Disability Rights Commissions in the Proposed Law for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

In a previous post, I deal with the developments around India’s proposed law for the rights of persons with disabilities. The biggest challenge in the law making process is to create institutions that will respond quickly and effectively to disability rights claims and ensure the effective realization of rights of persons with disabilities. So far, persons with disabilities have faced severe obstacles in accessing our justice system. In 2007, a study report of the India Centre for Human Rights and Law and the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority detailed the extraordinary obstacles for persons with disabilities in accessing Indian courts. In addition to the problematic legislative framework (which is being remedied by the enactment of the new law), this Report looks at the problem of access to courts for persons with disabilities at three levels – physical barriers, procedural barriers and attitudinal barriers. For most people with disabilities, approaching a court is almost impossible because of accessibility issues. Even though the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 makes it obligatory upon the appropriate governments and local authorities to provide for ramps in public buildings, adaptation of toilets for wheel chair users, Braille and auditory signs in lifts or elevators, most courts in India do not have these facilities. Moreover, in an attitudinal sense, with little or no knowledge about the specific needs of persons with disabilities, courts in India have failed to accommodate persons with disabilities. This includes issues ranging for inaccessible websites to failure to legal texts and documents in accessible format or even adequate legal aid. Since legal and judicial professionals are often not trained in disability rights issues and are unaware of their particular rights and needs, persons with disabilities face problems at the time of examination of witnesses and in other court processes.

Considering these structural and logistical barriers, it is imperative to create processes and structures that are friendly towards, and can cater to the specific needs of persons with disabilities. The enactment of the new law must be accompanied by a strong and effective individual grievance redress system which encourages persons with disabilities to move away from their reluctance to approach the justice system. This is important as legal developments around disability rights related issues will depend heavily on the nature of claims brought to the commissions and courts as well as the adjudication of these disputes.

The draft law proposes that individual redress be addressed at the level of District and State Level Commissions so as to ensure the realization of the rights recognized in the UNCRPD and the new law. The Committee drafting the law raised concerns about the realization of various rights being guaranteed under the law. To address this problem, the law aims to create decentralized quasi-judicial bodies at the district and state level. When compared to courts, these would be relatively cheap and expeditious, and their procedure would be informal. Also, there is the advantage of specialization because the Commissions would include disability experts. Therefore, while the District Commission for Persons with Disabilities will be the first point of contact for individual grievances, the appellate body shall be the State Commission.

Unlike the consumer disputes model which creates a National Commission, the appeal from the State Commissions of Disability would go to the respective High Courts. The proposed law also provides for a renewed role of the Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 empowers the Chief Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities. The Chief Commissioner also coordinates the work of the Commissioners and monitors the utilization of funds disbursed by the Central Government. In the domain of grievance redress, the Chief Commissioner works towards “organization of joint mobile courts of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and State Commissioners to ensure accessibility of redressal mechanism to the door steps of persons with disabilities.” Since the proposed law seeks to create district level grievance redress bodies, the grievance redressal function of the Chief Commissioner would be undertaken by full-time District and State Commissions. It is proposed that the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities should instead be made responsible for the effective functioning and coordination of the Commissions at the district and state level. Previously, there have been problems in ensuring the creation and sustenance of human rights commissions at the state level and a majority of states do not have full-time commissioners. In order to ensure redress on the ground, it is important that the Chief Commissioner is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the creation of district and state level commissions, appointment of commissioners the coordination of the activities of the district and state commissions.

In the final analysis, unless persons with disabilities find that there are bodies that take their grievances seriously and act on them, they are unlikely to see themselves as right bearing subjects.