Hello friends!
While I am usually not very active on the social media, I somehow chanced
upon a report posted on the social media including on the facebook concerning a
seminar on challenges in the implementation of the RPD Act held yesterday at
the Pravasi bharteeya Kendra and hosted by the office of the CCPD. I appreciate
the young friend who took pains to do the reporting.
Since I too happened to participate there in a panel discussion on challenges
in the implementation of grievance redresal mechanisms, I thought it would be
expedient for me to put matters in perspective by sharing a broad gist of what
I had stated.
So, here goes the broad gist of some of the points I flagged up for reflection
while highlighting issues and challenges in respect of the matter:
1. While the functions of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities,
and the state Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as the case may be,
have been both widened and deepend, there is no commensurate and qualitative
enhancement in the powers of theChief Commissioner and the State Commissioner.
2. There is glaring mismatch between the functions of the Chief Commissioner
and the State commissioner and the qualification prescribed for these positions
in the parent Act though this issue appears to be getting addressed to an
extent in the draft rules.
3. In effect, the RPD Act explicitly states that Chief Commissioner and State
Commisioner can only recommend. It also says that the concerned authority is
free not to act on the recommendation of the Chief Commissioner and the
Commissioner in which case all it has to do is just to manufacture a reason for
not doing so and inform the Chief Commissioner or the commissioner accordingly.
4. referring to Section 75 [1] [b], I stated that the Chief Commissioner and
the State Commissioner should either have the discretion to decide which matter
it needs to refer to the Advisory Committee; or alternatively, the rules need
to ensure that the Advisory Committee meets very frequently so that
cases/complaints are disposed of with reasonable expedition.
5. I also stated that conflict of interest should be a disqualification for
appointment as Chief Commissioner and state Commissioner.
6. Stressing the need for primary stakeholders' participation in the
institutions of chief commissioner and State Commissioner, I emphasized that
the rules should explicitly state that other things being equal, preference
shall be given to candidates with disabilities while considering appointment of
Chief Commissioner and State Commissioner. The rules should further provide
that disability of a candidate shall be no disqualification for appointment as
chief commissioner and state commissioner.
7. I also pointed out the inherent contradiction between Section 23 [1] and [2]
and hammered home the need to grapple with this issue including by exploring
the possibility of clarifying it by issuing an order under Section 98 of the
Act on removal of difficulty.
8. I also stated that another order under Section 98 will be required to
address some confusion which is likely to arise as a result of nuanced
categorization of persons with disabilities. In that context, I added that I
had developed a brief note on this specific issue and shared it with the Govt.
I would be willing to share the note with whosoever wants it.
Needless to state here that the rules are intended only to operationalise the
provisions of the parent Act; and, one can not step out of the ambit of the
parent Act.
Vikas Kapoor,
Mobile: (+91) 9891098137, 9013354994
Skype Id: dl_vikas
Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send a message to
[email protected]
with the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity;
2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent
through this mailing list..
