Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After multiple objections were raised to the draft guidelines on ‘Carriage by Air of Persons with Disability and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility’, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has asked the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to allow 30 days’ time to the petitioners to submit their objections/suggestions “even if the time limit for submission of the suggestions has come to an end.”

The Court specifically stressed on two aspects to be considered by the DGCA before bringing into force he draft guidelines that were brought to the public domain in the year 2021.

  1. Manually lifting differently abled persons without their consent: No differently abled person should be manually lifted without his consent as lifting of a person manually is inhumane. How, the differently abled person should be treated with dignity is left to the DGCA.
  2. Directing some differently abled persons to remove their prosthetic limbs/calipers as a part of the security check: In the draft guidelines circulated, it has been mentioned that scanning of prosthetic limbs/calipers though full body scanner but to what extent differently abled persons with prosthetic limbs/calipers are required to be checked for the purpose of security should be in a manner where, no such person is asked to remove prosthetic limbs/calipers to maintain human dignity while ensuring the requirement of security checks.

In 2016, the first petitioner Jeeja Ghosh, who was de-boarded from the plane of a private airline for being disabled, was awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 as damages to be payable to the petitioner for the mental and physical suffering experienced by her and also unreasonable discrimination against her. The Court had said,

“Non-disabled people do not understand disabled ones.”

Read more: Jeeja Ghosh to receive Rs. 10,00,000 as damages from being de-boarded from an aircraft for being disabled

[Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1178, order dated 01.12.2021]


Counsels:

For petitioners: Colin Gosalves, Sr. Adv.

For Respondent: Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ has directed the Central Government to notify the norms and standards of pupil-teacher ratio for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to Children/Child with Special Needs (CwSN) in the general schools. While the Petitions before the Court pertained to State of Uttar Pradesh and Punjab only, the extensive direction issued by the Court will apply pan India.


What was the case about?


Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court to espouse the cause of teachers having B.Ed. (Special) and D.Ed. (Special) degree/diploma courses and fully trained to cater to the requirements of Children/Child with Special Needs also known as Divyang, including to impart them education and make them independent.

According to the petitioners, there is a need to appoint 73,888 special teachers on regular basis to teach 3,69,443 CwSN in the State of Uttar Pradesh and equally large number in the State of Punjab so as to fulfil the required pupil-teacher ratio i.e., 5:1.

The thrust of the grievance in the writ petition was about the illegality being committed by the concerned State and its Authorities in employing them in recognised schools on contract basis without any certainty of tenure.


Analysis of the relevant Statutes


Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992

According to Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, a rehabilitation professional who possesses prescribed qualification and is so recognized by and enrolled on the Register of the Council alone can practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India, including as a special teacher. That is to say that no other person (not possessing such recognition and not being registered with the Council) can engage himself in serving the handicapped persons, CwSN in particular, or impart education to them, for that would be a contravention and punishable under Section 13(3) reproduced above.

“Indeed, this enactment in a way is a general law, but would still govern the special teachers engaged by any school/institution for imparting education and training to CwSN. They must fulfil this requirement over and above the qualifications prescribed under the special law concerning registration and recognition of schools and maintaining minimum standards for imparting quality education.”

Scheme of Integrated Education for the Disabled Children 1992

With the need to have a formalized   scheme   for   imparting quality education to CwSN in absence of any specific law on that subject, the Union framed the 1992 Scheme.

“There was a phenomenal expansion of educational opportunities in the post-independence period, yet the children with disabilities were left out of that growth in educational facilities.  To include CwSN to achieve the goal of education for all, the 1992 Scheme was formulated providing for educational opportunities to CwSN in general schools and to facilitate their retention in the school system.”

The Scheme further recognized that CwSN who were placed in special schools should also be integrated into general schools, once they acquired the communication and daily living skills at a functional level.  Indisputably, concern was felt as a substantial number of persons with disability in India were not able to pursue even primary/secondary level education much less to complete their basic education in a formal school. To encourage   them   and   to   facilitate   their   retention   in   the   school system, the 1992 Scheme was propounded which stated that the pupil¬teacher ratio be maintained in the concerned schools and their qualifications and training.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

There was a paradigm shift in the approach of imparting education to children between the age of 6 and 14 years consequent to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This Act generally applies to all the schools, be it a general school or a special school and attempts to universalise education and to open new vistas for providing free and compulsory inclusive   elementary education to all and more importantly quality education in the neighbourhood school.

However, the 2009 Act merely attempts to expressly include “child with disability” by inserting Section 2(ee) and Section 3(3) vide the 2012 amendment, but makes no corresponding changes to the “Norms and Standards for a School” specified in the Schedule to the Act.

“The Central Government in exercise of the enabling power in Section 20, by now, ought to have   provided suitable norms and standards for a general school admitting CwSN for providing inclusive,   free, and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school, and separately for the special school which also is covered within the expansive definition of schools in Section 2(n) of the 2009 Act.”

However, the norms and standards, in particular regarding pupil-teacher ratio, specified in the Schedule of the 2009 Act, are only to delineate the minimum benchmark.  It is open to the State Government, being the appropriate Government, to provide for a higher benchmark for ensuring imparting of quality education by the schools within its jurisdiction. Further, besides the benchmark specified in the Schedule or by the appropriate Government, as the case may be, it is always open to the school management to appoint more teachers on their own than the notified pupil-teacher ratio, if they so desire, for ensuring imparting of quality education to its students.

Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016

The 2016 Act, in a way, is a general enactment for giving effect to the rights of persons with disabilities which includes the CwSN. But, when it comes to subject of education, a separate Chapter has been provided for fastening responsibility coupled with duty upon the appropriate Government, local authorities and the concerned educational institutions in matters specified therein (Sections 16 and 17). The purport of these provisions is to make available a platform to the CwSN to avail the rights of full participation by means of inclusive and quality education in the neighbourhood school.

“For giving effect to this mandate, it is essential for the concerned authority and more particularly for the schools imparting education to CwSN, to ensure that a just pupil¬teacher ratio is maintained without exception, including as specified under the law made by the Parliament or the scheme enunciated by the executive in that regard.”


Directions issued by the Supreme Court


  1. The Central Government must forthwith notify the norms and standards   of   pupil¬teacher   ratio   for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers   who   alone   can   impart   education   and training to CwSN in the general schools; and until such time, as a stopgap arrangement adopt the recommendations made by the State Commissioner, NCT of Delhi

“As a stopgap arrangement until the competent authority formulates a comprehensive action plan including to specify the norms and standards   regarding   pupil-teacher   ratio   to   be maintained by the concerned schools imparting education to CwSN, we are persuaded to adopt the pupil¬teacher ratio ascertained in this decision as 8:1 for children with cerebral palsy; 5:1 for children with intellectual disability, ASD and specific learning disabilities; and 2:1 for deaf-blind and a combination of two or more of the seven disabilities mentioned in the recommendation… . Indeed, the teachers to be so appointed need to be duly qualified, recognized and registered with the Council in light of Section 13 of the 1992 Act.”

  1. To create commensurate permanent posts as per the just ratio to be specified by the competent authority for the rehabilitation professionals/special teachers who can cater to the needs of CwSN;
  2. To initiate appointment process to fill-in vacancies for the posts so created for rehabilitation professionals/special teachers for being appointed on regular basis. The same shall be completed within six months from the date of this order or before the commencement of academic year 2022¬ 2023, whichever is earlier;
  3. To overcome the shortage of resource persons (rehabilitation professionals/special trained teachers), the training schools/institutions must take steps to augment the number whilst ensuring that the norms and standards specified under the governing laws and regulations including that of the Council for grant of recognition and registration are fulfilled;
  4. Until sufficient number of special teachers becomes available for general schools and special schools, the services of special trained teachers can be availed as itinerant teachers as per the SSS within the school block (cluster schools)   to optimize the resource persons and as a stopgap arrangement;
  5. The other teachers and staff in the general schools be given compulsory training and sensitized to handle the CwSN in the general schools, if admitted; and
  6. The authorities may also explore the possibility of merging unviable special   schools   with   relatively viable special schools in the neighbourhood, so as to entail in consolidation of assets and resources for better delivery to the requirements of CwSN.

With a view to ensure that the directions are effectively complied with, the Court directed the State Commissioners appointed under Section 79 of the 2016 Act in the concerned States/Union Territories to forthwith initiate suo motu enquiries regarding compliance and then make recommendation to the appropriate authority (of the concerned State/Union Territory), as may be necessary, so that the authority will be obliged to submit compliance report to the State Commissioner within three months from the date of receipt of recommendation, as mandated under Section 81 of the 2016 Act.

The respective State Commissioners may then submit report in respect of compliances/non-compliances within their concerned State/Union Territory to the Court by end of February, 2022, so that further directions, as may be necessary, can be issued by this Court State/Union Territory wise.

[Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1005, decided on 28.10.2021]


*Judgment by: Justice AM Khanwilkar

Know Thy Judge| Justice AM Khanwilkar

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Dealing with the issue relating to the right of promotion under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that a person with disability should be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre.

The Court explained that the mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability. Thus, even posts in promotional cadre have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD.

“There cannot be methodology used to defeat the reservation in promotion. Once that post is identified, the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted. The absence of rules to provide for reservation in promotion would not defeat the rights of PwD to a reservation in promotion as it flows from the legislation.”

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was enacted which came into force on 7th February, 1996. In 2007, India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). In pursuance to the debates in the Standing Committee of the Parliament, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 replaced the 1995 Act.

The Court made clear that the 2016 Act has now taken care of how to deal with the aspect of reservation in promotion. However, the law in the present case was required to be propounded as a large number of cases may still arise in the context of the 1995 Act.

“Even under the 1995 Act, the rights of PwD, and how they would attain an equal opportunity has been an ongoing exercise blocked by a greater impediment of a social mind set change and the 2016 Act is the result thereof.”

Background

The Court was hearing the case where the respondent was appointed in 1996 to the post of Typist/clerk in the Police Department on compassionate grounds, after her brother had passed away during service. She undisputedly suffered from Post Polio Residual Paralysis (L) Lower Limb and her permanent disability had been assessed at 55%.

The respondent subsequently cleared all departmental tests for promotion, and was test qualified in December, 1998. She was given a category change to Lower Division clerk in July, 2001 without losing her seniority and later on promoted as Senior Clerk (equivalent to Upper Division Clerk) on 16th September, 2004, based on the seniority list of test qualified LDCs.

She was thereafter promoted to the post of a Cashier on 5th May, 2015.

She, however, contended that she was entitled to promotion as a Senior Clerk with effect from 1st July, 2002 with all consequential benefits and as a Cashier with effect from 20th May, 2012 with all consequential benefits and thereafter as Junior Superintendent with effect from the date of her entitlement. This plea was predicated on reservation in matters of promotion which she sought under the 1995 Act as she suffered from physical disability.

What does the law state?

The Court held that the 1995 Act mandates reservations in promotions for persons with disabilities as it provides for equal opportunity for career progression, including promotion. Thus, it would be negation of the legislative mandate if promotion is denied to PwD and such reservation is confined to the initial stage of induction in service. This would in fact result in stagnation of the disabled in a consequential frustration.[1]

Further, the operation of reservation and the computation has to be made with reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and no distinction should be made between posts to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion.

However, it is important to note that,

  • there has to be rules providing for promotion from the feeder cadre to the provisional post as there cannot be promotions even for the PwD de hors the rules as a singular benefit.
  • the requirement under Section 32 of the 1995 Act has also to be completed for identifying the posts in the promotional cadre.

What happens when the State does not provide for any reservation in promotion for PwD?

The mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability and the absence of rules to provide for reservation in promotion would not defeat the rights of PwD to a reservation in promotion as it flows from the legislation. Thus, even posts in promotional cadre have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD.

“There cannot be methodology used to defeat the reservation in promotion. Once that post is identified, the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted.”

The only caveat to the aforesaid would be if the Government is of the view that the posts in the promotional cadre cannot be reserved for PwD category due to functional or other reasons and that should not be a ruse to defeat the reservation in promotion.

Understandably, such a scenario will result in frustration and stagnation as others may get promoted even over the persons with disability as submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, more often than not, the disability comes in the way of meeting the requirements for promotion. In such a situation, the government will have to explore methods to address the issue of stagnation of PwD.

In the aforesaid eventuality, Amicus Curiae suggested:

(a) to provide promotional avenues in other departments/establishments (where posts are identified for PwD at a higher level) or

(b) grant of higher pay in the same post. This is stated to be an obligation flowing from Section 47 of the 1995 Act.

“… non-discrimination in employment is a mandate of the legislature.”

[State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph,  2021 SCC OnLine SC 435, decided on 28.06.2021]


*Judgment by: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Know Thy Judge| Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae

S.K. Rungta,  Senior Counsel and Archit Verma, Legal Consultant in the office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

[1] Viklang Sang Haryana vs, State of Haryana, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 4266

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has exempted pregnant women officials and staff members from attending office.

The Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr Jitendra Singh said, a circular to this effect has been issued and is expected to be followed by different Ministries/Departments as well as State/Union Territory governments.

Dr Jitendra Singh said, pregnant women employees who are not already on maternity leave will also be exempted from attending office. Persons with disabilities are also to be given similar exemption from attending office.

The latest circular issued by the DoPT also states that Government servants who have underlying Co-morbidities and were undergoing treatment for these ailments before the lockdown, may, as far as possible, be exempted upon production of medical prescription from treating physician as per the CGHS/CS (MA) Rules, as applicable.

What is important, is to strictly observe staggered timings for the arrival and departure of the officers and the staff. In order to avoid unnecessary crowding, all the Heads of Departments have been advised to ensure three sets of timings. These would be 9 AM to 5 PM, 9:30 AM to 6 PM and 10 AM to 6:30 PM respectively.

While officers of the level of Deputy Secretary and above are expected to attend office on all working days, the officers and staff below the level of Deputy Secretary will attend office with 50% attendance every alternative day and those not attending the office should work from home and remain available on telephone and electronically.

Dr Jitendra Singh appreciated the staff in the Ministry of Personnel for having continued to work with full commitment during the entire phase of lockdown. In fact, he said, some of the staff members were working from home even during the weekends which normally does not happen when the offices are closed.

Every care has been taken to ensure that while offices continue to function, at the same time, the welfare and safety of officials is not overlooked, said Dr Jitendra Singh.


Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

[Press Release dt. 20-05-2020]

[Source:PIB]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench of Dr. AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ asked the Central Government to make necessary changes in Section 80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after a differently abled person file a PIL before it, claiming that the said the provision violates the fundamental right of equality of the handicapped person enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution as it denies:

“the benefit of the insurance to the handicapped persons to get annuity or lumpsum amount during the lifetime of the parent/guardian of such a handicapped person, whereas the beneficiaries of other life insurance policy are getting annuity during the lifetime of the person who has taken insurance policy. This, according to the petitioner, violates the fundamental right of equality of the handicapped person enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Section 80DD(2)(a) of the IT Act provides for payment of annuity of lump sum amount for the benefit of a dependant, being a person with disability, in the event of the death of the individual or the member of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) in whose name subscription to the scheme stipulated in the said provision has been made.  The petitioner, however, argued that such benefit should not be deferred till the death of the assessee/life assured and it should be allowed to be utilised for the benefit of the disabled person even during the lifetime of the assessee as there could be harsh cases where handicapped persons may need the payment on annuity or lumpsum basis even during the lifetime of their parents/guardians.

Finding force in petitioner’s submission, the Court said that there can be such cases, for example:

“where guardian has become very old but is still alive, though he is not able to earn any longer or he may be a person who was in service and has retired from the said service and is not having any source of income. In such cases, it may be difficult for such a parent/guardian to take care of the medical needs of his/her disabled child. Even when he/she has paid full premium, the handicapped person is not able to receive any annuity only because the parent/guardian of such handicapped person is still alive.”

Stating that there may be many other such situations, the Court said that it is for the Legislature to take care of these aspects and to provide suitable provision by making necessary amendments in Section 80DD of the Act. Hence, it urged the Centre to have a relook into this provision by taking into consideration all the aspect. [Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 5, decided on 03.01.2019]

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

Law Mantra is organising a one Day International Seminar on Human Rights & Persons with Disabilities, on 2nd December, 2018 at the Indian Law Institute, New Delhi in academic collaboration with CASIHR (Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab), Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur & International Council of Jurists, London.

Chief Patron: Justice Deepak Verma, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India

Patron: Prof. (Dr.) Paramjit S. Jaswal, Vice-Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

             Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.

Date: 2nd December, 2018

Venue: Indian Law Institute, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi.

About Law Mantra

“Law Mantra” (headquarters New Delhi) (Registration No 150 in Book No. 4 Vol. No. 3, 603 0f 2018) is not for profit organisation running for the purpose of enhancing legal academics and legal awareness in the society and in the practice of the same. “Law Mantra” is a body of Jurists, Advocates, Academicians and Students running for the purpose of enhancing legal academics and legal awareness in the society and in the practice of the same. We at Law Mantra enable people to take responsibility for the situation of the deprived Indian women and children and so motivate them to seek resolution through individual and collective action thereby enabling women and children to realize their full potential.

Human Rights & Persons with Disabilities

The great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant has quoted that human beings are rational beings, therefore worthy of dignity and respect. Every individual has the basic right to live a dignified life and to exercise his freedoms and choices. The same phrase is equally applicable to persons with disabilities. But despite of this fact, persons with disabilities are subjected to discrimination. The one major factor of such discrimination is stigmatized societal attitude.

A mechanism of social integration of persons with disabilities has been made by following different international conventions and documents. Now world has joined to consider disability jurisprudence as an inseparable part of the international law. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are few important documents justifying the aforementioned proposition.

In a recent report of WHO, an estimated 10% of the world’s population –approximately 650 million people, of which 200 million are children, experiences some form of disability. The number of people with disabilities is growing as a result of different factors including population growth, ageing and medical advances that preserve and prolong life.

Across the world, people with disabilities have poorer health outcomes, lower education achievements, less economic participation and higher rates of poverty than people without disabilities. This is partly because people with disabilities are facing barriers in accessing services that many of us have long taken for granted. These services mainly include health, education, employment, transport and information. These difficulties are exacerbated in less advantaged communities.

To achieve the long-lasting, vastly better development prospects that also lie at the heart of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals and beyond, we must empower people living with disabilities and remove the barriers which prevent them participating in their communities; getting a quality education, finding decent work, and having their voices heard.

People with disabilities report seeking more health care then people with without disabilities and have greater unmet needs. For example a recent survey of people with serious mental illness showed that between 35% and 50% of people in developed countries and between 76% and 85% in developing countries received no treatment in the year prior to study. Health promotion and prevention activities seldom target people with disabilities. For example women with disabilities receives less screening for breast and cervical cancer than women without disabilities. People with intellectual disabilities are less likely to have their weight checked. Adolescents and adults with disabilities are more likely to be excluded from sex education programs. These factors from world report on disability by World Health Organization clearly indicates that there is need to work at the ground level so that persons with disabilities can enjoy their human rights without any difference from others.

The present seminar is aiming at highlighting different issues underlining disability jurisprudence from human rights perspective. We welcome different stakeholders including persons with disabilities, disability law activists, academicians, researchers, lawyers, medical professionals and bureaucrats.  This seminar is a noble initiation of Law Mantra in association with RGNUL Punjab through its Research Centre for Advanced Studies in Human Rights, upcoming Centre for Disability Studies and Health Laws and MNLU, Nagpur. We are considering this seminar as a platform to initiate a RIGHT discourse, expecting thought provoking, multidisciplinary, quality research papers.

Themes for Seminar

  • Social Integration and Challenges
  • Human Rights of women, children & sex workers
  • Discrimination and Human Rights violation
  • The role of National Human Right Commission in promotion and protection of Human Right
  • Human Rights of Indigenous people
  • Mob Lynching and Vigilantism
  • Conflict between IPR/Business Law and Human Rights
  • Disability as a Social Impairment
  • Social Model of Disabilities and Human Rights
  • Disability and Human Rights: Legal Framework
  • International Humanitarian Law and Rights of Persons with Disabilities
  • Healthcare and Disability
  • Medical Professionals and Interaction with Persons with Disabilities
  • Reproductive Rights of Women with Disabilities: International Human Rights Perspective
  • Right to Education and Persons with Disabilities
  • Right to Employment and Disability
  • Healthcare and Treatment of Persons with Disabilities: A Issue of Consent
  • Healthcare and Privacy Issues related to Persons with Disabilities
  • Comparative study on Disability Laws and Policies
  • Indian Laws and UNCRPD: Future of Disability Laws

Note: These Themes are not exhaustive; Authors are open to work on any topic related to above-mentioned theme.

Procedure for Submission of Abstracts: Abstract (of about 250 words) should be sent as an attachment in a word file. Abstracts will be peer reviewed before they are accepted. The following information, in the given format, should be send along with the Abstract:

  • Name of the Participant
  • Official Designation/Institution Details
  • Address and Email id
  • Title of Abstract
  • Abstract

The subject line of Email should read as: ‘Abstract Submission for International Seminar on Human Rights & Persons with Disabilities”.

Guidelines for Paper Submission

  • The title of the paper should be followed by Name, Designation, Name of the Organization / University / Institution and Email address. It is mandatory to mention Email address, as all future correspondence will be through it.
  • Name and details of Co-author, if any.
  • The paper should be typed in MS WORD format (preferably 2007 or 2010).
  • The paper must be in single column lay out with margins justified on both sides.
  • The sub heading should be in font size 12, bold and Times New Roman, left aligned.
  • The main text should be in font size 12, Normal, Times New Roman, 1.5 spacing and Justified.
  • The length of paper should not exceed 6,000 words (including footnotes). Exceeding the word limit may lead to rejection of paper.
  • All references must be in the form of footnotes with font size 10 and should be according to the Bluebook 19th Edition.

Publication Opportunity: All papers accepted for the conference will be published in UGC Referred Book bearing ISBN, CASIHR Journal on Human Rights Practice (JHRP) by RGNUL, Contemporary Law and Policy Review – NLU Nagpur, International Journal of Legal Research and Governance and Law Mantra Journal. (If Selected for Publication in UGC Referred Book bearing ISBN, Publication Charge will be Extra as Per bill of Publication House).

REGISTRATION FEE FOR PRESENTATION OF PAPER
Students Rs 1500/-
Faculties/Professionals/Research Scholars/Others Rs 2000/-
Presentation in Absentia for Students Rs 2000/-
Presentation in Absentia Faculties/Professionals/Research Scholars/Others Rs 2500/-
REGISTRATION FEE FOR ATTENDING THE SEMINAR
Students Rs 800/-
Faculties/Professionals/Research Scholars/Others Rs 1200/-
IMPORTANT DATE
Submission of Abstract 05th October, 2018 (Extended)
Confirmation of abstract selection 07th October, 2018 (Extended)
Registration 25th October, 2018
Submission of full paper 27th November, 2018
Seminar Date 2nd  December, 2018

Who Should Attend?

Students, Research Scholars/Faculties/Academicians, Disability Rights Activist, Corporate Delegates, Business entities, Lawyers.

Rules for the Participants:

  • No abstract or full paper shall be accepted after the last date of submission respectively.
  • Participants/Paper Presenters have to register after the acceptance of abstract with payment of required fees.
  • For participation, registration is mandatory on confirmation of the participation. Only registered participants will be allowed to take part in Conference.
  • All the registered participants will be provided a participation certificate, conference kit, lunch and tea.

Note: The authors and co-authors both have register separately. The registration fee includes conference kit, lunch, High Tea, entry to all Technical session, and Certificates.

Eastern Book Company and SCC Online are proud to associate as Law School Partners. Please mention SCC Online Blog as reference.

Registration: Submit your abstract to editor.lawmantra@gmail.com with Subject line ‘Human Rights & Persons with Disabilities”.

Contact: For any queries, feel free to drop email to editor.lawmantra@gmail.com  Human Rights & Persons with Disabilities  or call on +91- 9310053923, +91-9667822453.

To view the Brochure, click HERE

Website: www.lawmatra.co.in

www.lawmantra.org

Patna High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Nilu Agrawal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed for the wrong exercise of powers by the D.I.G., CRPF, under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
The facts of the case states that the appellant was dispensed from the services after giving one months notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by the DIG, CRPF.
The appellant was said to have not completed the training due to which he did not acquire the status of a permanent government servant which eventually turned down the claim for wrong exercise of power under Rule 5(1) as mentioned above.
One of the arguments made was that during the course of training itself the appellant had suffered injuries which made him incapable of performing his duties; therefore, the appellant should have been protected under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Therefore, the Court held that, the applicability of the Act carries few exemptions in regard to certain organizations and establishments which include the paramilitary force, further the question of alternative employment remains invalid as the appellant had not acquired the permanent status. Appeal was dismissed on the grounds stated above. [Yadav Krishna Mohan v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 746, order dated 27-04-2018]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Stating that educational institutions are bound to reserve seats from persons suffering from disability, the bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ directed that all those institutions which are covered by the obligations provided under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the provisions of Section 32 while making admission of students in educational courses of higher education each year.

The other directions given by the Court in this regard are:

  • Insofar as law colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are complied with or not.
  • UGC should constitute a committee consisting of persons from amongst Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. The said committee will prepare a detailed study for making provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc by June 2018.
  • The aforementioned committee will also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert Committee.

It is important to note that the petition was filed only in respect of law colleges but considering the fact that these issues are of seminal importance, the Court decided to extend the coverage by encompassing all educational institutions. Stressing upon the importance of the issue, the Court said:

“a basic underline assumption, which is well recognised, is that everyone can learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable; and that, accordingly, all disabled persons (from whatever disability they are suffering) have right to get not only minimum education but higher education as well. Not making adequate provisions to facilitate proper education to such persons, therefore, would amount to discrimination.”

The Court, hence, directed that the Report of the committee, as well as the Action Taken Report, shall be submitted before it in July 2018. [Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1486, decided on 15.12.2017]