Rights of persons with disabilities: SC judge highlights need to create sensitisation & awareness
Justice Manmohan said the courts have and will deliver verdicts on issues concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, but the other organs of the State also have to rise to the occasion.
He was speaking at a conference held here on 'Judging and lawyering at the margins disability rights and beyond'. The conference was organised by Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in collaboration with Qable.
"The need of the hour is to create sensitisation, to create awareness. And I think the more awareness is there about the Act, about the rights that are available, the more the society will understand, the more the courts will understand and it will ensure more compliance," said Justice Manmohan when asked about the issue concerning implementation of the judgements.
He also spoke on the issue regarding continuous monitoring by the court for compliance of its verdicts.
"First of all, the court dockets are absolutely full and really to say that court will pick up this issue and give it absolute priority is not feasible because every day the court is grappling with so many issues," he said.
Justice Manmohan said keeping in view the constraints, it has to be ensured that other organs of the State also rise to the occasion.
The judge said the legislature will have to be aware of the issue and will have to put in place some mechanism whereby the court orders are given effect to.
"Everything cannot be done at the pain of contempt. And if we start using the power of contempt repeatedly, it also loses its utility at some point of time," he added.
Justice Manmohan said it has to be ensured the executive machinery understands that this is an obligation on them and this is "not some charity being done".
"I think the basic problem that is arising is because everyone is believing that this is some sort of a charity which is being done. You think of any concept, whether it's gender justice, whether it is persons with disability, the mindset of the executive as well, to a large extent, the people who have been adjudicating these matters in the past have been that we will deal with it as if one is doing a bit of a charity," he said.
Justice Manmohan further said things will change once people will realise it is a rights-based approach and not charity.
"But yes, I agree with you. As a short-term measure, the court will have to monitor and will have to ensure that its judgments are implemented," he said.
Justice Manmohan also cautioned if people think the court is going to monitor a matter on a daily basis, it may be raising the hopes too high.
"We have to be realistic and we have to ensure that all organs of the State work towards it. Today, everything can't be left at the judiciary's doorstep. If you think that only judiciary is going to resolve the problem of this country, you are sadly mistaken," he said.
Justice Manmohan said until and unless all organs, including the society, works for it, there will be issue at hand.
"Just see, you need empathy in the society which is lacking," the judge said.
"So, the real issue is to sensitise the society to ensure all organs of the society work together and one should not expect that it will be solved only by the judiciary," he added.
Justice Manmohan said the judiciary may take the lead in the matter, but it will only get implemented at the ground level when everyone works together.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC sets aside RDO's order restoring tribal land to non-tribal parties
Kochi: The high court has set aside the orders issued by the Ottappalam RDO and Palakkad district collector in 2010, which had wrongfully restored possession of around 12 acres of tribal land at Kottathara village in Agali, Palakkad, to non-tribal parties. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Harisankar V Menon delivered the judgment on Wednesday in a petition filed by Rangan of Kottathara and his three brothers, challenging the RDO's orders and the collector restoring possession of the tribal land to non-tribal parties. The petitioners contended that their father, Chathamooppan, had made an application under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975, stating that he had originally possessed around 12 acres in Kottathara, which had been transferred to certain non-tribal parties between 1964 and 1990 under the guise of various sale deeds. In 1995, the Ottappalam RDO, acting on the application, issued an order directing the non-tribal parties to deliver possession of the land to Chathamooppan and his brother within 30 days and further directed the applicants to pay compensation under the Act. However, in Dec 2010, the Ottappalam RDO, acting suo motu and without notice to the petitioners, sons of the deceased Chathamooppan, reviewed the 1995 order and restored possession of the land to the non-tribal parties under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, which permits the transfer of up to 2 acres of tribal land to non-tribal parties. The district collector upheld the RDO's order, prompting the petitioners to move HC. Upon perusal of the records, the bench held that the proceedings regarding the land in question under the 1975 Act had attained finality with the 1995 order of the RDO, as no one had challenged the same later. Further, the 1999 Act does not contain any provision authorising the RDO to review an order passed under the 1975 Act. Accordingly, the bench set aside the 2010 orders of the RDO and the collector. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Similarly, T V Krishnan of Agali, who is also a party respondent in Rangan's petition, filed a separate petition alleging that he had been interdicted by the police from cutting and removing timber from his property, based on a complaint filed by one Murugan of Agali. However, the court noted that Krishnan had failed to disclose that he was a party respondent in Rangan's petition. The court further directed the revenue authorities to verify whether the property referred to in Krishnan's petition is the same as that involved in Rangan's petition and to take appropriate action accordingly.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Forest Dept. grants permission to capture one more elephant in Karnataka's Chikkamagaluru dist.
The Forest Department has granted permission to capture one more elephant roaming in the villages of N.R. Pura taluk of Karnataka's Chikkamagaluru district. The department staff captured an elephant on July 29, following the incidents of human-elephant conflicts in the region. Prabhash Chandra Ray, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), issued an order on Saturday granting permission to capture a tusker, aged around 25 to 30, as per the Wildlife (Conservation) Act, 1972. MLA for Sringeri T.D. Raje Gowda had met Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre and appealed to him to grant permission to capture the trouble-causing elephant. Conservator of Forests of Chikkamagaluru, Yashpal Kshirasagar, had submitted a proposal seeking permission to capture the elephant that caused damage to crops and left the local people worried. The Forest Department captured a tusker on July 29, following protests by local people in N.R. Pura condemning the repeated incidents of human-elephant conflict in the region. The local people hit the streets of Balehonnur in N.R. Pura taluk on July 28, as two people had died in elephant attacks within a gap of four days. The department had given permission for the capture and relocation of one elephant. A team of officials succeeded in capturing a 15-year-old elephant near Elekallu in N.R. Pura taluk. The local people were anticipating that one more trouble-causing elephant would be captured. However, the PCCF had not granted permission to capture one more elephant.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC says anticipatory bail cannot be tied to resuming conjugal life, sets aside Jharkhand HC order
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court which granted anticipatory bail to a man, allegedly accused of cruelty and attempt to murder of his wife, on the condition that he would resume conjugal life with her and maintain her with dignity and honour. A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that conditioning the grant of pre-arrest bail on the accused resuming conjugal life with his wife is improper and not permissible under the law. The court quashed the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court. 'The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant (accused husband) would maintain the respondent no.2 (wife) with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition,' the court observed in its order. According to the prosecution, the husband, Anil Kumar, was allegedly an accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
