The Bombay High Court, in a recent decision, underscores the imperative for active implementation of disability legislation, cautioning against its mere existence in statutes. The court’s ruling, overturning the cancellation of a visually impaired woman’s job application, exposes the adverse effects of administrative apathy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The High Court’s emphasis on sensitivity and flexibility signals a call for practical and meaningful application of the legislation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court emphasized the importance of practical implementation over mere statutory inclusion of disability rights. Justices Nitin Jamdar and M M Sathaye highlighted the case of Shanta Sonawane, a 31-year-old visually impaired woman, whose railway job application was unjustly rejected due to a clerical error. The court’s ruling underscored the necessity for authorities to act with “sensitivity and flexibility” towards individuals with disabilities, setting aside the rigid cancellation of Sonawane’s candidature and mandating the railway recruitment cell to reconsider her application within six weeks.
The High Court criticized the administrative indifference that undermines the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which aims to ensure equal opportunities and adjustments for individuals with disabilities.
ALSO READ:Supreme Court Criticizes Bombay High Court’s Bail Decision in Money Laundering Case
The justices stated-
“The legislation for the disabled should not merely remain in the statute book; rather, the spirit behind the legislation must be applied by all authorities in its practical application showing appropriate sensitivity and flexibility.”
They further noted that people who are “100 per cent visually impaired cannot be expected to stand on an equal footing with other candidates in terms of usual activities.”
The case of Sonawane, who made an inadvertent error while filling out her form with the help of a stranger due to her visual impairment, illustrates the broader challenges faced by disabled individuals in employment contexts.
The court remarked-
“These errors, stemming from their disability, should not result in discrimination or unfair treatment by employers.”
ALSO READ:Advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan Appointed as Judge of Bombay High Court After Two-Year Wait
By addressing this issue, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the principle of equality and non-discrimination, stating-
“We therefore find that the rigid stand taken by the respondents is unduly oppressive and harsh and violates the objective of the Act of 2016.”
