In the week of 16th February, we had a total of 9 hearings. Out of these, 6 hearings were effective and 3 were ineffective. I am sharing the details of the effective hearings below.
*Monday:* In the Delhi High Court, we appeared on behalf of a blind llm student in Delhi University. The case had been filed in May last year with 2 main grievances – first, the failure of the university to provide hostel accommodation to him and, second, accessibility issues on the DU website. The first issue got resolved amicably soon after the filing of the case. On the second issue, DU in their response stated that their website is fully accessible and that the Petitioner had failed to point to any specific accessibility issues. In the hearing, we pointed out to the Court that, while some progress has taken place since the filing of the case on ensuring accessibility of the website, some issues still remain. The most critical one being the captchas on some university pages being inaccessible. The lawyer for DU suggested that we hand over a list of issues to them for their resolution. We agreed to do so but said that a comprehensive solution can only be found if DU is asked to get their website audited by an independent auditor and to resolve the issues. The concept of an accessibility auditor was explained to the Court. Accordingly, the court gave DU 3 months to commission an independent audit and to resolve the issues flowing from the same as well as the issues separately flagged by the Petitioner. It directed that the Petitioner must be informed about the completion of this exercise, so he can check it for himself. *Wednesday:* On Wednesday, we appeared in the Delhi High Court on behalf of the Respondents in a challenge by the Union of India to a judgment by CAT holding that the blanket exclusion of those with SLD and other category D disabilities from the civil services exams is illegal and directing them to reconsider this approach for the next cycle. The Court told the Union lawyer that the judgment below directs a reconsideration of the exclusion with domain experts and relevant ministries and that there is nothing wrong with that. The lawyer for the union tried to argue that this is a policy matter and reservation is being given to other disability categories. One of the judges also pointed out that granting age relaxation to this category but no reservation appeared arbitrary. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. It however granted a further period of 8 weeks to the Union to comply with the CAT judgment. *Thursday:* In the Delhi High Court, we appeared in a writ petition on the issue of accessibility of feature films in theatres. We pointed out to the Court that, while the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued accessibility guidelines for feature films, there are many implementation-level issues. We had made a written note with 8 suggestions for how these gaps can be addressed and we pointed those out to the Court. The Court, after patiently understanding all issues, enquired as to which authority would need to fix them. We pointed out that this must be a joint effort between the MIB, MEITY and CBFC. MIB would need to ensure that information about accessibility options to watch movies must be made widely available, including through ticket booking platforms, ensure that the accessibility features are of the required quality and are made available on a universal basis. The MEITY must ensure that ticket booking platforms are themselves accessible. CBFC must ensure that accessibility features are made available in all the languages of the movie concerned as well as published on its website. Accordingly, all 3 authorities were asked to expeditiously implement these suggestions within 2 months and the matter was renotified to 7th May. *Friday:* On Friday, there were 3 effective hearings: · In CAT, we appeared on behalf of a candidate with multiple disabilities of blindness+ hard of hearing who is challenging the exclusion of the deaf-blind from the ambit of reservation in the civil services. The Court issued notice in the matter and renotified it to Monday. It orally told the Union lawyer that the Supreme Court has directed adopting an inclusive approach, encompassing accessibility and reasonable accommodation and therefore they should allow this candidate to apply. They further asked them to consider having empathy. They renotified the matter to Monday, 23rd February, given that the deadline to apply is 24th February. · In the Supreme Court, we appeared on behalf of a candidate with SLD. His case is that, after cracking the Combined Graduate Level Exams, he was allotted a post in CAG, only to ultimately have his candidature cancelled on the ground that the post in question had not been identified for his category and the assurance of an alternative posting also being breached. After much persuasion from the Court, and multiple hearings, the Union agreed to accommodate him in a Group C clerical post if directed to do so by the Court. On Friday, we tried to tell the Court that the candidate was earlier given a group B officer level post and is now being given a clerical post and therefore should be given a post with similar service benefits to what he was given earlier as well as notional seniority for the time period he lost out on. However, the Court was insistent that no further relief can be provided and would altogether dismiss the matter if we pushed any further and accordingly reserved the matter for orders. · In the Delhi High Court, we appeared in a review petition filed by a candidate with locomotor disability. His grievance is that ONGC identified the post he applied for, of Material Management Officer, for those with both legs affected subcategory of locomotor disability but did not reserve the post for those with locomotor disability. The post was only reserved for those with visual and hearing disability. This was the only post identified as being suitable for those orthopedically disabled persons both of whose legs are disabled. The Court had dismissed the petition on the ground that a candidate cannot insist that reservation be provided for a particular subcategory of disability. On Friday, we tried to point out that we were not asking for reservation for a subcategory of disability. Rather, we were saying that once a post is identified for those with orthopedic disability, it must be reserved for that category. We tried to argue that identification of a post is only for the purpose of reservation. However, we could not persuade the Court. We were only engaged to argue the review petition, and another law office had drafted the writ petition. When drafting the petition, they had inexplicably used the 1995 Act rather than the 2016 Act. Further, the opposite lawyer had also created a false narrative of the candidate submitting a fabricated disability certificate to create prejudice in the court’s mind, and the whole controversy related to the 2018 recruitment year which is long over. So we could not prevail. -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CAL6V9Aj%2B9bXc6E3wN%3D9-eYNTnc%2Bzyd%3D_xbd3MW6OP1h6Lphbtg%40mail.gmail.com.
