The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is being moved for failing to provide reservations in posts of civil judges for visually impaired persons..Arepalli Naga Babu, a visually impaired lawyer and graduate of National Law University, Odisha, has challenged a provision of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules of 2007. In his petition, he states that Rule 7 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Persons with Disabilities (Equal, Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995..The Rule provides that only one per cent of posts would be reserved for persons with disabilities. More specifically, this one per cent is reserved only for those who are “Orthopedically Handicapped (lower portion of the body)”. A notification issued by the High Court in August, for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), reiterates this fact..However, as per Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, the appropriate government is required to reserve 3% of the seats for persons with disabilities. It also provides that one per cent shall be reserved for the following:.Blindness or low vision;Hearing impairment;Loco motor disability or cerebral palsy.The petition also notes that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had constituted an expert committee to conduct a study on various jobs that could be performed by persons with disabilities. A list of such jobs was identified and the same was accepted by the Centre in 2013. In the list, the post of “Judges/Magistrates Subordinate in Lower Judiciaries” was identified as being suitable for persons who are blind..Naga claims that he can perform all the requisite functions that the post demands, with the help of assistive technology. In fact, the IDIA Scholar has proved his mettle in law school, having secured “the highest grade (outstanding) in various courses”. Further, other high courts, like the Rajasthan High Court and the Delhi High Court have identified the fact that visually impaired persons are capable of performing the functions of a civil judge..Despite this, people with the same impairment as Naga cannot avail of the reservation due to them. In fact, when he had gone to submit his application for the judicial services exam, he was told that he would not be allowed to write the exam on account of being visually impaired..The petition was scheduled to come up for hearing yesterday, but was not heard. Vivek Reddy is representing Naga in the High Court..Naga’s predicament poses a larger question: how serious are the authorities when it comes to implementing disability laws in India? There have been several instances where they have been flouted, much to the detriment of differently abled candidates. Quite recently, Shweta Bansal, a Shardul Amarchand lawyer, finally realised her dream of joining the Indian Foreign Services despite repeatedly being told that her disability prevented her from doing so..Short of implementation, the laws themselves leave something to be desired. The Disability Act of 1995 has not been aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), despite India being a signatory to the Convention. As a consequence, disability law in India is very much welfare-based as opposed to being rights-based. Despite several attempts to change this, a 2014 Bill is pending in Parliament..However, even if this Bill is passed, it is not likely to effect a change in the prevalent attitude that persons with disabilities cannot perform certain tasks. As Amba Salelkar of Equals Centre for Promotion of Social Justice says,.“One of the glaring things is that the Bill says that persons with disabilities have a right against discrimination, except when it can be shown that the discrimination is towards a legitimate aim. Who determines this legitimacy? There is a lot of scope for misuse of this provision.”.(Read the writ petition below)
The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad is being moved for failing to provide reservations in posts of civil judges for visually impaired persons..Arepalli Naga Babu, a visually impaired lawyer and graduate of National Law University, Odisha, has challenged a provision of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules of 2007. In his petition, he states that Rule 7 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Persons with Disabilities (Equal, Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995..The Rule provides that only one per cent of posts would be reserved for persons with disabilities. More specifically, this one per cent is reserved only for those who are “Orthopedically Handicapped (lower portion of the body)”. A notification issued by the High Court in August, for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), reiterates this fact..However, as per Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, the appropriate government is required to reserve 3% of the seats for persons with disabilities. It also provides that one per cent shall be reserved for the following:.Blindness or low vision;Hearing impairment;Loco motor disability or cerebral palsy.The petition also notes that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had constituted an expert committee to conduct a study on various jobs that could be performed by persons with disabilities. A list of such jobs was identified and the same was accepted by the Centre in 2013. In the list, the post of “Judges/Magistrates Subordinate in Lower Judiciaries” was identified as being suitable for persons who are blind..Naga claims that he can perform all the requisite functions that the post demands, with the help of assistive technology. In fact, the IDIA Scholar has proved his mettle in law school, having secured “the highest grade (outstanding) in various courses”. Further, other high courts, like the Rajasthan High Court and the Delhi High Court have identified the fact that visually impaired persons are capable of performing the functions of a civil judge..Despite this, people with the same impairment as Naga cannot avail of the reservation due to them. In fact, when he had gone to submit his application for the judicial services exam, he was told that he would not be allowed to write the exam on account of being visually impaired..The petition was scheduled to come up for hearing yesterday, but was not heard. Vivek Reddy is representing Naga in the High Court..Naga’s predicament poses a larger question: how serious are the authorities when it comes to implementing disability laws in India? There have been several instances where they have been flouted, much to the detriment of differently abled candidates. Quite recently, Shweta Bansal, a Shardul Amarchand lawyer, finally realised her dream of joining the Indian Foreign Services despite repeatedly being told that her disability prevented her from doing so..Short of implementation, the laws themselves leave something to be desired. The Disability Act of 1995 has not been aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), despite India being a signatory to the Convention. As a consequence, disability law in India is very much welfare-based as opposed to being rights-based. Despite several attempts to change this, a 2014 Bill is pending in Parliament..However, even if this Bill is passed, it is not likely to effect a change in the prevalent attitude that persons with disabilities cannot perform certain tasks. As Amba Salelkar of Equals Centre for Promotion of Social Justice says,.“One of the glaring things is that the Bill says that persons with disabilities have a right against discrimination, except when it can be shown that the discrimination is towards a legitimate aim. Who determines this legitimacy? There is a lot of scope for misuse of this provision.”.(Read the writ petition below)
