Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.

2014 On The Draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014, as cleared by Cabinet The Draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill was shrouded in mystery since its notification on the website of the Ministry of Social Justice and Welfare in 20 2! "or a Bill that was touted to be framed by an inclusi#e $rocess% the #ersion of the Bill cleared by cabinet was only made a#ailable to the general $ublic &ust a fortnight before the $ro$osed $arliamentary session which see's its introduction and $assing! (s the )nclusi#e Planet *entre for Disability +aw and Policy wor's across disabilities and across sectors% ) found that it was best to e,amine the Bill from the $ers$ecti#e of the -.*RPD and whether its (rticles and therefore )ndia/s obligations% were com$lied with% before analy0ing indi#idual $ro#isions for other infirmities! ) chose not to com$are the Bill to its $re#ious drafts at this initial stage because the ob&ecti#e of this Bill is clearly to enact )ndia/s obligations under the -.*RPD and for this e,ercise such analysis was not rele#ant! ( reading of the Bill re#eals that there is a com$lete lac' of understanding of the a$$roach of the -.*RPD on the $art of the drafting *ommittee! "rom abridged definitions which are e,tremely crucial and clear under the con#ention% to grammatical errors% to $lain callousness% the Bill fails utterly in its lofty self stated ob&ecti#e to im$lement the -.*RPD! Some of the most crucial $ro#isions of the -.*RPD which were celebrated in the disability mo#ement 1 the ado$tion of the social model of definition of disability in (rticle % the conce$t of reasonable accommodation under (rticle 2% the right to full legal ca$acity under (rticle 2% the right to inde$endent li#ing under (rticle 2% the right to accessibility under (rticle 2% res$ect for home and the family under (rticle 23% the right to inclusi#e education under (rticle 24% and the right to $artici$ation in $olitical and $ublic life% ha#e all been either diluted or outright ignored by the drafting committee of this Bill! ) ha#e recorded instances of -.*RPD #iolations and not omissions at the $resent time! The )P*D+P wishes to $lace on record our strong o$$osition to this Bill in its $resent format! )t is felt that there is no e,cuse for such a slo$$ily drafted Bill% es$ecially after all the hard wor' many $ersons in the disabilities mo#ement ha#e $ut in during the initial stages of its drafting! ) $ersonally fear that if introduced% it might go on to be enacted without any sco$e of inter#ention% due to the short time frame the $resent 5o#ernment has! ) would li'e to $lace on record the #aluable in$uts from Meena'shi% Ra&i# Ra&an% 6aisha#i

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 Jaya'umar and Dr! 6!S! Sunder of the Disability Rights (lliance% Tamil .adu% as well as the in$uts of Bharga#i Da#ar% Ba$u Trust% Pune% and Pa#an Muntha% Swaadhi'aar% 7yderabad% and 8etan 8othari of Sightsa#ers% Mumbai% that ) ha#e ta'en the liberty of using in this draft! ) ho$e to ha#e many more in$uts o#er the ne,t few days from my more e,$erienced friends in the Sector!

(mba Salel'ar )nclusi#e Planet *entre for Disability +aw and Policy Member 9rgani0ation% Disability Rights (lliance% Tamil .adu

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 Article 1, P r!ose" The *on#ention see's to $romote% $rotect and ensure the full and e:ual en&oyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all $ersons with disabilities! To this end% the definition of ;$ersons with disabilities< is an inclusi#e definition% and include those ;who ha#e long=term $hysical% mental% intellectual or sensory im$airments which in interaction with #arious barriers may hinder their full and effecti#e $artici$ation in society on an e:ual basis with others!< Thus% the definition lin's the barriers which e,ist in society to the im$airment and therefore mo#es away from the medical a$$roach to the social a$$roach! The Bill% in Section 2 >:?% curtails the definition under the -.*RPD% and limits the definition of ;$ersons with disabilities< to ;long term $hysical% mental% intellectual or sensory im$airment which hinder >sic? his full and effecti#e $artici$ation in society e:ually with others<! By remo#ing the reference to barriers% the focus is on the im$airment of the $erson% which goes entirely against the $ur$ort of the -.*RPD% that the focus should be on remo#al of the barriers that e,ist in society% and not focusing on the im$airment! "or a Bill that claims to be im$lementing the -.*RPD in its ob&ecti#es% the correct starting $oint would $erha$s ha#e been to understood the a$$roach of the *on#ention% along with using the correct definitions! The fact that the definition of disability is misunderstood by the drafting committee is further e,em$lified by the scheduling of ;s$ecified disabilities< under Section 2 >,? of the Bill!

Article #, $eneral Princi!les" 9ne of the 5eneral Princi$les of the *on#ention is the res$ect for difference and acce$tance of $ersons with disabilities as $art of human di#ersity and humanity! The Draft Bill does a great disser#ice by the inclusion of Section 24 >2? and the stress on ;Pre#ention of Disabilities< in sub clauses >a? and >b?! While there is no doubt that many disabilities are $re#entable% this becomes the $rerogati#e of the Ministry of 7ealth and associated bodies% and not that of the Ministry of Social Justice and @m$owerment which is res$onsible for the well being of $ersons with disabilities! To single out a grou$ of $ersons to be essentially a ;failure to $re#ent< by the State #iolates the Pur$ose under Article 1 of the %&CRPD to $romote res$ect for the inherent dignity of $ersons with disabilities! Similarly% disability is not a curse or an ailment that a $erson ;suffers from< = unli'e what the Bill states while defining ;S$ecial @m$loyment @,changes< under Section 2 >w?! Article 4, $eneral Obligations" )ndia is obliged to ado$t all a$$ro$riate legislati#e% administrati#e and other measures for the im$lementation of the rights recogni0ed in the $resent *on#ention! The rights guaranteed are cross sectoral and cross disability% and therefore re:uires e#ery Ministry and

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 De$artment to be able to re#iew their $olicies to ensure com$liance with the -.*RPD! (t the #ery least% there is a re:uirement for a Body that can ensure res$onsi#eness of all $olicies and $rogrammes across de$artments and Ministries towards res$ecting% $rotecting and $romoting the rights of $ersons with disabilities! Section A4% lays down the "unctions of the *entral (d#isory Board on Disability% which is to ;ad#ise the *entral 5o#ernment and State 5o#ernments on $olicies% $rogrammes% legislation and $ro&ects with regard to disability!< (nother function is to ;re#iew and coordinate the acti#ities of all De$artments!!!dealing with $ersons with disabilities<! The wording of these sections create a #ery limited role% and the (d#isory Board will not be em$owered to recogni0e the needs of accessibility and reasonable accommodation in other mainstream legislations! Thus% there is no effecti#e engine of im$lementation of the rights under the *on#ention! Article ', () ality and &on Discri*ination" (ccording to the -.*RPD% State Parties are to

grant an unconditional Right to @:uality and .on Discrimination to all $ersons with disabilities% on $ar with others! )n the Draft Bill of 20 2% the Right to @:uality is curtailed under Section 3 >3?% which says that the right against discrimination e,ists ;unless it can be shown that the im$ugned act or omission is a $ro$ortionate means of achie#ing a legitimate aim<! The terms ;$ro$ortionate means< and ;legitimate aim< are highly sub&ecti#e% and this could be a means of $er$etuating discrimination! (s a matter of fact% the term ;discrimination on the basis of disability<% com$rehensi#ely defined under the -.*RPD% does not e#en find mention in this Bill! Article +, Accessibility" The -.*RPD has e,tremely wide ranging $ro#isions on accessibility% and e,tends it to the $hysical en#ironment% to trans$ortation% to information and communications% including information and communications technologies and systems% and to other facilities and ser#ices o$en or $ro#ided to the $ublic% both in urban and in rural areas! Thus it is clear that it e,tends to buildings% ser#ices etc! which are $ro#ided both by the State as well as by Pri#ate @ntities! )n Section 32 of the Bill% standards of accessibility are delegated to the .ational *ommission for the $hysical en#ironment% trans$ortation% information and communications% including a$$ro$riate technologies and systems% and other facilities and ser#ices $ro#ided to the $ublic in urban and rural areas! The Section only s$ea's of standards% and not enforcing them! "urther% the ne,t following Sections se#erely clam$ down on what the -.*RPD $ro#ides! )n Section 40% the facilities for $ersons with disabilities at bus sto$s% railway stations and air$orts a$$ear to re:uire to conform to the accessibility standards >$resumably laid down by the .ational *ommission? relating only to to $ar'ing s$aces% toilets% tic'eting counters and tic'eting machines!

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 The limiting of accessibility standards to these 4 areas is ine,$licable! Secondly% the access to $ublic trans$ort is also se#erely limited! )t is only mandated wherever technically feasible and safe for ersons with disabilities! econo"ically viable and without entailin# "a$or structural chan#es in desi#n! This is e,tremely #ague and means that in $ractice% it would ne#er actually be im$lemented! )n light of this% any ;incenti#es and concessions< for $ersons with disabilities would be entirely meaningless! Section 43% which deals with ;mandatory obser#ance of accessibility norms< #iolates the -.*RPD e,tension of accessibility measures to all ser#ices and $laces ;o$en or $ro#ided to the $ublic<! The inter$retation of this is not limiting it to 5o#ernment Buildings! 7owe#er% the Section limits mandatory obser#ance of accessibility norms only to ;establishments<% defined under Section 2 >h? to mean ;a cor$oration established by or under a *entral (ct or State (ct or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the 5o#ernment or a local authority or a 5o#ernment com$any as defined in section 2 of the *om$anies (ct% 20 3 and includes De$artment of a 5o#ernment<! Thus% all other buildings are e,cluded from its $ur#iew% which ma'es the $ro#ision meaningless to $ersons with disabilities! Section 44 refers to ;all e,isting $ublic buildings< ha#ing to be made accessible! The term ;$ublic building< is not defined under the Bill! 7owe#er% reading Section 43 and 44 together% it a$$ears that Section 44 e,tends again only to ;establishments<% and Section 43 refers to before commissioning% com$letion and occu$ation% and Section 44 refers to those already in e,istence! (gain therefore% anything which is not an ;establishment< will be outside the $ur#iew of the Bill! This is furthered by sub section >2? which refers to the a$$ro$riate 5o#ernment and local authorities $ro#iding accessibility in all their buildings and s$aces $ro#iding essential ser#ices and lists $rimary health centres% ci#il hos$itals% schools% railway stations and bus sto$s 1 all under 5o#ernmental control! The common thread that runs through these Sections is access to the $hysical en#ironment and mo#ing around the same% in a strictly $hysical sense! The use of terms li'e trans$ort% roads% and reference to com$letion certificates for $ossession of buildings etc! indicate that stress is on the built en#ironment and therefore $hysical access! 7owe#er% the :uestion of assistance which is outside the $hysical mo#ement re:uirements% li'e sign language inter$retation% or BrailleBlarge $rint signage% or other forms of s$eciali0ed andBor li#e assistance% is e,cluded from this% which are e,$ressly $ro#ided for in Sub=clause 2 >d? and >e? of the (rticle! Section 4C deals with ;ser#ice $ro#iders<! ;Ser#ice $ro#iders< is not defined under the Bill! ;Ser#ice<% under laws li'e the *onsumer Protection (ct% 2DA and the *om$etition (ct% 2002% com$rise of a wide range of ser#ices which could be $ro#ided by both the 5o#ernment and $ri#ate entities! 7owe#er% under the Telecom Regulatory (uthority of )ndia >Section 2 >&?E Fser#ice

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 $ro#iderF means the 5o#ernment and includes a licensee<? the term is defined differently! )n case of ambiguity in inter$retation% the limiting of the other Sections in this *ha$ter to 5o#ernment run buildings will tend to indicate that ;ser#ice $ro#iders< will be those ser#ices under 5o#ernment regulation! The use of ;trans$ortation% information and communications% including a$$ro$riate technologies and systems< in Section 32 sets the trend of the manner in which ;ser#ice $ro#iders< will be inter$reted% and since these are all regulated by the 5o#ernment largely% the ser#ices co#ered under this clause may also be limited to the same! Article 12, () al Protection before the ,aw" 9ne of the hallmar's of the -.*RPD is the recognition of legal ca$acity for all $ersons with disabilities! Two clauses may be reiterated hereE ! States Parties reaffirm that $ersons with disabilities ha#e the right to recognition e#erywhere as $ersons before the lawG and 2! States Parties shall recogni0e that $ersons with disabilities en&oy legal ca$acity on an e:ual basis with others in all as$ects of life! .either of these statements ha#e been reflected in the Bill in Section 2! The Section also refers to ;su$$ort arrangements< without ma'ing any mention of safeguards% unli'e the $rotocol mandated under the -.*RPD! Section 3 of the Bill refers to guardianshi$% and only concerns the ;mentally ill<% $resumably as defined under Schedule of the Bill! By im$lication% therefore% the guardianshi$ mechanisms under the .ational Trust (ct will still $re#ail and those $ersons will still be deemed to be without legal ca$acity! ;+imited guardians< shall be a$$ointed for $ersons who are declared to be mentally ill and inca$able of ta'ing care of themsel#es and ma'ing legally binding decisions for themsel#es! The wording of the Section is that the limited guardian ;shall ta'e all legally binding decisions on his or her behalf% in consultation with that $erson<! The Section is unambiguous that the ultimate decision ma'ing $ower lies with the guardian% whereas the shift should be from substituted decision ma'ing to su$$orted decision ma'ing! Though $ersons with disabilities are granted the right to own or inherit $ro$ertyG control their financial affairsG obtain access to ban' loans% mortgages and other forms of financial credit in Section 2 > ?% there is no effecti#e manner of reali0ing these rights% and the right under (rticle 2 of the -.*RPD to not to be arbitrarily de$ri#ed of their $ro$erty is absent! (dditionally% the creation of the category of $ersons with ;high su$$ort needs< for whom an (ssessment Board can ma'e decisions on behalf of% under Section 3H% $otentially clam$s down on the legal ca$acity of $ersons other than those already co#ered under the .ational Trust (ct and the Mental 7ealth (ct% as there is no bar on the a$$ointment of guardians for these $ersons! There are no guidelines on the manner of ;high su$$ort< which may or may not be granted to these $ersons as well!

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014

Article 14, ,iberty and -ec rity of Person" (ccording to The *ommittee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities% in their (ustria Re$ort% of Se$tember% 20 3% non=consensual institutionali0ation of $ersons with disabilities is said to be #iolati#e of (rticle 4! The *ommittee urged that all necessary legislati#e% administrati#e and &udicial measures were ta'en to ensure that no one is detained against their will and the State $arty was urged to de#elo$ deinstitutionali0ation strategies based on the human rights model of disability! The Bill su$$orts institutionali0ation and *ha$ter )I and does not s$ecifically bar any institutionali0ation which is without a $erson/s consent% either by a family member or at the instance of the (ssessment Board in res$ect of $ersons with ;high su$$ort needs<! Section C s$ea's of returning a $erson with disability in a derecogni0ed institution ;restored to the custody of his or her $arent or s$ouse or lawful guardian< or ;transferring them to any other institution< which once again goes bac' to the #iolation of Article 12 of not recogni0ing $ersons with disabilities are $ersons before the law! )t is also worth $ointing out that since the institutionali0ation under this *ha$ter is for all ersons with disabilities% it gi#es further credence to the understanding that legal ca$acity is in :uestion for all $ersons with disabilities% and not &ust those under the Mental 7ealthB.ational Trust (ct! Article 1', .reedo* fro* tort re or cr el, inh *an or degrading ! nish*ent or treat*ent" The $ro$osed Section C does not $ro#ide for any effecti#e reali0ation of this right and merely obliges the ;a$$ro$riate go#ernment< to ta'e measures to $rotect ;$erson with disability >sic? from being sub&ected to torture% cruel% inhuman or degrading treatment! The Section is com$letely silent on the issue of ;$unishment< and hence beha#iour which would be cruel and inhuman but meant as a $unishment for misbeha#ing studentsB$ersons li#ing in institutions would be condoned! The right of $rotection against scientific e,$erimentation or testing e,ce$t with the free and informed consent of the indi#idual is seriously com$romised by the recognition of guardians under Section 3 who are em$owered to ta'e ;all legally binding decisions< on behalf of their wards! Article 1/, .reedo* fro* e0!loitation, 1iolence and ab se" While the $ro$osed Section A details many ste$s towards effecti#e reali0ation of this freedom it misses out an e,tremely crucial re:uirement of the -.*RPD 1 that in order to $re#ent the occurrence of all forms of e,$loitation% #iolence and abuse% States Parties are obligated to ensure that all facilities and $rogrammes designed to ser#e $ersons with disabilities are effecti#ely monitored by inde$endent authorities! This is es$ecially rele#ant with regard to the encouragement gi#en to institutionali0ation and guardianshi$ under the Bill! The lac' of monitoring mechanisms% which ha#e been long critici0ed as

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 encouraging the abuse of $ersons with disabilities% is a #iolation of the -.*RPD! Article 12, Protecting the 3ntegrity of the Person" Though Section 3 says that the ;a$$ro$riate 5o#ernment shall ensure that the $ersons with disabilities en&oy!!!res$ect for his or her integrity e:ually with others<% the Bill fails to reiterate the s$ecific wording of the -.*RPD that ;>e?#ery $erson with disabilities has a right to res$ect for his or her $hysical and mental integrity on an e:ual basis with others!< The use of the words $hysical and mental integrity are im$ortant% and are ob#iously left out by the drafters of the Bill% because by allowing for institutionali0ation and guardianshi$% neither $hysical nor mental integrity of $ersons with disabilities are res$ected! Article 1+, ,i1ing 3nde!endently and being incl ded in the Co** nity" The Bill% in Section 4% curtails the rights granted under the -.*RPD by retaining only the negati#e right i!e! of not being forced to li#e in any $articular li#ing arrangement% and not the $ositi#e right of ha#ing the o$$ortunity to choose their $lace of residence and where and with whom they li#e on an e:ual basis with others! This $otentially creates obstacles when loo'ing at the effecti#e reali0ation of the rights under Article 2# of the %&CRPD as well! Article 21, .reedo* of e0!ression and o!inion, and access to infor*ation" The -.*RPD recogni0es the States Parties shall ta'e all a$$ro$riate measures to ensure that $ersons with disabilities can e,ercise the right to freedom of e,$ression and o$inion% including the freedom to see'% recei#e and im$art information and ideas on an e:ual basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice! *ommunication has a #ery s$ecific definition in Article 2% and includes languages% dis$lay of te,t% Braille% tactile communication% large $rint% accessible multimedia as well as written% audio% $lain=language% human=reader and augmentati#e and alternati#e modes% means and formats of communication% including accessible information and communication technology! +anguages are defined as well in Article 2% and includes s$o'en and signed languages and other forms of non s$o'en languages! While the definition of communication is incor$orated in the Bill% with minor grammatical changes% the definition of ;language< is absent! This is highly $roblematic% as there is no s$ecific recognition of sign language! +ater on% in Section A >f?% which $ertains to education% the ($$ro$riate 5o#ernment is obliged to to $romote the use of a$$ro$riate augmentati#e and alternati#e modes% means and formats of communication% Braille and Sign +anguage% to su le"ent one%s own s eech to fulfil the daily co""unication needs of ersons artici ate and with s eech! co""unication or lan#ua#e disabilities and enables the" to

contribute to their co""unity and society. This Section is $roblematic% because of the use of the

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 words ;$romote< and ;su$$lement< and the ambiguity of ;one/s<! )t also creates a leeway for introducing mandatory and acce$ted means of communication which will be ;recogni0ed< as o$$osed to others% which is not the intention of the -.*RPD!

Article 2#, Res!ect for ho*e and the fa*ily" The Bill states that no $erson with disability shall be sub&ect to any medical $rocedure which leads to infertility without his or her free consent% in Section 2 >2?! "or $ersons with $sychosocial disabilities% who will be $laced under guardianshi$ under Section 3 of the $ro$osed Bill% the :uestion of their own consent does not arise as their guardian% be it limited or $lenary% is em$owered to ta'e ;all legally binding decisions< on their behalf! )n addition% the right under the -.*RPD for all $ersons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending s$ouses% is gra#ely threatened by the failure of the Bill to categorically grant legal ca$acity to all $ersons with disabilities! Those under a system of guardianshi$ will still be unable to e,ercise this right! Article 24, (d cation" The -.*RPD mandates State $arties to ensure that $ersons with disabilities are not e,cluded from the general education system on the basis of disability% and that children with disabilities are not e,cluded from free and com$ulsory $rimary education% or from secondary education% on the basis of disability! )t further sti$ulates that $ersons with disabilities ha#e the right to access an inclusi#e% :uality and free $rimary education and secondary education on an e:ual basis with others in the communities in which they li#e! The right of children with disabilities to access inclusi#e education is recogni0ed by the Right of Children to .ree and Co*! lsory (d cation Act, 200+% more $articularly in the (mendments carried out to the (ct in 20 2! Section 30 of the $ro$osed Bill actually creates a non&obstante clause% which e,cludes the a$$lication of the 2002 (ct to children with ;benchmar' disabilities< i!e! more than 40J of a /s$ecified disability/! The first clause of this Section may end u$ e,cluding children with benchmar' disabilities from the right to free and com$ulsory education% and limits it only to free >though the right the free education e,tends to D years?% which effecti#ely means a denial of the rights under the -.*RPD and #arious other 7uman Rights Documents li'e the Con1ention on the Rights of the Child, 1++0 to free and com$ulsory $rimary education! The right to com$ulsory education till the age of 4 is still $rotected by Article 214A of the Constit tion of 3ndia% but the :ualification in the *onstitution is that ;The State shall $ro#ide free and com$ulsory education to all children of the age of si, to fourteen years

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 in such "anner as the 'tate "ay! by law! deter"ine! The second $art of the clause states that e#ery child with benchmar' disabilities has a right to education in a neighbourhood school% or in a s$ecial school% ;if necessary<! There is no clarity as to who is to determine the necessity! )f the child falls under the category of ;high su$$ort needs<% then this decision may be carried out by the assessment board! The :uestion of where the child should study should be decided% as far as $ossible% by the children themsel#es% according to Article 2 of the %&CRPD% which grants children with disabilities the right to e,$ress their #iews freely on all matters affecting them% their #iews being gi#en due weight in accordance with their age and maturity% on an e:ual basis with other children% and to be $ro#ided with disability and age= a$$ro$riate assistance to reali0e that right! This decision can also be ta'en by the $arents of the child% as $er Article 2/ of the %ni1ersal Declaration of 5 *an Rights which recogni0es that $arents ha#e a $rior right to choose the 'ind of education that shall be gi#en to their children! By not s$ecifying and $rioriti0ing who deems the mo#e to s$ecial schools ;necessary<% there is a #iolation of the -.*RPD! Besides this% *lause 2 >c? of the (rticle $ro#ides that ;Reasonable accommodation of the indi#idualKs re:uirements is $ro#ided< in education! Section C% which deals with ;Duty of @ducational )nstitutions< with regard to inclusi#e education% does not include any such obligation! Article 22, 6or7 and (*!loy*ent" mandates that% under sub clause >i?% that State Parties should ensure that ;reasonable accommodation is $ro#ided to $ersons with disabilities in the wor'$lace<! Reasonable accommodation is a s$ecific term defined under the -.*RPD and ;means necessary and a$$ro$riate modification and ad&ustments not im$osing a dis$ro$ortionate or undue burden% where needed in a $articular case% to ensure to $ersons with disabilities the en&oyment or e,ercise on an e:ual basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms!<! )n Section 2 of the $ro$osed Bill% the term finds a slightly modified definition for reasons best 'nown to the drafting committee and means ;necessary and a$$ro$riate modification and ad&ustments without im$osing dis$ro$ortionate or undue burden in a $articular case% to ensure to $ersons with disabilities the en&oyment or e,ercise of rights e:ually with others!<! Be that as it may% Section 2 of the $ro$osed Bill which $ertains to ;non discrimination in em$loyment<% merely s$ecifies that e#ery establishment shall $ro#ide ;a$$ro$riate en#ironment< to $ersons with disabilities! ;($$ro$riate en#ironment< is not defined under the Bill! Therefore% the $ro#isions relating to the wor'$lace en#ironment with res$ect to $ersons with disabilities is e,tremely #ague and not in com$liance with the -.*RPD! This could e#en mean% for e,am$le% sheltered and segregated wor'sho$s!

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 Section 32 of the $ro$osed Bill s$ea's of the identification of $osts which can be reser#ed for $ersons with benchmar' disabilities! This is #iolati#e of the -.*RPD in as much as the $resent (rticle $ro#ides for the $rohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of em$loyment% including conditions of recruitment% hiring and em$loyment% continuance of em$loyment% career ad#ancement and safe and healthy wor'ing conditions! )nterestingly% the term ;discrimination on the basis of disability<% defined under the -.*RPD% is omitted from the $ro$osed Bill% for reasons best 'nown to the drafting committee! Discrimination on the basis of disability is defined to be mean ;any distinction% e,clusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the $ur$ose or effect of im$airing or nullifying the recognition% en&oyment or e,ercise% on an e:ual basis with others% of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the $olitical% economic% social% cultural% ci#il or any other field! )t includes all forms of discrimination% including denial of reasonable accommodation!< By denying reasonable accommodation to $ersons with disabilities in em$loyment% and by granting the State $owers to identify $osts for reser#ation% which is a distinction which has the effect of im$airing the rights of $ersons with disabilities% the drafting committee a$$ears to be guilty of discrimination on the basis of disability themsel#es! +astly% by the denial of legal ca$acity to $ersons with disabilities% it is difficult to en#isage them being eligible for any &ob $ros$ects because of their $ossible inability to sign the basic contract of em$loyment!

Article 2+, Partici!ation in Political and P blic ,ife" Section 0 of the $ro$osed Bill s$ea's of ;accessibility in #oting< and states that the @lection *ommission of )ndia and the State @lection *ommission shall ensure that all $olling stations are accessible to $ersons with disabilities and that all materials related to the electoral $rocess are easily understandable by and accessible to them! This is se#erely limiting the sco$e of (rticle 22 1 which does not limit the $artici$ation of $ersons with disabilities only to #oting but also recogni0es the right and o$$ortunity to stand for elections! The right of $ersons with disabilities to #ote by secret ballot in elections and $ublic referendums without intimidation is not recogni0ed% and neither is the right to stand for elections% to effecti#ely hold office and $erform all $ublic functions at all le#els of go#ernment% facilitating the use of assisti#e and new technologies where a$$ro$riate! )n fact% the Bill itself contains e,$ress dis:ualifications for $ersons of ;unsound mind<% in Section A >for members of the *entral (d#isory Board?% in Section AH >for members of the State (d#isory

Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy: Draft dt. 26.11.2014 Board?% and dis:ualifications for $ersons who ha#e become ;$hysically and mentally inca$able of acting as a member< in Section H >for members of the .ational *ommission? and Section D2 >for members of the State *ommission? thus com$letely #iolating the -.*RPD! Article #0, Partici!ation in c lt ral life, recreation, leis re and s!ort" Section 2D of the Bill deals with ;culture and recreation<% in an attem$t to com$ly with the -.*RPD! 7owe#er% the a$$roach of the Bill% with its focus on ma'ing mainstream instances of ;culture< and ;recreation< = li'e scouting% dancing% outdoor cam$s% ad#enture acti#ities 1 loses the $ur$ort of the (rticle! While the (rticle undoubtedly s$ea's of ma'ing mainstream cultural acti#ities accessible to $ersons with disabilities% one of the most im$ortant Rights under the (rticle is that $ersons with disabilities shall be entitled% on an e:ual basis with others% to recognition and su$$ort of their s$ecific cultural and linguistic identity% including sign languages and deaf culture! This is lost under the Bill% and is therefore a #ery serious #iolation of the Right! Section 22% which deals with ;s$orting acti#ities<% loses out on an im$ortant $ro#ision of the (rticle 1 to encourage and $romote the $artici$ation% to the fullest e,tent $ossible% of $ersons with disabilities in "ainstrea" s$orting acti#ities at all le#els! The Bill does not refer to mainstream s$orts% and without that s$ecification% the Bill seems to lean towards limiting $ersons with disabilities to only disability s$ecific s$orts!