Submit ATR on DPRs for specially-abled: HC to Govt

Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, July 8: The High Court has granted last opportunity of six weeks to the Government for taking appropriate steps with regard to incorporation of disabled friendly architecture for specially abled persons.

Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The PIL has been filed by an advocate seeking direction upon the concerned authorities along with general public to be restrained from mentioning or referring persons with disabilities or specially able persons as mentally retarded, sick, unfortunate, handicapped person, abnormal, mental, poor, unfortunate person, crippled, deformed, mad person, dwarf, wheelchair bound, dwarf, albino, disabled, mongoloid, midget, deaf and dumb, troubled person in official internal and external communications, judicial orders, notifications, circulars, newspapers, textbooks and court orders.
The direction is also sought to establish and implement disability accessible infrastructure across Trial Court and Principal District and Sessions Judge Courts of each district in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.
Previously a status report was filed by the Under Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, wherein it was stated that the Department of Social Welfare, has requested all the departments to take appropriate steps to ensure incorporation of disabled friendly architecture is proposed in Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) prepared by the Executive Agencies.
The concerned authorities were directed to file an action taken report on the but till date the said direction has not been complied with and the division bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal granted last opportunity to comply with the directions.
The petitioner is also seeking discontinuation of such words while referring to persons with disability or specially abled persons, which will otherwise not affect the functioning, scope, nature, operation and enforcement of Disability Act as the same words are not mentioned in Disability Act.
It is submitted that the petitioner has also sought direction for suitably amending the laws, using the words mentally retarded in the Multiplicity Disability Act, 1999, as also some other laws on the subject. On consideration of the matter, the court viewed that the issue raised needs to be addressed by the respondents, so as to value the universal conventions and the sentiments of these specially abled persons for giving them full support humanly and socially.
The difficulties faced with the specially abled persons have also been highlighted in the PIL while approaching the different offices/courts in the UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh. He made reference that it is very difficult to pursue the cases in the offices/Courts while having no facility of even constructed ramps, lifts, providing Wheelchairs along with Hand raised and special washroom facilities also.