The Supreme Court has confirmed that persons suffering from disabilities are also socially backward.
With this, they become entitled to the same benefits of relaxation as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates in public employment and education.
What is the case about?
The present decision came on a petition filed by Aryan Raj, a special needs person, against the Government College of Arts, Chandigarh.
[It is an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order.]
The college denied Mr. Raj relaxation in minimum qualifying marks in the Painting and Applied Art course.
The college insisted that disabled persons too need to meet the general qualifying standard of 40% in the aptitude test.
Notably, the SC/ST candidates were given a relaxation to 35%.
Setting aside the college decision, the Supreme Court said that the same 35% shall apply so far as the disabled are concerned in future.
The apex court allowed Mr. Raj to apply afresh for the current year.
The Court said that it is 'following' the principle laid down in an earlier Delhi High Court judgment.
What was the 2012 HC Judgement?
It relates to the Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his father/Natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University 2012 case.
The Delhi Technological University prospectus provided 10% of concession of marks in the minimum eligibility requirements for SC/ST candidates.
But relaxation of only 5% was permissible for People with Disabilities.
On a petition against this, the Delhi HC ruled against this differential treatment, terming it discriminatory.
It held that people suffering from disabilities are also socially backward.
It observed that reservation for the disabled is called horizontal reservation.
So this cuts across all vertical categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General.
Therefore, at the very least, it said, they are entitled to the same benefits as given to the SC/ST candidates.
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has now upheld this 2012 judgment.
The public sector employers and colleges / universities will now have to allow the same relaxations to the disabled as to SC / ST candidates.
What is the clarity offered?
The Supreme Court also cited the following from the High Court judgment.
Intellectually/mentally challenged persons have certain limitations, which are not there in physically challenged persons.
The subject experts would thus be well advised to examine the feasibility of creating a course, which caters to the specific needs of such persons.
They may also examine increasing the number of seats in the discipline of Painting and Applied Art with a view to accommodating such students.
Why is this a welcome move?
The judgement recognises the difficulties faced by the disabled in accessing education or employment, regardless of their social status.
Even though drawn from all sections of society, the disabled have always been an under-privileged and under-represented section.
The larger principle is that without imparting proper education to the disabled, there cannot be any meaningful enforcement of their rights.
Can physical/mental and social disabilities be equated?
A question arises if 'physical or mental disability' could really be equated with the 'social disability' and experience of untouchability suffered by marginalised sections for centuries.
For instance, the social background of disabled persons from a traditionally privileged community may give them an advantage.
This stands in contrast with a similar kind of a person suffering from historical social disability as well.
However, as per the court's view this may not always be the case.
Evidently, the Delhi High Court had cited the abysmally low literacy and employment rates among persons with disabilities.
Indicators - The 2001 Census put the illiteracy rate among the disabled at 51%.
This is much higher than the general population figure.
The share of disabled children out of school was quite higher than other major social categories.
There was similar evidence of their inadequate representation in employment too.
What is the way forward?
It can only be more applicable now that a fresh law that aims for a greater transformative effect, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is in place.
The 2016 law sought to address the above gap by raising the quota for the disabled from 3% to 5%.
It also envisaged incentives for the private sector to hire them.
It is vital that this is fully given effect to, so that this significant segment of the population is not left out of social and economic advancement.
