Context

• The Supreme Court recently upheld that the relaxations given to SC/ST extends to the disabled persons.

About the case:

• The petitioner Aryan Raj who is intellectually challenged to the extent of 50 percent had applied for a diploma course in Fine Art for physically/mentally challenged students.
• He filed a writ petition challenging certain provisions of the prospectus issued by a college contending that there must be bifurcation of the total available seats between physically challenged students and mentally/intellectually challenged students.
• He also prayed that an intellectually/mentally challenged student should be exempted from taking the aptitude test as the college insisted that disabled persons too need to meet the general qualifying standard of 40% in the aptitude test, whereas SC/ST candidates were given a relaxation to 35%.

About the Supreme Court Judgement:

• The Supreme court observed that as the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates require 35 percent to pass in the aptitude test, the same shall apply so far as the disabled are concerned in future.
• It pointed to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Anamol Bhandari (minor) through his father/Natural Guardian v. Delhi Technological University in 2012 which insisted that
  • People suffering from disabilities are also socially backward.
  • They are entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates.
• (In the 2012 case before the High Court, a university had allowed a 10% concession in the minimum eligibility requirement for SC/ST candidates, and 5% concession for disabled applicants. The High Court ruled against this differential treatment, terming it discriminatory)

Significance of the judgement:

• In holding that people suffering from disability are entitled to the same benefits and relaxations as candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Supreme Court has recognised the laborious efforts of the disabled in accessing education or employment, regardless of their social status.
• The larger principle behind the judgement was that without imparting proper education to those suffering from disabilities, there cannot be any meaningful enforcement of their rights.

Criticism of the judgement

• By eliminating the distinction between the disabled and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the court attempted to equate physical or mental disability with the social disability and 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 over those suffering from historical social disability.

Status of the disabled

• The Delhi High Court had cited the abysmally low literacy and employment rates among persons with disabilities.
• The 2001 Census put the illiteracy rate among the disabled at 51% which was much higher than the general population figure.
• Also there was similar evidence of their inadequate representation in employment too.

Conclusion:

• It is vital that Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (which sought to address low literacy and employment rates by raising the quota for the disabled from 3% to 5% and envisaging incentives for the private sector to hire them) is fully given effect so that this significant segment of the population is not left out of social and economic advancement.