Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association (VIBEWA) sends its
representation to the Standing Committee on RPD Bill, 2014.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Suggestions to the RPD Bill, 2014
From:    "General Secretary" <[email protected]>
Date:    Fri, October 10, 2014 10:19 pm
To:      [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To:
The Honourable Chairman
The Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment

Address:
DIRECTOR, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO. 606,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI-110001,

Respected Sir,

Subject: Suggestions for RPD Bill, 2014

We, on behalf of visually impaired Bank employee's welfare association,
VIBEWA, an association representing employees of banking, insurance and
finance sector with visual challenges, would like to submit enclosed
suggestions in the bill for your active consideration.
We also seek leave to appear in person before the committee and further
explain our submissions.

Thanking You

Sincerely Yours

Date: 10/10/2014
(Himanshu Sahu)
General Secretary
Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association (VIBEWA)
e-mail: [email protected]
website: www.vibewa.org
Mobile: +91 9051055000
Address:
76, Anandanagar Housing Society
Jagati Pota, Kalikapur
Kolkata, W.B. Pin-700152

Enclosed as above:

1.      clause 2 h definition of establishment should include private bodies.
It did so in the very first draft prepared by the drafting committee. The
aim was to bring the private bodies also within the ambit of reservation
for eprsons with disabilities. It was also required to compell the private
players to provide for reasonable accommodation. By not including private
players in the definition of establishment, we are maitaining the status
quo and the new enactment does not deliver the promise of bringing our
laws in line with UNCRPD. Nowadays, almost all governmental functions are
being outsourced and so it becomes much more relevant to make private
players follow government norms with regard to disability. By providing
for reservation and reasonable accommodation in private sector, India
would be breaking new ground in empowerment of the persons with
disabilities.
2.      clause 2 definition of disability should include the words in
interaction with barriers, definition of persons with disabilities in
clause 2 P is vague when it mentions minimum 40% disability if disability
is not defined in measurable terms and all persons when it is defined in
measurable terms.
3.      definition of barrier should include the word "attitudinal." more often
than not, it is the negative psychological mindset of others which
prevents a person with a disability from full participation.
4.      clause 2 T definition of reasonable accommodation: the words "in a
particular case" are unwarranted as modifications/adjustments made can
benefit large number of prospective employees/users.
5.      section 3 3 controversial. Discrimination cannot be justified in the
garb of furthering a legitimate aim.
6.      section 11 free legal aid for pwd to be included.
7.      section 16 periodicity of survey to be laid down.
8.      chapter on education has to mention about special education and private
educational institutions. Special education cannot be ignored altogether
and nowadays private players are ruling the roost in the educational
market. So, some binding duties on them also like those in RTI have to be
laid down with respect to persons with disabilities.
9       section 19 blanket excemption not desirable. It enables establishments
to seek excemption from non discrimination provisions which attrocious, to
say the least.
10      section on reservation should find a place in chapter on employment
itself.
11.     the words with their economic capacity and development in s23 and s26
should be removed.
12.     More has to be said about para-sports and 3% funds should be earmarked
for them.
13.     S32 Identification of posts is for appointment to fill up the
vacancies reserved and not for reserving the posts.
SC judgment of october 8 2013 in NFB vs. UOI should be followed and
section so worded.
14.     S32 review of identified posts should be every three years and not
five.&#8195;
15.     s33 Section should be properly worded as per sc judgment referred
above. 1% vacancies should be bifurcated between blind and low vision, or
1% separately should be provided for blind and 0.5% for low vision.
16.     S33 Reservation in promotion should be explicitly provided following
judgment of SC and bombay HC in National confederation for the development
of the disabled vs. Union of India case.
17.     s34 incentives to private sector should be specifically mentioned
otherwise section would lapse into mere formality as at present.
18.     in chapter viii apart from establishments, private service providers
builders etc. should be specifically mentioned, accessibility is an all
round affair and if there is no obligation on private bodies, it cannot be
ensured.
19.     S47 social audit of all general schemes should be mandatory and not
only schemes involving persons with disabilities.
20.     In chapter ix, provision for existing institution to continue and
apply for Certificate of registration within a specified period should be
there.
21.     chapter x certification process contains nothing new, it should
provide for one unified certificate valid throughout India, also how
different the certification would be from existing medical model. It
continues with same medico-bureaucratic set up to be prescribed by
government.
22.     S59 nomination of persons with disabilities on central advisory board
should not be qualified with the phrase "As far as practicable", it should
be mandatory to have ten PWD members.
24. S65 same for state advisory board.
25.     S71 there should be some clarity on the role of district level
committees as to facilitate local level issues of the persons with
disability.
26.     S83 orders of national commission toothless as those of CCPD at
present. Some enforcement machinery and powers must be given to it.
27.     chapter xiii no provision about orders of state commission exists. No
anologous section to s83. let alone gtiving teeth to orders of commission.
28.     Chapter xv no uses for fund have been prescribed under the act.
29.     S104 imprisonment for fraudulently availing the benefit should be
increased to seven years from two years and fine should be enhanced to
five lakh rupees and benefit should be forfeited with retrospective
effect, besides, unique setences like community service should be laid
down.
30.     S107 previous sanction of the government thwarts the objective of the
penalty chapter. It is used more often than not, to the detriment of the
persons with disabilities. It would virtually render government servants
immune to prosecution under this act. It should be removed.
31.     sl09 provisions of this act in addition to other laws provision should
provide that provision of other laws negating the provisions of this act
shall not apply.
32.     schedule definition of low vision leaves out persons with visual
acuity between 6/60 and 3/60. Blindness starts from 3/60 and low vision
ends at 6/60. unclear definition.




Clean India Campaign: Let us also chip in!



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..

Reply via email to