Ananth Krishnan’s article “The invisible 83 million”, appeared in THE HINDU, 26 October 2008, is a wonderful attempt to pull the society for its failure to become sensitive towards persons with disabilities. The author has nicely presented the story of Gao Yu Li of China who had only child with Cerebral Palsy. Shortly after the child was born, her husband left her. She did not bow down to the circumstances. On the other hand, she put a tuff fight against all the odds. The most important message Gao has given to all of us “Take your kids out to the park, to the shops, wherever you can, and however difficult it might be, because that is the only way people will ever become used to us”.
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
M-09811101923
Monday, October 27, 2008
The invisible 83 million
Saturday, May 10, 2008
STATUTORY EDUCATION SCHEME FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
RESULT OF SOCIAL JURIST PIL
Background note on the PIL
According to the letter dated 01.06.1999 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the population of disabled children is estimated to be about 20 millions in the country and that less than 1% of the disabled children have actually been brought to the schools so far. The letter further says that the response from the States, UTs has been rather inadequate despite the fact that IEDC scheme has 100% central funding with the result that the country has not even achieved the primary goal of having one integrated school in every district in the country. The budgetary allocation for the year 1998-99 for the scheme, which was fixed at Rs. 13.00 crores stood underutilized.
The situation since 1999 has not improved till date. In Delhi alone, it is estimated that there are about 2 lacs children with disabilities in the age group 6-18 years and only about 6,000/- such children are in school. One of the reasons of this unfortunate situation is that schools run by Govt. of Delhi and MCD are not disabled friendly and thus do not attract the children in school. On the other hand, the conditions of these schools are such that the students studying in these schools may be pushed out of the school at any time. This is reflected in the high percentage of dropouts both in Government and MCD schools.
The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 came into force w.e.f. 07.02.1996. The children with disabilities are prevented to receive education because of several problems like lack of transport facilities, architectural barriers in the school, lack of supply of book, uniform and other material, non-availability of scholarship, lack of setting up of appropriate fora for the redressal of grievances of parents regarding the placement of their children, lack of suitable modification in the examination system to eliminate purely mathematical questions for the benefit of the blind students and students with low vision, lack of restructuring of curriculum for benefit of children with hearing impairment to facilitate them to take only one language as part of their curriculum etc. The lack of aforesaid and other facilities not only prevents the out of school children with disabilities to come in school but also creates situation for school going children with disabilities to stop attending school. It is, therefore, necessary that adequate provisions are made to make the aforesaid and other such facilities, which the children with disabilities, need in order to enable them to attend the school.
That the Section 30 of the PWD Act, 1995 was enacted with a view to overcome the aforementioned and other problems. In terms of the Section 30 of PWD Act, 1995, the Government is required by notification to prepare a comprehensive education scheme providing for transport facilities, supply of books etc. However, neither Central Government nor any State Government/UT has prepared such a scheme. In this backdrop of facts, Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group filed PIL on 18.02.2003 in Delhi High Court. The grievances made in the PIL are firstly, the governments have not till date by notification prepared a comprehensive educational scheme for the benefit of all disabled children studying in the various schools in Delhi as required under Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995, Secondly, the centrally sponsored scheme of IEDC (1976-77) is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995 as the said scheme has never been notified as per the provisions of Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995 and also that the said scheme has not dealt with all kinds of benefits contemplated in Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, and further that the said scheme is not in accordance with the letters and spirit of Section 30 of PDW Act, 1995. Thirdly, the said IEDC scheme (1976-77) is obsolete and unworkable as the rate at which benefits have been prescribed are totally inadequate and are totally incomprehensive. Fourthly, the said scheme is arbitrary and discriminatory as it covers children with disabilities only in 141 schools run by Government of Delhi and does not cover thousands of other children with disabilities studying in other 870 schools run by Government of Delhi, 1887 schools run by MCD, Government and MCD aided schools and also other schools of Delhi. Fifthly, the grant given by Human Resource Development Ministry, Government of India remained unutilized and unspent. Sixthly, the benefits whatsoever provided in the said scheme are denied to the children with disabilities studying in government run schools that are in dire need of the same. Hence, the present public interest petition.
The PIL came for the hearing first time before the High Court on 19.02.2003 when the High Court was pleased to issue notices to the Government of India, Delhi Government and MCD and asked them to submit their replies. The PIL again came up for hearing before the High Court on 24.9.2003 when the High Court passed the following orders:
“Order
24.09.2003
By making law it is declared to the people at large that the government is coming up with a policy for disabled children so that they can make progress. So far as the children of rich people are concerned, they are not likely to make a grievance before the Court. However, the children belonging to poor strata have no voice. It is seen that no action has been taken. Therefore, this petition has been filed. It is a sorry state of affairs that despite legislation of 1996, the Secretaries of the concerned departments are fighting inter se as to who should bear the cost or make payment. Despite the cognizance taken by the court on 19.2.2003, no action has been taken till date. If by the next date, action is not taken, then the concerned Joint Secretaries shall remain present before the court without fail.
List on 1.10.2003
Sd/-
Chief Justice
Sd/-
A.K. Sikri, J.”
The PIL then came up for hearing before the High Court on 28.7.2004 when the Additional Solicitor General of India made a statement that the scheme will be notified, which is under preparation, by the end of October. The matter was adjourned to 10.11.2004.
That on 10.11.2004, when the PIL came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice B.C. Patel and Justice B.D. Ahmed, the counsel for the Govt. of India informed the court that Government of India has by notification dated 04.11.2004 prepared a comprehensive education scheme for the children with disabilities. A copy of the notification-dated 04.11.2004 was placed on the court record. The counsel for the Govt. of Delhi made a statement in the Court that Govt. of Delhi will follow the scheme notified on 04.11.2004. In view of this development, the High Court disposed of the PIL.
Implications of this notified comprehensive education scheme prepared by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment published in the Gazette of India by notification dated 4.11.2004.
1. This scheme is a statutory scheme under the PWD Act, 1995 and the Court can be approached for implementation of the same.
2. It will cover the entire country and benefit all the children with disabilities estimated to be 20 millions.
3. It is a landmark achievement for the on going disability rights movement in the country.
4. The High Court’s intervention in the PIL has compelled the government to discharge their statutory obligations of framing comprehensive education scheme for the children with disabilities.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
Background note on the PIL
According to the letter dated 01.06.1999 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the population of disabled children is estimated to be about 20 millions in the country and that less than 1% of the disabled children have actually been brought to the schools so far. The letter further says that the response from the States, UTs has been rather inadequate despite the fact that IEDC scheme has 100% central funding with the result that the country has not even achieved the primary goal of having one integrated school in every district in the country. The budgetary allocation for the year 1998-99 for the scheme, which was fixed at Rs. 13.00 crores stood underutilized.
The situation since 1999 has not improved till date. In Delhi alone, it is estimated that there are about 2 lacs children with disabilities in the age group 6-18 years and only about 6,000/- such children are in school. One of the reasons of this unfortunate situation is that schools run by Govt. of Delhi and MCD are not disabled friendly and thus do not attract the children in school. On the other hand, the conditions of these schools are such that the students studying in these schools may be pushed out of the school at any time. This is reflected in the high percentage of dropouts both in Government and MCD schools.
The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 came into force w.e.f. 07.02.1996. The children with disabilities are prevented to receive education because of several problems like lack of transport facilities, architectural barriers in the school, lack of supply of book, uniform and other material, non-availability of scholarship, lack of setting up of appropriate fora for the redressal of grievances of parents regarding the placement of their children, lack of suitable modification in the examination system to eliminate purely mathematical questions for the benefit of the blind students and students with low vision, lack of restructuring of curriculum for benefit of children with hearing impairment to facilitate them to take only one language as part of their curriculum etc. The lack of aforesaid and other facilities not only prevents the out of school children with disabilities to come in school but also creates situation for school going children with disabilities to stop attending school. It is, therefore, necessary that adequate provisions are made to make the aforesaid and other such facilities, which the children with disabilities, need in order to enable them to attend the school.
That the Section 30 of the PWD Act, 1995 was enacted with a view to overcome the aforementioned and other problems. In terms of the Section 30 of PWD Act, 1995, the Government is required by notification to prepare a comprehensive education scheme providing for transport facilities, supply of books etc. However, neither Central Government nor any State Government/UT has prepared such a scheme. In this backdrop of facts, Social Jurist, A Lawyers Group filed PIL on 18.02.2003 in Delhi High Court. The grievances made in the PIL are firstly, the governments have not till date by notification prepared a comprehensive educational scheme for the benefit of all disabled children studying in the various schools in Delhi as required under Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995, Secondly, the centrally sponsored scheme of IEDC (1976-77) is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995 as the said scheme has never been notified as per the provisions of Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, 1995 and also that the said scheme has not dealt with all kinds of benefits contemplated in Section 30 of P.D.W. Act, and further that the said scheme is not in accordance with the letters and spirit of Section 30 of PDW Act, 1995. Thirdly, the said IEDC scheme (1976-77) is obsolete and unworkable as the rate at which benefits have been prescribed are totally inadequate and are totally incomprehensive. Fourthly, the said scheme is arbitrary and discriminatory as it covers children with disabilities only in 141 schools run by Government of Delhi and does not cover thousands of other children with disabilities studying in other 870 schools run by Government of Delhi, 1887 schools run by MCD, Government and MCD aided schools and also other schools of Delhi. Fifthly, the grant given by Human Resource Development Ministry, Government of India remained unutilized and unspent. Sixthly, the benefits whatsoever provided in the said scheme are denied to the children with disabilities studying in government run schools that are in dire need of the same. Hence, the present public interest petition.
The PIL came for the hearing first time before the High Court on 19.02.2003 when the High Court was pleased to issue notices to the Government of India, Delhi Government and MCD and asked them to submit their replies. The PIL again came up for hearing before the High Court on 24.9.2003 when the High Court passed the following orders:
“Order
24.09.2003
By making law it is declared to the people at large that the government is coming up with a policy for disabled children so that they can make progress. So far as the children of rich people are concerned, they are not likely to make a grievance before the Court. However, the children belonging to poor strata have no voice. It is seen that no action has been taken. Therefore, this petition has been filed. It is a sorry state of affairs that despite legislation of 1996, the Secretaries of the concerned departments are fighting inter se as to who should bear the cost or make payment. Despite the cognizance taken by the court on 19.2.2003, no action has been taken till date. If by the next date, action is not taken, then the concerned Joint Secretaries shall remain present before the court without fail.
List on 1.10.2003
Sd/-
Chief Justice
Sd/-
A.K. Sikri, J.”
The PIL then came up for hearing before the High Court on 28.7.2004 when the Additional Solicitor General of India made a statement that the scheme will be notified, which is under preparation, by the end of October. The matter was adjourned to 10.11.2004.
That on 10.11.2004, when the PIL came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice B.C. Patel and Justice B.D. Ahmed, the counsel for the Govt. of India informed the court that Government of India has by notification dated 04.11.2004 prepared a comprehensive education scheme for the children with disabilities. A copy of the notification-dated 04.11.2004 was placed on the court record. The counsel for the Govt. of Delhi made a statement in the Court that Govt. of Delhi will follow the scheme notified on 04.11.2004. In view of this development, the High Court disposed of the PIL.
Implications of this notified comprehensive education scheme prepared by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment published in the Gazette of India by notification dated 4.11.2004.
1. This scheme is a statutory scheme under the PWD Act, 1995 and the Court can be approached for implementation of the same.
2. It will cover the entire country and benefit all the children with disabilities estimated to be 20 millions.
3. It is a landmark achievement for the on going disability rights movement in the country.
4. The High Court’s intervention in the PIL has compelled the government to discharge their statutory obligations of framing comprehensive education scheme for the children with disabilities.
By Advocate Ashok Agarwal
Thursday, May 8, 2008
DISABLED TOO ARE EQUAL CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bhagwan Dass vs Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579 expressed its anguish against the employer for failure to respect the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
The Hon’ble Judges observed, “ This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harboured by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of this case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of Appellant 1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous”.
The Hon’ble Judges further observed, “ We understand that the officers concerned were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mindset it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty-bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful right of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the officers failed to realize that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problem for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largesse but their right as equal citizens of the country”.
The Hon’ble Judges observed, “ This case highlights the highly insensitive and apathetic attitude harboured by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. The facts of this case reveal that officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were quite aware of the statutory rights of Appellant 1 and their corresponding obligation yet they denied him his lawful dues by means that can only be called disingenuous”.
The Hon’ble Judges further observed, “ We understand that the officers concerned were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Still under the old mindset it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty-bound to follow the law and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful right of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the officers failed to realize that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problem for the society at large. What the law permits to them is no charity or largesse but their right as equal citizens of the country”.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Directives to States on persons with disabilities
NEW DELHI: Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Meira Kumar has written to all Chief Ministers bringing to their notice the provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and urging suitable action by the administrative bodies in regard to raising awareness, accessibility, personal mobility, and security.
‘Ensure freedom’
She has also asked the States to ensure freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse, ability to live independently, education, health, rehabilitation, employment and ensuring adequate standard of living for persons with disabilities.
The Convention, which came into effect on Saturday, was evolved after international consensus on the subject. It was signed by India on March 30, 2007. In so doing, India reaffirmed its commitment towards the International Policy Framework in respect of the persons with disabilities.
Subsequently, India was also among the first countries to ratify the Convention on October 1, 2007 and with the 20th ratification happening on April 3, 2008, the Convention came into force one month later. The purpose of the Convention is “to promote, protect and ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”
India has enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act in 1995 and certain other laws, and has taken certain other institution-building measures for persons with disabilities.
Also the National Policy for Disabled People, adopted in 2006, comprehensively spelt out the goals towards full acknowledgement and exercise of all human rights of persons with disabilities as well as promoting a broad commitment to accessibility, autonomy and equality of opportunity for them.
-The Hindu
Special Correspondent
Monday, May 05, 2008
Special Correspondent
Monday, May 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
