Latest news with #RPwD)Act
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Bridging the digital gap: Supreme Court's vision for an accessible India
Is the all-encompassing onslaught of technology creating a huge social divide that ignores large sections of the population, especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), acid attack survivors, visually impaired and rural poor? It seems so as the Supreme Court in a far-reaching order on April 30 said that the right to digital access is a fundamental right and that the right to life under Article 21 should be reinterpreted from a technological viewpoint. In an age where digitisation drives governance, service delivery, and economic transactions, the promise of digital India can only be fulfilled if access is inclusive. While digital tools have streamlined identification, verification, and access to essential services, they have simultaneously left out large sections of the population—especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), including acid attack survivors and the visually impaired—who face systemic barriers in using these platforms. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan were hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the inaccessibility of digital KYC and e-KYC processes and seeking redress under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had sought alternative KYC mechanisms that uphold their right to dignity and inclusion. Citing its 2024 verdict in Rajive Raturi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that lack of digital accessibility violates Article 21, and ruled that accessibility is a constitutional imperative. The court concluded that bridging the digital divide is a Constitutional imperative, not a policy choice. Seeking a ray of hope The petitioners' grievances centred on the fact that the current KYC verification processes — including live photo capture, facial recognition, and blinking detection — are not designed keeping in mind the disabled. They argued that these methods are exclusionary and violate their right to equal access. Specific directions sought included issuing alternative methods for completing digital KYC, such as using voice recognition or facial feature movements in place of eye-blinking; amending the Reserve Bank of India's KYC Master Directions to reflect inclusive practices for acid attack survivors and the visually impaired; allowing physical KYC or alternative verification for those unable to fulfill visual prompts; sensitising public and private establishments to accommodate persons with disabilities and ensuring accessibility audits and user testing with visually impaired individuals before launching digital platforms. The exclusion of persons with disabilities and marginalised groups has had real-world consequences: petitioners were unable to open bank accounts or procure SIM cards because they couldn't blink to complete facial verification protocols. For those with 100% blindness, such hurdles extend to nearly every digital touchpoint — banking, government schemes, telecom services—thereby obstructing their participation in everyday life. Systemic barriers in current KYC methods The RBI's 2016 Master Direction on KYC, now adopted across banking, finance, telecom, and even governmental schemes, has made digital verification processes indispensable. However, the following methods mandated or commonly used in e-KYC—clicking selfies, signing on screens, OTP verification, reading on-screen prompts, and document scanning — pose substantial hurdles to persons with visual or motor impairments. Face recognition tools lack screen reader compatibility or voice instructions. Signature capturing often requires precise motor control. CAPTCHAs and visual cues, such as blinking or aligning one's face, are impossible for many. The result: people with disabilities often depend on a third person to complete processes, which undermines their autonomy and violates their rights to dignity and privacy. The petitioners argued that under Section 12 of the RPwD Act, public and private players are obligated to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to ensure full participation of disabled persons in all spheres of life. Precedents such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, and Disabled Rights Group v. UoI have affirmed the state's duty to facilitate full integration and economic empowerment of PwDs. Digital accessibility in detail The issue of digital accessibility has come to the forefront through several cases, including those of acid attack victims and individuals with visual impairments. These individuals face significant barriers in completing digital KYC processes, which are mandatory for accessing essential services like banking, telecommunications, and government schemes. The digital KYC process, as it stands, excludes persons with disabilities, violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The process requires tasks like clicking selfies, face recognition, and signing documents, which are not accessible to individuals with visual impairments or facial disfigurements. For instance, acid attack victims with permanent eye disfigurement struggle to complete the KYC process due to the requirement of blinking or capturing a live photograph. Similarly, individuals with visual impairments face difficulties in accessing digital platforms, navigating through complex interfaces, and completing tasks independently. Legal and Constitutional context As per the Supreme Court's observations, KYC processes are vital for verifying identities, preventing fraud, and fulfilling obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, if such procedures are inherently exclusionary, they undermine the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. The court noted that current digital ecosystems — both public and private — often ignore the tenets of universal design and accessibility. Government websites are frequently incompatible with assistive technologies, and many digital services fail to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These oversights violate the RPwD Act, 2016, and the principles enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory. Top court shows the way ahead Compliance with accessibility standards: All public and private entities must follow prescribed accessibility norms. Each department must appoint a nodal officer to ensure digital accessibility. Regular accessibility audits: These must be conducted by certified professionals, with the inclusion of persons with visual disabilities during testing phases. Alternative verification methods: The RBI must revise its KYC Master Directions to allow non-visual cues—like voice, facial movements, or other biometric alternatives—to confirm identity and liveness. Customer Due Diligence guidance: The RBI must issue further clarifications mandating regulated entities to offer inclusive processes for verifying customer identities. Inclusive digital transformation The verdict has far-reaching implications beyond just banking or telecom sectors. As the state and private sectors increasingly rely on digital mechanisms for delivering services, they must internalise inclusivity as a design principle rather than an afterthought. Digital exclusion is not merely a matter of inconvenience—it is a denial of basic human rights. Going forward, accessibility must not be siloed as a 'disability issue' but embraced as a mainstream concern. Only then can the true vision of Digital India—where no one is left behind—be realised.
India Gazette
22-05-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Government mandates 4% housing reservation for people with disabilities
New Delhi [India], May 22 (ANI): Union Minister Manohar Lal on Thursday took a milestone decision to provide a reservation of 4% in the allotment of central government housing for the person with disabilities. The decision was taken with an aim to reaffirm the commitment to equal opportunities for all citizens under the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs said in a release. 'In alignment with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, the Directorate of Estates has issued an Office Memorandum to ensure fair access to central government residential accommodations for persons with disabilities,' the release added. According to the ministry, this initiative is a reflection of 'the government's dedication to the empowerment of every citizen and also strengthens the foundation of an inclusive and accessible India.' Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the eKYC (digital Know Your Customer) process must be made accessible to people with disabilities. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while pronouncing a judgement on PIL pleas seeking directions to the government regarding problems faced by acid attack victims and blind or persons with low-vision in being able to complete the eKYC process, stated that the right to digital access is intrinsic to Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is directed to issue guidelines to ensure that alternative, inclusive methods are available for verifying customer 'liveness' during Digital KYC or e-KYC processes, moving beyond methods like eye blinking, which may not be accessible to persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the RBI must clarify that customer onboarding through video-based KYC (V-CIP) does not require eye blinking, making the process more directions also state that KYC templates and customer acquisition forms must be redesigned to record the type and percentage of disability, enabling institutions to provide accessible services or reasonable accommodations to customers with disabilities. (ANI)
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Government reserves 4% central government housing for persons with disabilities
The Union Urban Affairs Ministry has decided to make a reservation of 4% in the allotment of Central government housing for persons with disabilities. The Department of Estates (DoE) has issued an office memorandum to ensure fair access to Central government residential accommodations for persons with disabilities in alignment with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs said in an official statement. The DoE is an attached office under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, responsible for managing and administering the government's estates, particularly in the national capital. Established in 1944, it is also responsible for allocating government residential accommodation and managing bookings for holiday homes and touring officers' hostels. The Ministry statement said that going forward, a reservation of 4% in the allotment of Central government housing will be provided to persons with disabilities, marking a substantial move towards equity, dignity, and accessibility in public services. 'This initiative reflects the government's dedication to the empowerment of every citizen and also strengthens the foundation of an inclusive and accessible India,' it added.
The Wire
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Legal Victories, Lived Defeats: Disability Justice After the ‘Courtroom Revolution'
Philosopher Slavoj Žižek asks for a sequel to the film V for Vendetta that depicts a successful revolution, saying, 'Now that people took power, what will they do? It is not enough to overthrow a tyranny; you have to replace it with a new structure.' Recently, we have seen several judgments from the Supreme Court enabling disability rights, valorising reasonable accommodation, and even using its powers under Article 142 to do 'complete justice' for persons with disabilities. The Supreme Court has called the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( RPwD ) Act, 2016 a ' super statute ' containing the ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law. A Whiggish historian of disability justice might call this the 'golden age' of disability justice, marked by interventions of the courts. However, sincere teachers of historiography often warn against labels such as 'golden age', as supposed 'golden ages' usually mask several exclusions and debilitations. This might be one reason why Dianne Otto, while writing an endorsement for the book, Desire and its Discontents , warns: 'Too often, queer activists and scholars seeking emancipation through legal rights forget how much context matters, and how much law is committed to maintaining the very hierarchies that state power relies upon.' Dianne Otto's warning is significant for the disability justice movement, too. The sky is purple, or maybe not Liberal disability jurisprudence in India, exemplified by Vikas Kumar v. UPSC, marks a progressive shift by expanding reasonable accommodation to focus on individual needs instead of rigid benchmarks. However, this moment of progress exposes deeper contradictions. Similar to the ' Naz moment' in LGBTQ+ rights, the shift signals visible change, but beneath it lies an entrenched ableist scaffolding that continues to govern who is deserving of rights. The judgment's characterisation of disabled persons as a 'discrete and insular minority' reinforces the idea that disability is exceptional , not normative, reflecting a logic hard-wired into law . Borrowed from US constitutional jurisprudence, this framing isolates disability even as it claims to include it. The accompanying rhetoric of 'assets, not liabilities' might seem empowering, but the underlying dichotomies – abled/disabled, asset/liability – are not neutral. Ableism is hardwired into law not just by contrasting ability and disability, but by co-constituting them through a norm-deviation dyad, rendering disabled existence intelligible only through the spectacle of deficit. Disabled litigants often have to perform their deficiency to fit legal expectations. Even as liberal jurisprudence claims to promote inclusion, it reifies exclusion through modular forms of citizenship that favours able-bodiedness. This jurisprudence doesn't emerge in a vacuum. Courts operate within constitutional and statutory frameworks already shaped by ableist assumptions. To truly understand how disability justice becomes a performative act – how courts reinforce dominant norms through the politics of recrimination , construct the disabled litigant as a narrowly legible subject, and turn legal redress into a public enactment of worthiness – we must first examine the underlying script. Central to this script is the RPwD Act, 2016, which, despite being hailed as a progressive milestone, rests on assumptions that often reify exclusion under the guise of inclusion. The Act's principles of equality, non-discrimination, and participation in society are framed as protective, but they often obscure the lived realities of discrimination and humiliation faced by disabled persons. The emphasis on equality and non-discrimination can falsely imply that the work of dignity has already been achieved, leaving unchallenged the deeper vocabularies of humiliation that shape the experience of disability in legal and social life. Similarly, the idea of participation assumes a false neutrality in an ableist world, where ability and disability are framed as opposites. Ableism rests on the production of a naturalised ideal of the fully human, that depends on the erasure of bodily and cognitive differences. In everyday life, this manifests through the ethos of ' compulsory able-bodiedness ' – a cultural demand to perform able-bodied norms aligned with ideals of health, beauty, and productivity. Legal systems do not just mirror these norms; they embed them. Law often treats able-bodiedness as the default standard of personhood, casting disability as something to be managed or overcome. Participation, then, becomes a conditional offer – extended only to those who can approximate the very norms that excluded them. Legal recognition under this framework does not affirm difference; it masks it under the guise of neoliberal inclusion. If ableist norms already shape the parameters of participation, even the RPwD Act's most celebrated safeguard – reasonable accommodation – may inadvertently reinforce the exclusions it seeks to remedy. Framed as 'necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden,' the principle appears to promise inclusion. But in practice, it acts as a strategy of containment, asking not how the law must transform to centre disabled experiences, but how far accommodation can be extended without disrupting able-bodied norms. This logic of containment is compounded by Section 3(3), which legitimises discrimination if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.' Vague and flexible, this clause allows exclusions to be framed as neutral – justified by cost, efficiency, or convenience. Reasonable accommodation becomes limited to what the system can tolerate, while exclusion is permitted whenever inclusion feels too unsettling. Both provisions reflect the culture doing the asking , where the law expects disabled people to adapt to institutional norms, rather than changing to reflect their realities. This re-centres the state's interests over disabled rights, flipping the burden: the disabled person must prove injustice; the state merely invokes abstract legitimacy. Disability then is not treated as a legitimate form of human variation, but as an ontological aberration – something to be corrected, tolerated, or eliminated. Within such normative frameworks, courts do not disrupt the underlying structures of exclusions; they merely manage them. Inclusion becomes conditional; calibrated to what able-bodied structures can absorb, offering tolerance rather than affirming dignity. What is needed, then, is a shift in focus – from the disabled litigant who must conform, to the legal system that must transform. This shift is especially urgent in a time when the judiciary's role is becoming increasingly precarious and democratic commitments are under strain. Also read: How We Marginalise Disabled Experiences When We Speak of the Blindfold of Lady Justice Final concern: Disability rights in Schmittian times German philosopher Carl Schmitt , who supported authoritarianism, developed the concept of the 'total state,' where the political space is shaped by the 'friend-enemy' distinction. Schmitt was sceptical of bourgeois political norms, embracing instead a vision of racial homogeneity. In a total state, where the state intervenes in all spheres of life and liberal democratic protocols are suspended, court judgments lose their significance. While India has not yet descended into a Schmittian dystopia, we cannot ignore the fact that the Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to do complete justice, as seen in the In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and Rekha Sharma cases, coincided with vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar's attack on Article 142, calling it ' a nuclear missile against democratic forces available to judiciary 24×7. ' This attack highlights the precarious nature of disability justice achieved through court rulings when executive power leans towards a 'total state'. Moreover, the Supreme Court's own conduct of disregarding precedents whenever it is convenient, and its polyvocal nature , make the possibility of a rollback on disability justice very real. In a polity increasingly defined by the 'friend-enemy' distinction, where a vast segment is debilitated, we need a cautious celebration of courtroom revolution. Vijay K. Tiwari is an assistant professor of law at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, who teaches jurisprudence and is a disabled academician. Aditi Thakur is a Research Assistant – Legal at the Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, and is currently part of the Right to Food team.
Time of India
27-04-2025
- General
- Time of India
Every child matters: How teachers can lead the way
Rashmi S Chari has been actively involved in the field of education for last 34 years. She is currently Director, Academics & Training, Bhartiya Shiksha Board (BSB). She was till recently Member, Educational Research & Innovations Committee (ERIC) of Ministry of HRD, Government of India advising the apex educational institution NCERT on ways to bring qualitative improvement in teacher education through infusion of innovative practices and action research. She has consistently supported the initiatives of the Apex educational bodies as an Advisor to the Apex educational institutions of India in NCERT and CBSE on Teacher Education, Early Childhood Care and Education and National Policy of Education (2015). She has also extensively researched Human Values in Education and has developed a curriculum for teacher-education for MHRD. LESS ... MORE In a significant step toward creating a truly inclusive education system, the Delhi government has issued a circular mandating the screening of students for 21 types of disabilities, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. This move marks a transformative shift—not just in policy, but in how we view, value, and nurture every learner. Screening students for disabilities is a crucial first step in ensuring that no child struggles in silence. As educators, we are at a pivotal moment. Early screening is not merely a procedural requirement; it is a call to action—a unique opportunity to transform lives by recognizing every child's potential early and providing them right support at the right time. By identifying challenges early—whether learning difficulties, developmental delays, sensory impairments, or physical needs—we can offer customised support with care and understanding. Timely intervention not only helps prevent learning gaps but also boosts emotional well-being, enabling students to engage meaningfully in their educational journey. An inclusive classroom doesn't happen by chance. It requires strong leadership, intentional action, and unwavering determination. Building such an environment is grounded in commitment—a shared vision that every student deserves the opportunity to succeed. Delhi government's initiative to implement early screening creates an essential foundation for change, offering an intentional scaffolding for success. By screening early, we don't just address challenges; we uncover talents, resilience, and hidden potential that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. How Teachers Can Lead This Initiative Early screening and timely interventions have the power to transform classrooms into truly inclusive spaces where every learner can thrive. But this transformation solely depends on the teachers ability to bring a compassionate attitude, skilled teaching practices, and a commitment to recognize and nurture the strengths in every student. Here's how teachers can lead the way: Collaborate for Individualized Support: Work closely with special educators, counsellors, and parents to develop Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) with tailored support strategies for each student. Adapt and Innovate: Adjust teaching methods, incorporate multisensory tools, be ready to give extra time, and create flexible, and supportive classroom environments. Foster Peer Inclusion: Cultivate a classroom culture where empathy, respect, and peer support are the norms, ensuring every child feels valued. Monitor Progress: Regularly track students' progress, adapt strategies as needed, and celebrate each milestone—big or small. Engage Parents as Partners: Keep parents involved and informed. Their support at home can significantly reinforce the progress made at school. Strengthen Social and Emotional Skills: Provide counselling and opportunities to build confidence, fostering their emotional growth along with academic achievement. Reflecting on My Journey as an Educator Almost 30 years ago, as a Principal, I struggled to help learners with disabilities. Students like Mohit (name changed), a young boy with dyslexia, couldn't be identified early, and apart from empathy and understanding, we lacked the skills and resources to support him effectively. The absence of proper training and awareness meant that, despite our best efforts, we couldn't provide Mohit the interventions he needed. It was a challenging period, but it also became a defining moment in my career, highlighting the urgent need for change and better preparation to truly support all learners. Fortunately, research and studies have since then equipped us with the tools to identify learning disabilities early and the knowledge to help students through timely interventions. In recent years, I have witnessed remarkable progress, thanks to the concerted efforts of principals and the dedicated support of special educators. For instance: Riya, a young student with dyslexia, benefited from an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that incorporated multisensory teaching methods. Over time, she improved her reading skills and became more confident in class. In case of Arjun, a student with severe anxiety, challenges were recognized and met with the right combination of counselling, peer mentoring, and classroom accommodations. Arjun has now become more engaged in class, his anxiety has lessened, and his test performance improved. Diagnosed with ADHD, Meera too has made impressive strides through personalized strategies such as task breakdowns, visual schedules, and movement breaks. With the continuous support of a resource teacher and parental involvement, Meera developed better focus and greater independence in her learning, transforming into a confident and engaged student. These success stories are a testament to the power of early identification and the right interventions. They remind us of the extraordinary impact we can have when we act early, together, and with heart. Encouraging All Schools to Embrace This Vision Every school, no matter its size or resources, can take steps to become more inclusive. Screening students for disabilities should not be seen as a burden but as an opportunity to enhance teaching and foster a more joyful, supportive learning environment. Schools that embrace early screening send a powerful message: every child matters, every child belongs, and every child can achieve great things when we believe in them. This is a call to all educators and schools: Let us lead with openness, compassion, and determination. Let us create spaces where every learner is recognized, supported, and celebrated. By embracing early screening, we are not just identifying challenges—we are lighting the way for every child's success story. The earlier we act, the greater the difference we make. Every small step taken today can open a lifetime of opportunity tomorrow. Let us be the teachers who believe first, act early, and never give up on the hope of every child to shine! Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
