I'm pasting two attachments 1. Letter to Minister with Suggestion NFB/E-29(23)/2013/ 21.1.2014
To Ms. Shelja Hon’ble Minister for Social Justice & Empowerment Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Subject: Protest against introduction and passing of the Bills on the rights of persons with disabilities in the present form. Respected Madam, May we draw your kind attention to our earlier representation dt.11.10.13 wherein we have requested your honour to consider our suggestions on the proposed Bill before finalization and approval by the Cabinet. However, inspite of your assurance, the Bill has been got approved from the Cabinet without addressing some of the vital issues raised by us. The entire blindness community is shocked, concerned and alarmed by the urgency shown by the Govt. to introduce and ensure its passage in the coming session of the Parliament without even appreciating its negative impact on the existing rights and benefits to persons with disabilities in general and blind in particular. With great difficulty we could lay hands on the bill as approved by the Cabinet perusal of which has further increased our disappointment, resentment, anger and condemnation of the insensitivity of the Govt. towards our legitimate concerns. Some of the issues arising out of the present Bill on which no compromise can be made include the following: Low vision Definition given at Sl. No.11 of the Schedule to the Bill A perusal of the definition of blindness at Sl. No.2 of the schedule to the Bill when compared with the definition of low vision in question, clearly reveals that the Bill seeks to create further confusion with regard to certification of blindness and low vision to the detriment of the interest of the blind. It is pertinent to note here that while the definition of blindness given in the schedule provides that if anyone has a vision not exceeding 3/60 or 10/200 (snellen) in the better eye but at the same time the definition of low vision provides that if anyone has a vision not exceeding 6/18 or 20/60 and less than 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses, he may be certified as low vision. It implies that a person could fall in both the categories at the same time and certified so both blind and low vision. This is so because the definition of low vision allows a person to be certified as low vision if one has vision less than 6/60 or 20/200 making certain persons covered by the maximum range of vision for being certified as blind. As such, if the present definition of low vision is retained, the benefits which otherwise were also difficult to be obtained by the blind particularly totally blind, would become more difficult to be obtained by them. When the present exercise for drafting the present Bill was undertaken one of the issues raised by the blindness community was the problem of taking most of the vacancies reserved for the blind by low vision people because of them being preferred by the employers during selection in a subjective manner. This would further aggravate the situation to the detriment of the blind and therefore, the definition of low vision as given in the annexed suggestions should be substituted in the Bill before its introduction in the Parliament and the matter accordingly should be re-considered by the Cabinet. Section 32: Identification of post Section 32 of the Proposed Bill seeks to mandate the appropriate Govt. to identify posts for the purpose of reserving them for benchmark disabilities. It is pertinent to mention here that this provision is contrary to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases titled as Govt. of India Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta reported as JT 2010(6) SC 491and UOI & Anr. Vs. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. Reported as 2013(12) SCALE 588. The said judgments clearly provide that the purpose of identification has nothing to do with the reservation but the same is only for the purpose of using the vacancies in those posts identified suitable for each category of the disability for filling up the reservation quota for each of them in terms of Section 33. The relevant extract of the said judgments are reproduced hereinbelow: Govt. of India Through Secretary Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta “While it cannot be denied that unless posts are identified for the purposes of Sectiion 33 of the aforesaid Act, no appointments from the reserved categories contained therein can be made, and that to such extent the provisions of section 33 are dependent on section 32 of the Act, as submitted by the learned ASG, but the extent of such dependence would be for the pourpose of making appointments and not for the purpose of making reservation. In other words, reservation under section 33 of the Act is not dependent on identification, as urged on behalf of Union of India” UOI Vs. National Federation of the Blind & ors. 29) In the light of the above pronouncement, it is clear that the scope of identification comes into picture only at the time of appointment of a person in the post identified for disabled persons and is not necessarily relevant at the time of computing 3% reservation under Section 33 of the Act. In succinct, it was held in Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra) that Section 32 of the Act is not a precondition for computation of reservation of 3% under Section 33 of the Act rather Section 32 is the following effect of Section 33. 30) Apart from the reasoning of this Court in Ravi Prakash Gupta (supra), even a reading of Section 33, at the outset,establishes vividly the intention of the legislature viz., reservation of 3% for differently abled persons should have to be computed on the basis of total vacancies in the strength of a cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies available in the identified posts. There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 33 and from the construction of the said statutory provision only one meaning is possible. 31) A perusal of section 33 of the Act reveals that this section has been divided A perusal of Section 33 of the Act reveals that this section has been divided into three parts. The first part is “every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability.” It is evident from this part that it mandates every appropriate Government shall appoint a minimum of 3% vacancies in its establishments for persons with disabilities. In this light, the contention of the Union of India that reservation in terms of Section 33 has to be computed against identified posts only is not tenable by any method of interpretation of this part of the Section. 32) The second part of this section starts as follows: “…of which one percent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment& locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability.” From the above, it is clear that it deals with distribution of 3% posts in every establishment among 3 categories of disabilities. It starts from the word “of which”. The word “of which” has to relate to appointing not less than 3% vacancies in an establishment and, in any way, it does not refer to the identified posts. In fact, the contention of the Union of India is sought to be justified by bringing the last portion of the second part of the section viz. “….identified posts” in this very first part which deals with the statutory obligation imposed upon the appropriate Government to “appoint not less than 3% vacancies for the persons or class of persons with disabilities.” In our considered view, it is not plausible in the light of established rules of interpretation. The minimum level of representation of persons with disabilities has been provided in this very first part and the second part deals with the distribution of this 3% among the three categories of disabilities. Further, in the last portion of the second part the words used are “in the identified posts for each disability” and not “of identified posts”. This can only mean that out of minimum 3% of vacancies of posts in the establishments 1% each has to be given to each of the 3 categories of disability viz.,blind and low vision, hearing impaired and locomotor disabled or cerebral palsy separately and the number of appointments equivalent to the 1% for each disability out of total 3% has to be made against the vacancies in the identified posts. The attempt to read identified posts in the first part itself and also to read the same to have any relation with the computation of reservation is completely misconceived. 39) Further, if we accept the interpretation contended by the appellants that computation of reservation has to be against the identified posts only, it would result into uncertainty of the application of the scheme of reservation because experience has shown that identification has never been uniform between the Centre and States and even between the Departments of any Government. For example, while a post of middle school teacher has been notified as identified as suitable for the blind and low vision by the Central Government, it has not been identified as suitable for the blind and low vision in some States such as Gujarat and J&K etc. This has led to a series of litigations which have been pending in various High Courts. In addition, Para 4 of the OM dated 29.12.2005 dealing with the issue of identification of jobs/posts in sub clause (b) states that list of the jobs/posts notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is not exhaustive which further makes the computation of reservation uncertain and arbitrary in the event of acceptance of the contention raised by the appellants.” Thus, it is evident that the present provision seeks to negate the aforementioned legal position laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to purpose of identification of posts and linking it with the reservation. In the aforementioned pronouncements, the purpose of identification is only to use the vacancies for appointment and not for reserving the posts. Further, the intention of linking the identification with reservation is to dilute the legal position as enunciated in the aforementioned pronouncements is clear when one looks at Section 33 of the Bill which provides, "Every appropriate Govt. shall reserve in every establishment under them, not less than five percent of the vacancies meant to be filled for persons or class of persons with benchmark disability”. If the aforementioned provision in section 33 is read with section 32, it clearly would mean that the vacancies meant to be filled up for them would be referable to the posts identified U/S 32. As such, the alternative formulation given by us in the enclosed suggestion may be substituted for the present provision which is in line with the Supreme court pronouncements while interpreting the existing provisions with regard to identification and reservation in the present Act. We are also enclosing herewith the copies of aforementioned judgments. In view of the above, the formulation given in the accompanying suggestions may be substituted for Section 32. Scheme of reservation as contained in Section 33 of the Bill The provision in the Bill with regard to scheme of reservation as contained in section 33 is both self contradictory and an attempt to dilute the existing right. Section 33(1) provides for 5% reservation in every establishment for persons with disabilities in the vacancies meant to be filled up for them. Significantly, the formulation of the present corresponding section 33 of the existing Act which is sought to be replaced by the present formulation, has been completely changed by using the word “reserved” in place of the word “appoint” used in the existing provision. Further, the reservation has been linked with the vacancies meant to be filled for them which itself restricts the computation of reservation against identified posts. It is also pertinent to mention here that in fact, the use of expression “5% vacancies meant to be filled for persons or class of persons with benchmark disability” is wholly misconceived misplaced and conveys no clear meaning. Further, explanation to this section though provides for computation of vacancies for the purpose of reservation in the total cadre strength, in view of the above use of expression vacancies meant to be filled for persons with disabilities or class of persons with benchmark disabilities makes the provision self contradictory when read with section 32. Further, the explanation also does not make the reservation of 5% irrespective of the mode of recruitment though the Hon’ble apex court has already held so. Section 33(2) provides for carrying forward of the vacancies for one recruitment year and in that year interchange is allowed amongst different categories of disabilities and if even by allowing interchange, the vacancy could not be filled by a person with disability, in the next recruitment year, the employer is allowed to appoint a person without disability meaning thereby dereservation of the vacancy in 2nd recruitment year. This is contrary to existing office memorandum dt. 29.12.2005. Clause 16 of the office memorandum dt. 29.12.2005 is reproduced hereinbelow: INTER SE EXCHANGE AND CARRY FORWARD OF RESERVATION IN CASE OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT Reservation for each of the three categories of persons with disabilities shall be made separately. But if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a person of a specific category of disability cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the three categories with the approval of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and reservation may be determined and vacancies filled accordingly. If any vacancy reserved for any category of disability cannot be filled due to non-availability of a suitable person with the disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall not be filled and shall be carried forward as a backlog reserved vacancy’ to the subsequent recruitment year In the subsequent recruitment year the ‘backlog reserved vacancy’ shall be treated as reserved for the category of disability for which it was kept reserved in the initial year of recruitment. However, if a suitable person with that disability is not available, it may be filled by interchange among the three categories of disabilities. In case no suitable person with disability is available for filling up the post in the subsequent year also, the employer may fill up the vacancy by appointment of a persons other than a person with disability. If the vacancy is filled by a person with disability of the category for which it was reserved or by a person of other category of disability by inter se exchange in the subsequent recruitment year, it will be treated to have been filled by reservation. But if the vacancy is filled by a person other than a person with disability in the subsequent recruitment year, reservation shall be carried forward for a further period upto two recruitment years whereafter the reservation shall lapse. In these two subsequent years, if situation so arises, the procedure for filling up the reserved vacancy shall be the same as followed in the first subsequent recruitment year. Further, proviso to this sub section also gives power to the appropriate Govt. to allow interchange of the reservation of a particular category in favour of other category of disability at the threshold which provision does not exist at present. Such a power will definitely result into exclusion of those categories of disability in respect of whom there is a bias about their abilities and also who are with greater degree of disability. There are living examples of such arbitrariness. To court one, recently, northern Railways advertise certain Group D posts in which initially vacancies were reserved for the blind and low vision both but later on after the tests were over, the candidature of the blind are being sought to be rejected. Such a provision, therefore, cannot be accepted by any prudent activist. In view of the above, the formulation given in the accompanying suggestions may be substituted for Section 33 (1 ) & (2) Section 33(3) of the Bill regarding age relaxation This section reduces the existing age relaxation of 10 years in the upper age limit to 5 years for Govt. jobs in groups C & D. In view of the above, the formulation given in the accompanying suggestions may be substituted for Section 33 (3) Section 73(1) Constitution of National Commission for persons with disabilities The composition of National Commission for persons with disabilities as contained in section 73(1) provides for a Chair person and two members. Unlike other commissions for a particular category such as SC/ST/Minority etc. the Chair person of the Commission is not mandatorily to be a person with disability. Further, out of two members besides the Chair person, only one member is compulsorily to be a person with disability. Thus, unlike other aforementioned commissions, composition of National Commission for persons with disability does not ensure majority of persons with disabilities in the Commission. This is also contrary to the spirit of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with which the proposed Bill seeks to harmonize. Therefore, the alternative formulation to this section as contained in the annexed suggestions may be accepted and the present provision substituted by the said formulation. Section 83 Action by appropriate authorities on recommendation of the National Commission The National commission for persons with disabilities seeks to substitute the existing institution of Chief Commissioner and State Commissioner for persons with disabilities for looking into the complaints. The existing institution and its powers have come under judicial scrutiny on many occasions and the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in one of the judgments as well as Hon’ble Apex court has recognized the sanctity of the orders passed by the said Institution and its binding force. However, to negate such a positive judicial pronouncements the present section in the Bill dilutes the orders of the Commission to the status of a recommendation and further provides an option to the concerned authorities either to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the Commission. One of the important aspects which was being examined at the stage of drafting of the Bill was the weakness of the existing institution of grievance redressal and instead of offering a strong and better option, the Commission has been made weaker than the existing institution of Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the alternative formulation to this section as contained in the annexed suggestions may be accepted and the present provision substituted by the said formulation. Section 98 Special Court Section 98 of the Bill envisage a special court for trying the offences under it of the level of sessions judge in each district. However, the Bill does not provide any remedy and forum for seeking enforcement of rights under the Bill in the form of a Tribunal. As such, the Bill does not provide any judicial machinery for enforcement of rights under the bill which are of civil nature. On one hand, the Bill has envisaged a weaker commission for rederssal of grievance than the existing institution of Chief Commissioner and on the other hand, the Bill does not provide for any judicial machinery for redressal. Fruther, the Bill also restricts the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to try offences for violation of any provision under the Bill and regulations and Rules framed thereunder by persons and companies which do not include the violation by public servants and Govt. companies as is clear from sections 103 & 104 dealing with offences and penalties. Therefore, the alternative formulation to this section as contained in the annexed suggestions may be accepted and the present provision substituted by the said formulation. >From the above it is clear that the present Bill does not in any manner serve the interests of the persons with disabilities and in many instances, in fact, dilutes the existing rights and remedies and therefore, cannot be allowed to be introduced and passed in the present form in a hurry. The present move of the Govt. to push through the Bill as a publicity stunt before elections has compelled us to start an indefinite agitation till the Bill is reconsidered by the Cabinet in the light of our accompanying suggestions and modified accordingly on such reconsideration by the Cabinet from 27th of January, 2014 immediately after Republic Day. During this agitation, the Members of the Federaion will start with Dharna outside Shastri Bhawan, Prime Ministers House and outside the residence of Hon’ble Mrs. Sonia Gandhi Chairperson UPA and president AICC followed by relay hunger strike from 1st of February and fast unto death by one member joining each day from 3rd of February, 2014. Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, S.K. RUNGTA General Secretary 2. Download the original attachment SUGGESTIONS ON THE BILL ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CABINET FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE ITS INTRODUCTION SUBMITTED BY MR. S.K. RUNGTA, SR. ADVOCATE AND GENERAL SECRETARY NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND s. no Sec tion Suggestion Justification Alternative draft 1. Entry No./ S.No.11 of the Schedul Change of definition of low vision A perusal of the definition of blindness at Sl. No.2 of the schedule to the Bill when compared with the definition of low vision in question, clearly reveals that the Bill seeks to create further confusion with regard to certification of blindness and low vision to the detriment of the interest of the blind. It is pertinent to note here that while the definition of blindness given in the schedule provides that if anyone has a vision not exceeding 3/60 or 10/200 (snellen) in the better eye but at the same time the definition of low vision provides that if anyone has a vision not exceeding 6/18 or 20/60 and less than 6/60 or 20/200 (snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses, he may be certified as low vision. It implies that a person could fall in both the categories at the same time and certified so both blind and low vision. This is so because the definition of low vision allows a person to be certified as low vision if one has vision less than 6/60 or 20/200 making certain persons covered by the maximum range of vision for being certified as blind. The suggested draft of the definition in question hereunder is in line with the WHO definition of low vision. 11. LOW VISION “Low –vision” means a condition where a person has any of the following conditions, namely: Visual acuity not exceeding 6/18 or 20/60 and not less than 3/60 or 10/200 ( Snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses.” Limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle of more than 10 and upto 40 degree 3 16(h) Amend existing clause to delete “In appropriate cases” The proposed deletion is to make the scholarships available to all persons with disabilities without any distinction of any kind because extra expenditure involved in the education of person with disability due to different enabling educational techniques which are costlier than the general educational facilities should be borne by the appropriate govt. SECTION 16(h) To Provide scholarships to students with benchmark disability. 4 22(4) Section 22(4) needs to be redrafted as the appeal against the decision of the grievance officer should be made either to the National Commission for persons with disabilities or State Commissioner for persons with disabilities, as the case may be, instead of District Level Committee as District level committee has no administrative control over the erring officer or even over the establishment. The above suggestion is to make the mechanism effective tool for ensuring compliance of section 19 instead of making it only a weak mechanism for the sake of providing it. SECTION 22(4) If, the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the action taken on his or her complaint, he or she may approach the National Commission or to the State Commission for persons with disabilities as the case may be whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. 5 23(3)(f) Delete “with such income ceiling as may be notified” This provision of aids and appliance, medicine etc. is aimed to combat disability and not any kind of additional support. All these services imposes extra leaving cost owing to disability and therefore should not be linked with any ceiling of income. SECTION 23(3)(f) Provision of aids and appliances, medicine and diagnostic services and corrective surgery free of cost to persons with disabilities. 6 23(3)(g) Delete “with such income ceiling as may be notified” This provision of disability pension is inserted to provide pension on account of disability as disability brings with it extra cost of leaving. Therefore should not be linked with any ceiling of income. SECTION 23(3)(g) Disability pension to persons with disabilities. 7. 24(1)(a) Delete “subject to such family income as may be notified” This provision is inserted to provide health facilities on account of disability as disability brings with it extra cost of leaving. Therefore should not be linked with family income. SECTION 24(1)(a) Free health care in the vicinity specially in rural area 8 25 Addition of a new sub section in the form of sub section 2 by renumbering existing provision as 25(1) Persons with disability have experienced many forms of discrimination in the matter of insurance including refusal to insure a person with disability and/or exclusion of persons with disability from all benefits under insurance policy. For example: In many insurance policies where double accident benefits are provided, the persons with disability are not extended the said benefits. In addition, persons with disabilities are made to pay higher premium on the misconceived ground of higher risk. SECTION 25(2) Any refusal to insure persons with disability, exclusion of persons with disabilities from receiving all the benefits which are available to others under a given insurance policy, charging higher premium from persons with disabilities for any insurance policy and/or any other stipulation in any insurance policy which restricts, limits or in any manner effects persons with disabilities in all matters relating to insurance is unlawful. Any rule or forms of contracts containing a stipulation that persons with disabilities are higher or unacceptable group, is here by declared as discrimination and therefore unlawful. 9. 29(3)(g)& 29(3)(h) Insertion of two new clauses as 29(3)(g)&29(3)(h) There is no representation of either persons with disabilities or disabled persons organizations in various sport bodies at different levels which is necessary for ensuring full inclusion of persons with disabilities in sporting activities. Similarly, persons with disabilities are not considered for any of the international, national, state level or district level awards in sporting events which is also clear cut case of discrimination. SECTION 29(3)(g) ensure representation of persons with disabilities or their organizations in International, national, state and district level sports bodies. SECTION 29(3)(h) Extend all sporting awards, facilities given to mainstream sport persons and benefits extended to them. 10 30(1) Deletion of minimum age of 6 years Upper age of 18 years for free and compulsory education is acceptable but minimum age of 6 years is against the spirit of equality. This will also resulted into exclusion of persons with disabilities in nursery classes. SECTION 30(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, every child with bench-mark disability, upto 18 years of age shall have a right to free education in a neighborhood school, or in a special school, if necessary. 11. 32 To be redrafted The present suggested draft of this section links identification with reservation and creates an impression that reservation is to be done only with respect to the identified post. Such a situation in the existing act also exists which came up for consideration of the Hon’ble apex court in the case titled as Govt. of India Through Secretary Vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta and UOI Vs. National Federation of the Blind and their Lordships were pleased to hold that reservation is independent of the identification and the identification is only for limited purpose to utilized vacancies for filling up reservation by giving appointment in such post SECTION 32(1) Every appropriate govt. shall identify posts which can be held by respective categories of disabilities only for the purpose of using the vacancies in such identified posts for making appointments of respective category of persons With Disabilities against 1% reservation for each of them as contained in Sec.33. 32(2) For this purpose, every appropriate government shall constitute an expert committee consisting of at least one representative of respective DPO working in the field of each of the categories of benchmark disabilities entitled to get the benefit of scheme of reservation. 32(3) It shall be obligatory upon every appropriate govt. to undertake periodic review of the identification of posts at an interval of at least every three (3) years to update the list of identified posts. 32(4) Every appropriate govt. shall notify in the official gazette the list of identified posts which may be used for appointment of respective category of Person With Disability after his selection against the reservation for his/her category of Disability. 32(5) The notified list of identified posts shall be treated as an illustrative list of posts which can be held by Persons With Disabilities and not as an exhaustive list. 32(6) No person with Disability shall be denied consideration for appointment or appointment against any post which is not included in the notified list of the identified post, if he is otherwise eligible for such post as per the notified eligibility criteria for the same. 12. 33 To be redrafted A true interpretation given to section 33 of the existing Act makes a minimum of 3% reservation in the total No. of vacancies in the cadre strength in an establishment whereas scheme of reservation as contained in section 33 in the present bill is both self contradictory and an attempt to dilute the existing right. SECTION 33(1) Every appropriate govt. shall appoint in every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than 6% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts filled by any mode of recruitment in the establishment for the following class of persons with benchmark disabilities in the following manner: Person with blindness- 1% of all categories of posts. Person with low vision-1% of all categories of posts. Persons with hearing and speech impairment– 1% of all categories of posts. Person with locomotors disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured and muscular dystrophy- 1% of all categories of posts. Person with autism, intellectual disability and mental illness 1% of all categories of posts. Persons with multiple disabilities of combination of any two or more disabilities detailed hereinabove from clause -1 to v including deaf blindness. Provided that National Commission for persons with disabilities or State Commission for persons with disabilities, as the case may be, may, having regard to the duties of the particular post in any establishment, office or department exempt the recruitment to such posts by notification from the purview of this section. However, National Commission or State Commission for persons with disabilities, as the case may be, shall review such a decision every two years. SECTION 33(2) The percentage of reservation and its distribution among different categories of disabilities may be reviewed once every three years by the National Commission for persons With Disabilities only for the purpose of including more disabilities in the scheme of reservation by simultaneously enhancing the percentage of reservation proportionately. SECTION 33(3) Where in any recruitment year, any vacancy reserved for the aforesaid classes of persons with disabilities and advertise as such could not be filled up due to non availability of a suitable person with disability in spite of the selection process having been under taken to fill up the said reserved vacancy, such vacancy shall be carry forward to next three succeeding recruitment years. And if in third succeeding recruitment year also suitable person belonging to the said class of disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the classes of persons with disabilities entitled for reservation. SECTION 33(4) In the event of filling up vacancy reserved for a different category of disability by interchanging the same, equal number of vacancies so filled by interchange will be diverted to the category of disabilities whose vacancies were filled by interchange from the reserved vacancies for the categories of disabilities which benefited from such interchange. SECTION 33(5) If the vacancy is not filled even after carrying forward the vacancy and trying to interchange the same with other classes of disabilities, the Employer may apply to National Commission for persons with disabilities or State Commission for persons with disabilities, as the case may be, for de- reservation of the given post, whose decision shall be final. It is hereby clarified for removal of doubts that the post sought to be de reserved shall be kept vacant until the decision has been communicated by the competent Authority on the application of the de reservation. 13. 36 Add words “educational and skill development centers The suggested change is to include land for various other purposes for full participation in different fields of life and for ensuring independent leaving. SECTION 36 Five percent reservation in allotment of land on concessional rate, where such land is to be used for the purpose of promoting housing, shelter, setting up of occupation, business, enterprise, recreation centers, production centers, educational and skill development centers exclusively for persons with disabilities. 14. 40(1)(a) Addition Addition of words “all residential properties/ buildings” Residential properties/ buildings are also to be brought within the ambit of accessibility. SECTION 40(1)(a) Facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stops, railway stations, airports, All residential properties/ buildings conforming to the accessibility standards relating to parking spaces, toilets, ticketing centers and ticketing machines. 15. 40(2) Substitute the word “affordable cost” by “at no cost” Personal mobility is an accessibility issue for persons suffering from blindness and therefore when making the infrastructure accessible, no cost is to be imposed on disabled users, how any cost could be imposed for ensuring personal mobility of blind. SECTION 40(2) Appropriate Government shall develop schemes programmes to promote the personal mobility of persons with disabilities at no cost to provide for: Incentive and concessions; Retrofitting of vehicles and Personal mobility assistance 16. 53 To be deleted By exempting the institutions run by Central or State Govt. from the provisions of registration under this chapter, it may result into compromise with the quality of services in such institutions and its management becoming unregulated which is not correct. Delete 17. 58(3) Insertion in the form of new provision as Section 58(3) Experience gained over the years had shown that there is an increasing menace of issuance of fake disability certificate particularly in the case of blindness or low vision. In order to prevent such misuse in connivance with certifying authority it is essential to provide a right to appeal against certification of disability at least by a disabled person organization. SECTION 58(3) Any recognized disabled person organization shall also have a right to appeal against certification of disability by certifying authority and to such appeal provisions of section 58 will mutatis mutandis apply. 18. 59(2)(r)(ii) Proviso to be deleted. In order to provide effective participation of DPOs no restriction for nomination under this category should be made. SECTION 59(2)(r)(ii) Ten persons as far as practicable, being persons with disabilities, to represent non-governmental organizations concerned with disabilities or disabled persons organizations. 19. 73(2) To be redrafted The chairperson of the commission has to be a person with disability and clear stipulation should be made to that effect in the provision. SECTION 73(2) The National Commission shall consist of a chairperson who is a person with disability with distinguished record of service of not less than twenty five years in the field of disability, and two members with distinguished record of service of not less than twenty years in the field of rehabilitation, advocacy, law, management and technology concerning disability matters: Provided that out of the two members one member shall necessarily be a person with disability ensuring representation to each category of benchmark disability by rotation. 20 73(4) To be inserted as new clause Providing for disqualification of new person to be chairperson or member of the Commission if he has at any time by any of his act, conduct or omission caused damage, harm or prejudice to the cause of rights of persons with disabilities. SECTION 73(4) Any person shall be disqualified for consideration for appointment as Chairperson or as member of the commission for persons with disabilities if he/she has indulged in any act or omitted to discharge any duty which he/she was obliged to discharge or has conducted himself/herself in such a manner which has resulted into the injury caused to a person with disability or adversely affected their rights, services and programmes. 21. 75(1) Reappointment should be only once for one more term In order to ensure that more and more experts and disabled persons are given opportunity to serve on the board it is essential that reappointment should be limited to only one time. SECTION 75(1) The chairperson and a member of the National Commission shall hold office for a term of three years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier and shall be eligible for reappointment only once for another term of three years. 22. 83 Disability Rights courts be substituted with Disability Rights Tribunal The national commission for persons with disabilities seeks to substitute the existing institute of Chief Commissioner and State Commissioner for persons with disabilities for looking into the complaints. The existing institution and its powers have come under judicial scrutiny on many occasions and the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in one of the judgments as well as Hon’ble Apex court has recognized the sanctity of the orders passed by the said Institution and its binding force. However, to negate such a positive judicial pronouncements the present section in the Bill dilutes the orders of the Commission to the status of a recommendation and further provides an option to the concerned authorities either to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the Commission. One of the important aspects which was being examined at the stage of drafting of the Bill was the weakness of the existing institution of grievance redressal and instead of offering a strong and better option, the commission has been made weaker than the existing institute of Chief Commissioner. 23 Addition of a new section in the form of section 98(A) To provide for establishment of the Disability Rights Tribunal in line with Industrial Tribunal Section 98 of the Bill envisage a special court for trying the offences under it of the level of sessions judge in each district. However, the bill does not provide for seeking enforcement of rights under the Bill in the form of a Tribunal. As such, the Bill does not provide any judicial machinery for enforcement of rights under the bill which are of civil nature. SECTION 98(A) Every appropriate Govt. shall establish Disability Rights Tribunal for adjudication of the cases of deprivation and violation of rights conferred under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force or Rules and Regulations framed thereunder or facilities granted through executive instructions or matters involving discrimination on the ground of disability of any kind in every district. On 1/22/14, srinivas.karnati <[email protected]> wrote: > Sir: could you please post the content of the two attachments or > representation submitted by SK roongta the general secretary NFB India to > the government for the reconsideration of the draft. > > k. srinivas > > Email: [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "avinash shahi" <[email protected]> > To: "accessindia" <[email protected]>; "jnuvision" > <[email protected]>; "worldopinion" <[email protected]>; > > "sayeverything" <[email protected]>; > "disability-studies-india" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:25 AM > Subject: [AI] Fwd: representation submited by SK roongta to the government > for the reconsideration of the draft. > > >>I once again mention four importants points which need to be opposed >> at any cost. >> 1. Identification of posts. >> 2. point 5 point 5 percent distinction between totally blind and low >> vision. >> 3. National Commission for persons with disabilities should be headed >> by not anyone but someone who is disabled. >> 4. Inclusive Education should be given more emphasis, ensuring >> enrollment is not enough. >> 5. Intense discussion and debates should be conducted before making >> RPD document as law. >> Please get ready to join the protest against hasty passage of this Bill.. >> And circulate among your networks. >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Ajay Arora <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:13:19 +0530 >> Subject: representation submited by SK roongta to the government for >> the reconsideration of the draft. >> To: avinash shahi <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> dear avinash and vikas sir, >> >> please go through the following two attachment. it should be our most >> respectful duty to dessiminate the info for the supreme cause of >> disableds. >> >> i can see that the opposite party is being much appreciated because >> they are good at spreading their version in a fast and furious manner. >> whereas, not many of us know that the present draft approved by the >> cabinet is hugely problematic. >> >> with regards >> Ajay >> >> -- >> Ajay Arora phd research scholar >> Board member >> NAPSIPAG Conference Organizing Team >> NAPSIPAG Secretariat >> Centre for the Study of Law and Governance >> JNU >> Nelson Mandela Marg >> New Delhi >> Contact Mobile +91-8826360111. >> Office: +91-11-26704761 >> email: >> [email protected] >> >> -- >> Best Regards >> Secretariat >> Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public >> Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG) >> Center for the Study of Law and Governance, >> Jawaharlal Nehru University >> India. >> www.napsipag.org >> t: 91 11 6466 6856 >> >> >> >> -- >> Avinash Shahi >> M.Phil Research Scholar >> Centre for The Study of Law and Governance >> Jawaharlal Nehru University >> New Delhi India >> Time to meet up again! >> Register for AccessIndia Convention 2014: >> http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm >> >> >> >> 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.. > > > Time to meet up again! > Register for AccessIndia Convention 2014: > http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm > > > > 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.. > -- Avinash Shahi M.Phil Research Scholar Centre for The Study of Law and Governance Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi India Time to meet up again! Register for AccessIndia Convention 2014: http://accessindia.org.in/harish/convention.htm 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..
