Feature
Amendments to Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 have been long awaited
now. The shortcomings of the Act were glaringly visible even before it came
into force upon its notification on 7 February 1996, says Meenu Bhambhani.
An Amendment Committee, headed by
Dr. Amita Dhanda, was
appointed by the Government within three years of the notification of the
Act. The Committee comprised of experts in the field of disability and senior
leaders of disability sector like S.K. Rungta, Merry
Barua, J.P. Gadkari, Aloka Guha,
R. Ramachandran, Dr. D.K. Menon
and Surrender Saini. This Committee submitted its
report in 1999 itself and since then it has been gathering dust in the shelves
of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (M.S.J.E.)
Having suddenly woken up from its
slumber, M.S.J.E. has shown scant respect for the recommendations of this
Committee and proposed its own set of amendments to the Disability Act. A
large number of recommendations of the Amita Dhandha Committee still hold valid and had M.S.J.E. even bothered
to accept those recommendations not only would that have given dignity to
the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities but would also
have given recognition to the civil and political rights of disabled people
in
M.S.J.E. has made a mockery of transparency
and participation of stakeholders in the process of facilitating change and
empowerment for disabled people. Instead of having state/regional level consultative
workshops to invite suggestions from key stakeholders, M.S.J.E. once again,
in a clandestine manner, put up its own set of proposed amendments on the
website even before its own deadline of 31 July 2006! Mercifully, as a result
of the pressure built by the disability sector, the deadline, as of today,
has been extended by six months, that is up to 30 November 2006.
If one looks at some of these proposed
amendments one would notice that they have failed to address the issues that
have been the root cause of this Act remaining ineffective. One of the major
criticisms of this Act has been that it lacks teeth and the definition of
disability is very narrow since it leaves out several key categories out of
its purview. The proposed amendments have failed to address even the most
basic of its criticisms. While the definition of disability in the proposed
amendments is a change from impairment based definition to the one that screens
disability on the basis of activity limitation (used in developed countries).
However, the categories continue to remain seven as they are in the Act at
present. Amita Dhandha Committee had proposed
inclusion of six other categories including Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Hemophilia,
Multiple Disability, Thalassemia and Speech Impairment. Further it also recommended
that for “purposes of the chapter on education, disability also includes specific
learning disability”. Inclusion of Hemophilia and Thalassemia has been a long
pending demand of the disability sector. And in fact disabling diseases like
H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. should also have been included in the ambit of disability
in the proposed amendments. But this has not been done.
Adding insult to the injury is the
fact that not only the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
not been strengthened but in fact the statutory recognition that was given
to Central and State Coordination and Executive Committees has also been withdrawn.
“The implementation and monitoring of the PWD Act
has been the weakest link. We need an Act that works and redresses the issues
faced by persons with disabilities. The Commissioner’s office appears more
helpless than the persons with the grievance. We need to strengthen the enforcing
mechanisms. However the proposed amendment posted on the official website
of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment gives us an impression that
they intend to dilute the composition of the Central and State Executive and
Coordination Committees. “The composition of these Committees will now be
under the rules of the Act and in effect these powers will be in the hands
of the administrative authorities,” says C. Mahesh of Mobility India,
Presently, the PWD
Act focuses mainly on the Socio-Economic rights. The proposed amendments have
really not addressed the Civil and Political rights which include – right
to life, right to political participation, right to marriage, home and family,
legal capacity, access to justice, freedom of movement, right to privacy –
some of the articles that have already been included in the Draft U.N. Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Amita
Dhandha Committee’s recommendations complied with the rights-based
approach and addressed the concerns of all vulnerable groups like women with
disabilities, children and persons with severe disabilities, destitute persons
with disability, aged persons without carers, parents,
etc. The concerns included social security, health, education, insurance,
employment and accessibility.
The amendments proposed by M.S.J.E.
address some of these concerns in a very superficial manner. Most of these
concerns/issues have not been addressed at all. There is nothing for persons
with severe disability, or women with disabilities, destitute and aged persons
with disabilities. Some of the changes proposed by M.S.J.E. include:
1. Preparing a comprehensive and inclusive
education scheme compatible with the special needs of students with
disabilities by providing additional support and provisions in regular schools
and institutions of higher and technical education, and also projects in the
field of education and training in formal, non-formal, vocational, open
learning system and other such sectors.
2. Carrying forward the vacancy to five
years and in case suitable person belonging to the said class of disability is
not available interchanging them among the classes of persons with disabilities
who are entitled for reservation.
3.
Vocational
Rehabilitation Centres have been assigned the additional task of acting as
Employment Exchanges.
4.
The provision of amanuensis or
any other alternative systems of taking examinations has been proposed for
all such persons with disabilities who are unable to write the examination
by themselves.
The change which was most desired by the disability sector
was that more teeth be given to the Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities. Its rulings be made enforceable
and non-violable and they be strengthened with some penalising
powers. However, the only change that has been proposed is that this office
should coordinate the work of Central Government
Departments and agencies responsible for the implementation of the Act and
receive reports from each of them at such intervals and in such form as may
be prescribed. Coordinate with the States/
Thus, these proposed amendments
are nothing but a mere eye-wash. If the Ministry succeeds in going ahead with
these amendments, disability sector will not get another opportunity to correct
the wrongs of the present Act for a very long time to come. Unless, disability
sector exercises substantial pressure to get the desired changes that have been
envisioned in the Biwako Millennium Framework and in
the Draft UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities which would soon be ratified, the disabled people in