as subjects of human rights law. India began late in disability legislation. The first was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). The author begins her book observing that despite being on the statute book for more than 16 years, the Act is not understood well by lawyers, judges, academics, students and civil society groups. According to the recent Census data cited in the book, there are 21.9 million people with disabilities in India, that is, about 2.13 per cent of the total population. The author suggests that this figure may be an underestimate if one accepts the World Health Organisation (WHO) argument that at least 10-12 per cent of the population in any country is likely to be disabled. In the first chapter, the author rightly asks why disability has not been included in the Constitution as a ground for prohibition of discrimination. Taking her cue from the Delhi High Court's judgment in the Naz Foundation case, she suggests that grounds analogous to those stated in Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) should also be protected grounds for discrimination. Her plea is that disability should be included as a ground for non-discrimination under Article 15(1) as it is analogous to the protected grounds. Similarly, she suggests that the non-discrimination provision under Article 16(2) should be read to include disability as an analogous ground for non-discrimination in public employment. Article 16(2) says that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the state. She argues that persons with disability can also be considered by the state as socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4), and the principle of substantive equality would require the state to make special provisions or legislation for their advancement. She makes a convincing case for the inclusion of persons with disability within backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state and therefore would qualify for special provisions in its favour under Article 16(4). The author finds the definition of disability under the PWD Act both faulty and inadequate and because of this she regrets that we have been able to capture only a fraction of the complex reality of disablement. The PWD Act mentions only seven specific disabilities: blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation and mental illness. Calling this a medical model (rather than a social model) of disability, Jayna Kothari argues that the Act ought to have focussed on the effect of impairment, which may prevent persons from carrying on their day-to-day activities or having access to facilities. She is in favour of a broader definition of disability, one which defines a disabled person as someone who has a disability. Such a broad definition, she claims, will empower the disabled as they will no longer have to prove that they are abnormal or focus on their deficits when they assert their rights. Among the disabilities left out in the current definition under the PWD Act are muscular dystrophy, cystic fibriosis, and some forms of hearing and vision loss. Others such as seizure conditions, multiple sclerosis, loss of a limb, cancer, paralysis, HIV/AIDS, persons suffering from internal organ failure and epilepsy also do not find a mention in the current definition under the
Re: [AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari
Hi Wonder what is the reference of the latest disability figure. To my understanding the Census figure on disability is still not out. Harish Kotian. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Asudani, Rajesh Sent: 18 October 2012 10:13 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: [AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari -Original Message- From: worldopin...@googlegroups.com [mailto:worldopin...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of avinash shahi Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:33 PM To: jnuvision; accessindia Cc: worldopinion Subject: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India,ByJayna Kothari The Future of Disability Law in India A Critical Analysis of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 Jayna Kothari OUP India 240 pages | 215x140mm 978-0-19-807762-6 | Hardback | 15 March 2012 Price: £25. Reviewed By V. VENKATESAN In her book, Jayna Kothari takes us through the debates on equality in the context of disability. The Indian Constitution does not have any substantive equality provisions under the Fundamental Rights chapter in favour of disabled persons. There is no guarantee from the state to prevent discrimination due to disability. It is unfortunate that our founding fathers did not realise the need for such a provision. As the author explains, disability results in consequences that include marginalisation in every sphere of life, be it denial of education, employment, recreation, income, identity or social recognition. This has, in turn, led to the invisibility of disabled people as subjects of human rights law. India began late in disability legislation. The first was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). The author begins her book observing that despite being on the statute book for more than 16 years, the Act is not understood well by lawyers, judges, academics, students and civil society groups. According to the recent Census data cited in the book, there are 21.9 million people with disabilities in India, that is, about 2.13 per cent of the total population. The author suggests that this figure may be an underestimate if one accepts the World Health Organisation (WHO) argument that at least 10-12 per cent of the population in any country is likely to be disabled. In the first chapter, the author rightly asks why disability has not been included in the Constitution as a ground for prohibition of discrimination. Taking her cue from the Delhi High Court's judgment in the Naz Foundation case, she suggests that grounds analogous to those stated in Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) should also be protected grounds for discrimination. Her plea is that disability should be included as a ground for non-discrimination under Article 15(1) as it is analogous to the protected grounds. Similarly, she suggests that the non-discrimination provision under Article 16(2) should be read to include disability as an analogous ground for non-discrimination in public employment. Article 16(2) says that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the state. She argues that persons with disability can also be considered by the state as socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4), and the principle of substantive equality would require the state to make special provisions or legislation for their advancement. She makes a convincing case for the inclusion of persons with disability within backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state and therefore would qualify for special provisions in its favour under Article 16(4). The author finds the definition of disability under the PWD Act both faulty and inadequate and because of this she regrets that we have been able to capture only a fraction of the complex reality of disablement. The PWD Act mentions only seven specific disabilities: blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation and mental illness. Calling this a medical model (rather than a social model) of disability, Jayna Kothari argues that the Act ought to have focussed on the effect of impairment, which may prevent persons from carrying on their day-to-day activities or having access to facilities. She is in favour of a broader definition of disability, one which defines a disabled person as someone who has a disability. Such a broad definition, she claims, will empower the disabled as they will no longer have to prove that they are abnormal
Re: [AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari
It is the same old figure of 2001 census. It should of course be considered the latest in disability parlence Smile!!! -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Kotian, H P Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:34 AM To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: Re: [AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari Hi Wonder what is the reference of the latest disability figure. To my understanding the Census figure on disability is still not out. Harish Kotian. -Original Message- From: AccessIndia [mailto:accessindia-boun...@accessindia.org.in] On Behalf Of Asudani, Rajesh Sent: 18 October 2012 10:13 To: accessindia@accessindia.org.in Subject: [AI] FW: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India, ByJayna Kothari -Original Message- From: worldopin...@googlegroups.com [mailto:worldopin...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of avinash shahi Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:33 PM To: jnuvision; accessindia Cc: worldopinion Subject: (WorldOpinion) Book Review: The Future of Disability Law in India,ByJayna Kothari The Future of Disability Law in India A Critical Analysis of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 Jayna Kothari OUP India 240 pages | 215x140mm 978-0-19-807762-6 | Hardback | 15 March 2012 Price: £25. Reviewed By V. VENKATESAN In her book, Jayna Kothari takes us through the debates on equality in the context of disability. The Indian Constitution does not have any substantive equality provisions under the Fundamental Rights chapter in favour of disabled persons. There is no guarantee from the state to prevent discrimination due to disability. It is unfortunate that our founding fathers did not realise the need for such a provision. As the author explains, disability results in consequences that include marginalisation in every sphere of life, be it denial of education, employment, recreation, income, identity or social recognition. This has, in turn, led to the invisibility of disabled people as subjects of human rights law. India began late in disability legislation. The first was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act). The author begins her book observing that despite being on the statute book for more than 16 years, the Act is not understood well by lawyers, judges, academics, students and civil society groups. According to the recent Census data cited in the book, there are 21.9 million people with disabilities in India, that is, about 2.13 per cent of the total population. The author suggests that this figure may be an underestimate if one accepts the World Health Organisation (WHO) argument that at least 10-12 per cent of the population in any country is likely to be disabled. In the first chapter, the author rightly asks why disability has not been included in the Constitution as a ground for prohibition of discrimination. Taking her cue from the Delhi High Court's judgment in the Naz Foundation case, she suggests that grounds analogous to those stated in Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) should also be protected grounds for discrimination. Her plea is that disability should be included as a ground for non-discrimination under Article 15(1) as it is analogous to the protected grounds. Similarly, she suggests that the non-discrimination provision under Article 16(2) should be read to include disability as an analogous ground for non-discrimination in public employment. Article 16(2) says that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the state. She argues that persons with disability can also be considered by the state as socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4), and the principle of substantive equality would require the state to make special provisions or legislation for their advancement. She makes a convincing case for the inclusion of persons with disability within backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state and therefore would qualify for special provisions in its favour under Article 16(4). The author finds the definition of disability under the PWD Act both faulty and inadequate and because of this she regrets that we have been able to capture only a fraction of the complex reality of disablement. The PWD Act mentions only seven specific disabilities: blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation and mental illness. Calling this a medical model (rather than a social model) of disability, Jayna
