Madras HC directs centre to provide reservation for PwDs in statutory bodies
The court pointed out that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, provides for 4% reservation in higher education and employment under Sections 32 and 34. Section 33 mandates the government to identify posts suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities, while Section 75 tasks the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities with spreading awareness and ensuring safeguards for the community.
A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan, in a recent order, said that while it cannot issue a writ of mandamus unless the petitioner shows the existence of any legal right, it can certainly nudge the authorities to take appropriate steps.
The order was passed on a petition filed by B Rameshbabu, an advocate with polio paralysis, seeking directions to the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities to provide 4% reservation in the elected posts of the statutory bodies like Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India.
'Now that we have brought it to the notice of the respondents the lack of representation of PwDs in elected boards of statutory bodies, we direct them to undertake appropriate steps in this regard,' the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Private schools file contempt plea against TN over pending RTE reimbursement
CHENNAI: With the funds under the Right to Education (RTE) Act pending for the past two academic years, an association of private schools has filed a contempt petition in the Madras High Court against the state government. According to the petition filed by the School Voice Association, though the HC, in September 2024, had directed the state government to settle the per-child expenditure payable to private schools within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the fund is yet to be released. Under the RTE Act, 25% of seats in all private state board schools are reserved for children from economically weaker sections, with the government paying their fees with the help of Samagra Shiksha (SS) funds. The TN government has not issued the RTE admission notification for 2025-26, citing the non-release of Rs 2,152 crore by the centre for 2024-25. Over 10 lakh students are currently studying in 9,854 private schools under RTE quota. Private school associations estimate the annual reimbursement amounts to be around Rs 550 crore. With no fund for two years and no clarity on RTE admissions or reimbursements, many schools have begun exerting pressure on parents of students studying under RTE to pay full fees. 'My son is in Class 7 at a mid-range private school in the city. Every year, the school asks us to pay Rs 15,000 for books and other expenses. Now, they are demanding an additional Rs 50,000 as full fees for the year, and have warned that they will not issue books for the second term if we fail to pay,' said a 45-year-old parent, working as a two-wheeler mechanic. He urged the government to instruct schools to refrain from pressurising parents and ensure dues are released at the earliest.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
C.Ve. Shanmugam pays ₹10 lakh to T.N. government as per SC order
Senior AIADMK leader and former Minister Shanmugam has paid a sum of ₹10 lakh to the Tamil Nadu government as directed by the Supreme Court recently. The State government has issued orders for utilising the sum to benefit the people of Kalvarayan hills in Kallakurichi district. An official release from the Tamil Nadu government said Mr. Shanmugam made the payment on Thursday, in line with the direction of the Supreme Court judgment that had also dismissed his petition challenging the decision to naming a welfare programme after Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. It said the sum will be utilised under the Nalam Kaakkum Stalin programme. Mr. Shanmugam was a Minister during the erstwhile AIADMK regime. Case dismissed Earlier this month, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, dismissed the pending case instituted by Mr. Shanmugam in the Madras High Court with costs of ₹10 lakh, which he has to pay the State government to be used in welfare programmes.
New Indian Express
10 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Judging in the age of populism
It is at this juncture that Lord Reed's inquiry and recommendations assume particular significance. Firstly, he recommends that while a court 'has to be fearless in defending our constitutional values, it also has to exercise judgement and display a sensitivity towards the other institutions of the state, and towards public opinion, if it is to avoid being perceived as a political actor'. Secondly, he recommends judgements be measured and neutral, thereby demonstrating they are based on law and exercise of legal expertise and experience and not on personal convictions. Thirdly, he stresses on the importance of public outreach in the form of livestreaming of proceedings, maintaining a hands-on and active communication team and establishing educational schemes to reach out to pupils at schools. Lord Reed's prescriptions are valuable and create avenues for the public to interact with the judiciary. To its credit, the Indian judiciary has been making efforts to make justice accessible. The e-Courts Project represents one of the largest judicial digitisation initiatives by sheer scale, connecting 18,735 district and subordinate courts. The Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), launched in 2019, has translated thousands of Supreme Court judgments into multiple vernacular languages using artificial intelligence. Yet more needs to be done. India's technological achievements through e-courts and SUVAS must be complemented with sustained and planned public outreach. The judiciary also needs dedicated teams who can help judges craft accessible language, provide background briefings to journalists, and manage public messaging during controversial decisions. Perhaps most critically, the Indian judiciary must move beyond its often-adversarial relationship with parliament and towards structured dialogue. While we must strive to better adopt Lord Reed's recommendations to our unique needs, we must be mindful that they are technocratic in nature and may not address the underlying causes of the trust deficit. Courts in developed nations face the inevitable backlash of decades of judicial enforcement of market discipline and acculturation. On the other hand, our problems run much deeper as our judiciary faces urgent systemic issues in the form of corruption and an appointment system that has become a lightning rod. However, the needed reform must ensure independence from executive interference. Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy | Advocate, Madras High Court (Views are personal) (saaisudharsans@
