Q. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill is pending in the Rajya Sabha since 2014. What is the CPI(M)’s stand?

Rajasekharan, Chennai

A. The Bill was introduced in February 2014 when the UPA II government was on its way out. There was an inordinate delay in introducing the Bill, set to replace the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, consequent to India signing and ratifying the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007.

The Bill brings within its ambit 19 disabling conditions as against the seven identified currently. It also enhances the percentage of reservations from three to five percent. One of the major drawbacks of the 1995 Act was the absence of penal provisions. This Bill provides for imprisonment up to six months and/or fine of Rs 10,000, for violation of any of its provisions. Subsequent violations carry a higher penalty.

One of the main concerns that the CPI(M) had was with regard to the provision that a person with disability can be discriminated against if it “is appropriate to achieve a legitimate aim”.  A provision that legitimises discrimination in an anti-discriminatory legislation was unacceptable. There were various other issues too.  The Party had hence taken the position that the Bill be sent to the parliamentary standing committee for scrutiny. Moreover, given the fact that no meaningful debate could take place given the surcharged atmosphere in parliament at that point of time, such a course was advisable, providing an opportunity for all stakeholders to make their submissions.

The standing committee which submitted its report in May 2015 has accepted the suggestion to delete the phrase wherein it is implied that a person with disability can be discriminated against if it is to “achieve a legitimate aim”. It has also recommended that the private sector be brought within the ambit of the definition of "establishment". More importantly, the committee has recommended provision of free food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare services to persons with disabilities irrespective of his/her BPL/APL status. The committee has also suggested that disability related information should form part of school curriculum.

However, many other concerns like the issue of reservation in promotions, which the Supreme Court has upheld, the demand that the chairperson of the proposed disability commission should be a person with disability etc have not found place in its recommendations.

Though nearly a year and a half has passed since the recommendations were submitted, the government has failed to come forth with an action taken report, which is the normal parliamentary practice. Instead, the prime minister constituted a four member group of ministers to once again go into the Bill. The recommendations of the GoM are yet to be made public.

The government should spell out its stand with regard to the recommendations of the standing committee and introduce the amendments in the forthcoming winter session of parliament.