Paper & Topic: GS II Government Policies and Interventions

Model Answer:

Introduction:

A “person with disability” is defined by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 as a person who has a long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that prohibits them from equally and completely participating in society. According to the 2011 Census, India is home to 26.8 million people with disabilities, a significant undercount.

The Supreme Court ruled in Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency and Ors. that reasonable accommodations, such as extending exam times, should be made.

Body:

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 is a big milestone for people with disabilities:

The Union, the States, and the Union Territories are now tasked with finding a solution.
Also, it is essential to confirm that all public transportation complies with the unified guidelines for impaired accessibility.
The idea that underlies the definition of disability is one that is always evolving.
Disability classifications have increased from 7 to 21. The act added a number of disabilities that had been largely disregarded by the previous act, including deaf blindness, acid attack victims, Parkinson’s disease, mental illness, autism, spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, chronic neurological conditions, speech and language disability, thalassemia, haemophilia, and sickle cell disease. Also, the government is allowed to inform any other category about a specific impairment.
It increases the ratio of reservations for people with disabilities in government jobs from 3% to 4% and in higher education institutions from 3% to 5%.
Every child with a baseline disability has a right to a free education between the ages of six and eighteen.
Offering inclusive education is a requirement for both government-recognized and -supported institutions.
The emphasis has been on achieving accessibility in public buildings within a set time frame, along with the Accessible India Campaign.
The State Commissioners and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities shall function as the Act’s regulatory and grievance redressal agencies, respectively.
Separate federal and state funds were set up to provide financial aid to people with impairments.

The act has restrictions:

Curiously, only government organisations are required to follow the non-discrimination in employment laws.
The 1995 act’s requirement for a central commissioner and state commissioners is maintained under the Bill. None of the members of the commissioners’ advisory group are required to be disabled individuals.
Despite a 2013 Supreme Court decision that indicated reservations should be calculated using the total number of openings in a particular cadre rather than the posts designated by the government to be filled by persons with benchmark disabilities, the metric has continued to favour the latter.
Like it does for institutions desiring to be recognised as ones for PWDs, the proposal does not specify a deadline for obtaining a certificate of impairment. This leaves PWDs with no other options for dealing with the difficulties and hardships they experience when trying to get what has been their right for years despite the bureaucracy.
The amended measure does specify which public buildings, facilities, and services must be “barrier-free” for people with disabilities. Notwithstanding all the benefits that this policy aims to provide, basic issues with accessibility, particularly with regard to information and communication technology, and certification of handicap remain unresolved impossibilities due to a lack of political will.

Moving ahead:

While being a rights-based law, the RPWD Act of 2016’s efficacy will largely depend on the proactive measures that the various state governments take to implement it.
It is time to utilise this vast human capital. The new proposed law is intended to ensure that people with disabilities can enjoy their rights on an equal basis with Indian citizens who do not have disabilities. It is a strong rights-based legislation with a robust institutional system.
Primary care doctors can now issue a variety of disability certifications after receiving specialised training, which will help a lot of disabled people who live in distant places. Yet, the disability laws should have also given private practising doctors the opportunity to certify patients in order to alleviate the shortage of human resources and provide for appropriate checks and balances.
This law, like the 1995 legislation, would only go so far in providing for them the rights that ought to have been a given given the sociocultural prejudices against them and the inability, or rather the refusal, to take into account the needs of PWDs. As long as they are treated as second-class citizens and are not recognised as capable persons in their own right, India will continue to be an unjust and unequal nation.

Conclusion:

Until each of us is firmly committed to the idea of implementing the two fundamental changes outlined above, we will continue to live in a society where, even as we sing the praises of the disabled who succeed despite the obstacles placed in their way, we do not pause to consider what it is that makes it so difficult for them to succeed in the first place and what we can do to change this situation.