Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Sachi Ganesh Chute, a 21-year-old student, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) alleging that respondent no. 5 (Dean, Government Medical College and KTS Hospital, Gondia) refused to issue her a disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner claimed to suffer from a specified disability as defined in Section 2(zc) of the 2016 Act. The respondents, represented by the State of Maharashtra and other authorities, defended their refusal on the ground that the disability claimed by the petitioner was recognized for the first time under the 2016 Act, and their system was designed in consonance with the earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which did not recognize such disability. They argued that the system had not been updated to align with the 2016 Act. The learned AGP also drew attention to Rule 18(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, which was yet to be notified. The Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the 2016 Act is in force and the respondents cannot refuse to issue a certificate merely because their system is not updated. The Court directed the respondents to issue the disability certificate to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the certificate be issued within a period of four weeks.
Headnote
A) Disability Law - Certificate of Disability - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 2(zc) - The petitioner claimed a specified disability under the 2016 Act, which was not recognized under the earlier 1995 Act. The respondents refused to issue a certificate on the ground that their system was not updated. The Court held that the 2016 Act is in force and the respondents cannot refuse to issue a certificate merely because the system is not updated. The Court directed the respondents to issue the certificate in accordance with the 2016 Act. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 despite the respondents' system not being updated to include the newly recognized disability
Final Decision
The Court directed the respondents to issue the disability certificate to the petitioner in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 within a period of four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Disability certificate must be issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- 2016 even if the administrative system is not updated
- Rule 18(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules
- 2017 not yet notified does not bar issuance
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 145
Writ Petition No. 3209 of 2018
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Z.A. Haq
Shri A.N. Vastani for Petitioner, Ms. M.A. Barabde AGP for Respondents
State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Ministry of Public Health; Commissioner, Maharashtra Department for Welfare of Disabled, Pune; The Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai; Dean, Government Medical College and KTS Hospital, Gondia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to issue disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to respondent no. 5 to issue a disability certificate recognizing her specified disability under the 2016 Act
Filing Reason
Respondent no. 5 refused to issue the disability certificate on the ground that the disability was not recognized under the earlier 1995 Act and the system was not updated
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 despite the respondents' system not being updated to include the newly recognized disability
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she suffers from a specified disability under Section 2(zc) of the 2016 Act and is entitled to a certificate
Respondents argued that the disability was recognized for the first time under the 2016 Act, their system was designed under the 1995 Act and not updated, and Rule 18(5) of the 2017 Rules was not yet notified
Ratio Decidendi
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is in force and the respondents cannot refuse to issue a disability certificate merely because their administrative system is not updated to reflect the new disabilities recognized under the Act. The statutory right under the 2016 Act cannot be denied due to administrative inconvenience.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner claims to be suffering from a specified disability, as defined in Section 2[zc] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and complains of refusal on the part of respondent no.5 to issue her a certificate accordingly.
Defence of respondents is specified disability, claimed by the petitioner has been incorporated for the first time as a disability in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The system used by respondents is in consonance with the above mentioned 1995 Act and it is not updated, and therefore, it is not compatible with 2016 Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3209 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking a direction to issue a disability certificate. The Court heard the parties and disposed of the petition on 20 August 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 2(zc)
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017: Rule 18(5)
- Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:
