Latest news with #RightsofPersonswithDisabilities
Hindustan Times
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: No ramp, lift in office meant to aid individuals with disabilities
Meant to provide justice to disabled persons, the office of the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities in Sector 18, which is situated on the first floor, has no facility of lift or ramp. The commission, which has the responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, itself is ignoring the Sections 40 and 44 which mandate the accessibility of physical infrastructure to the disabled persons, say visitors. The RPWD Act, 2016, specifies 21 types of disabilities. The Section 44 of the RPwD Act goes on to state that no establishment shall be granted permission to build any structure if the building plan does not adhere to the rules under Section 40 and no establishment shall be issued a certificate of completion or allowed to take occupation of a building unless it has adhered to such rules. In the already built infrastructure, the Act calls for provisions for making it accessible to disabled persons. After the Supreme Court directions to states to appoint commissioners for persons with disabilities, the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities was set up in Chandigarh in September 2024. The commissioner was appointed and given office in Sector 18, the same building that houses Chandigarh Right to Service Commission and other offices. As many as 50 cases were listed in the past nine months in the commission that has quasi-judicial powers with about 60% being settled, said commissioner Madhvi Kataria. 'I have written to the social welfare department numerous times to either have the office on the ground floor or make accessibility provisions. The matter has been taken up with the administrator as well. We are hopeful to have a positive outcome,' she said. As a temporary arrangement, the cases related to people with locomotor disability are heard on the ground floor who are unable to walk upstairs. National Association for the Blind's executive member Shiv Kumar, who suffers from visual disability, said, 'Not just locomotor disability, the office structure is not friendly for those with visual, hearing and speech disabilities as there are no tactile tiles on floor, no sign language and braille boards in place. Many people are not even aware of the commission's office because there is no board, website or any awareness about the commission.' Navpreet Ganga, LLB student from Panjan University, who uses crutch to walk, said, 'Nothing feels more demeaning than entering a building with no ramp, no lift, walking on tactile-less floors and having washrooms not made for specially abled.' Social welfare secretary Anuradha Chagti refused to comment on the issue. As per the RPwD Rules, 2017, Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility have been framed on measures to make physical environment, transportation, information and communications accessible to disabled persons. Among the measures missing in the commission's office are braille/tactile features along with appropriate wayfinding signages, tactile guiding surface indicators and colour contrast at site entrance. There is no floor demarcation in the parking area for people with disability, and also the designated parking is above normal height and only for two wheelers. No beepers are installed at the main entrance point to enable people with visual impairments to locate them. No tactile layout plan along with braille and audio system is there. The guidelines also mention the need to have handrails with braille plates indicating specific location on both sides of the corridors.
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh high court dismisses plea for visually impaired reservation in assistant professor recruitment
Chhattisgarh high court dismisses plea for visually impaired reservation in assistant professor recruitment RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a 27-year-old visually impaired candidate, who sought a 2% reservation for blind and low vision persons in the recruitment of Assistant Professors (Commerce). The court upheld the state govt's decision to deny such reservation in this specific subject, citing the nature of teaching duties involved and the reservation already granted to other disability categories. Saroj Kshemanidhi, 27, appeared for the 2019 Assistant Professor (Commerce) recruitment conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). Though he cleared the written examination and was called for the interview, he did not make it to the final selection list. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a directive to the CGPSC to issue a corrigendum ensuring a 2% reservation for visually impaired candidates, covering both current and backlog vacancies. He also requested the court to stop the CGPSC from filling these vacancies until the matter was resolved. The CGPSC argued that it functioned solely as an examining body and not as a policymaker. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo It stated that the petitioner applied knowing there was no reservation for the visually impaired in the Commerce subject and could not challenge the process midway. The Commission also pointed out that identifying suitable posts for reservation falls under the domain of the state govt. The State of Chhattisgarh, the second respondent in the case, submitted that the reservation pattern followed in the 2019 recruitment advertisement was in accordance with a govt circular dated 29 August 2018. They further noted that the High Court earlier directed the authorities to reallocate reservation in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. As a result, corrigenda were issued in November 2019 and January 2021 adjusting reservation across various subjects, including Commerce. The state clarified that the Assistant Professor post is part of a larger cadre, and reservations are applied at the cadre level, not by individual subject. It further argued that Kshemanidhi's petition resembled a Public Interest Litigation and was not maintainable as he accepted the terms of recruitment without objection. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vijay K Deshmukh contended that denying reservation to the visually impaired in the Commerce subject violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution. He cited previous recruitment rounds where such reservation was granted. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas framed the core question: whether the state was obligated to provide a 2% reservation for blind and low vision candidates in Commerce, despite already allotting reservation to other disability categories under the same recruitment. Citing Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act, the court observed that while 4% of total vacancies must be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, the identification of suitable posts is the prerogative of the appointing authority. Given the writing-intensive nature of Commerce teaching, the court found the state justified in limiting reservation to candidates with disabilities such as OA (one arm) and OL (one leg). The court ruled that the state's action was neither arbitrary nor illegal and declined to issue a writ directing the inclusion of visually impaired candidates in the reservation. The petition was dismissed, and the interim stay on appointment was vacated. The state has been directed to issue the pending appointment order within 60 days.
News18
10-06-2025
- Health
- News18
Courts Can Act In Best Interest Of Mentally Ill As MH Law Doesn't Define Their Wishes: Allahabad HC
Last Updated: High Court noted that MH Act has laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the "best interest" of the mentally ill person but not on wills. Noting that no guidance exists under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MH Act) as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences" of a mentally ill person, the Allahabad High Court has said courts can exercise their parens patriae jurisdiction. The High Court found that the MH Act had laid down certain standards and factors to be considered while determining the 'best interest" of the mentally ill person. 'However, no guidance exists as to what would constitute the 'wills and preferences' of the person. Even in the proviso to Section 14 (1), the factors to be considered for providing total support are conspicuously absent. The MH Act has no provision in respect of management of financial affairs, appointment of guardians or the manner in which the movable/immovable property of the mentally ill person is to be taken care of. Thus, there is a clear statutory vacuum," said a bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy. The division bench of the High Court went on to observe that the solemn nature of the said jurisdiction having been repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether it is the Board or the Appellate Authority or as to which Court has to exercise it and in what manner is one of mere procedure, so long as the 'wills and preferences" of the mentally ill person and the other factors set out in the rules are borne in mind by the Board or this Court while exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. Court made these observations while dealing with the case of a woman suffering from Moderate Intellectual Disability. Before the high Court, one Saurabh Mishra filed a petition challenging the decision of the -Mansik Swasthya Punarvilokan Board, Barabanki which rejected his appointment as a representative of the disabled woman rejected on the ground that he had a criminal history of two cases. Noting that the concerned woman had no other legal heir, except the petitioner, who is her relative and a family as being the son of her real brother, the bench went on to quash the Board's order and appoint the petitioner as the nominated representative of under the MH Act, 2017 and for providing support to her under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. 'In case, any relative/family or friend of opposite party no.4 points out that the nominated representative/petitioner is not acting in her best interest, such person will also have the locus to approach either the Board or this Court for issuance of proper direction and for removal of the petitioner", the court further ordered. First Published: June 10, 2025, 13:01 IST
Time of India
09-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Restore medical treatment of ex-serviceman's dependent under ECHS regardless of PWD Act listing: AFT to MoD
Chandigarh: The ministry of defence (MoD) cannot deny medical treatment under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) to dependents of a member merely because their ailment is not listed as a disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act, 2016, according to an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) ruling. The tribunal also clarified that the authorities are supposed to consider practical as well as compassionate aspects when cancelling or withdrawing any policy or letter and "are under obligation to see that no one is harmed". A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar, judicial member, and Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, administration member of AFT Lucknow, passed these orders while allowing an application filed by Sheela Devi, widow of Havildar Ganga Sahay. She sought directions to issue an order to the MoD to continue her son's treatment after a kidney transplant, which was stopped after he turned 25 years, as per a policy letter dated Dec 5, 2017, issued by the ministry of defence (DoESW). The applicant's husband joined the Indian Army in 1974, was discharged from service in 1996, and died in 2003. Thereafter, the applicant was issued an ECHS card, which included all her family members. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Keep Your Home Efficient with This Plug-In elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Learn More Undo Her son, Mohit Kumar, was admitted to the Command Hospital, Lucknow, in Aug 2021 and was diagnosed with 'Advanced Renal Dysfunction with Small Echogenic Kidney' and was advised to undergo a kidney transplant. The applicant donated a kidney to her son, which was transplanted on June 14, 2023, and since then, her son has been under treatment through ECHS. However, she was informed by the authorities that her son does not fall under the PWD Act, 2016, and therefore, he is not eligible for further treatment through ECHS beyond the age of 25. Aggrieved by the authorities' decision, she approached the AFT Lucknow. She contended that after her husband's death, she is in a financial crisis as she does not have any other source of income except a meagre family pension. The counsel for the applicant further submitted that her son's disability (chronic kidney disease) being a renal transplant case was permanent in nature and assessed at 80-90%. He also submitted that the treatment could not be stopped on the grounds of the disease not being included in the list of disabilities under the PWD Act, 2016, as he has been under treatment for chronic kidney disease since Aug 2021. Counsel representing the MoD reiterated that the treatment of the applicant's son was stopped as per rules because the kidney disease is not included in the list of 21 disabilities under the PWD Act, 2016, and her son has crossed the permissible age of 25 years. After hearing all the parties, the AFT held that the authorities acted in a very casual manner without considering the fact that he is suffering from a serious kidney ailment that threatens his life. In its detailed order released last week, the AFT further directed the MoD to restore or restart the treatment, considering it as a special case, and to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant in the treatment of her son from the date of stoppage of the treatment until its actual restoration.
Egypt Today
06-06-2025
- Egypt Today
et guide: Law prohibits 8 situations that put people with disabilities at risk
Wheel chair - file CAIRO - 6 June 2025: Law No. 10 of 2018 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities includes many acquired rights, primarily aimed at protecting people with disabilities, ensuring their access to their entitlements, and ensuring their full integration into society. The law warns against endangering a person or child with a disability or threatening their dignity. Therefore, it imposes a prison sentence of no less than six months and a fine of no less than EGP 5,000 and no more than EGP 50,000 for anyone who endangers people with special needs. A person or child with a disability is considered at risk, according to Article 46 of the law, "in any situation that threatens respect for their personal dignity and autonomy, or that discriminates against them on the basis of disability, in the following cases: 1. If their safety, morals, health, or life are threatened. 2. Imprisoning or isolating a person with a disability from society without legal basis, or refusing to provide them with medical, rehabilitative, community, or legal care. 3. Assaulting children with disabilities by physical or other means in residential and rehabilitation homes, nurseries, and educational institutions, or sexually assaulting, harming, threatening, or exploiting them. 4. Using therapeutic methods or medical experiments that harm a person or child with a disability without legal basis. 5. Placing children or persons with disabilities in upper-floor classrooms in public or private schools without providing accessibility and accommodations for their special circumstances. 6. Failure to provide necessary treatment for children with disabilities, or to provide necessary food for children with intellectual disabilities. Especially in cases of metabolic disorders (diet). 7. Failure to provide adequate spatial, security, and guidance facilities for persons with disabilities at their workplaces, exposing them to violence, contempt, insult, or hatred, and incitement to any of these. 8. Placing persons with disabilities in special institutions to dispose of them because they are persons with disabilities, except in cases that warrant such placement.
