The ‘Disabled’ as a Subject of Law: Utopian Discourse or Pragmatic Paradigm?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.5.1Abstract
Legal systems across the world have envisaged the ‗subjects of law‘ on the basis of gender, race or disability. The feminist school of thought opines that appropriate interventions are necessary on the identified structures that have the male non disabled as the subject of its legal discourse. The critical legal school believes that legal systems are built in ways that benefit certain groups of persons who seek to perpetuate the status quo. This paper seeks to understand the prevailing law in relation to the access to justice for individuals with disability and answer whether accommodations have been made to comply with India‘s international obligations vis-à-vis the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It shall also be the endeavour of this paper to compare as to how the developed and developing nations fare with relation to their United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities obligations to ensure that persons with disability have effective access to justice within the boundaries of the legal framework. The paper also demonstrates how the Indian legal system might be altered in order to make better procedural and substantive accommodations by drawing lessons from other nations.References
ANDREI CHERNY, THE NEXT DEAL: THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC LIFE IN THE INFORMATION AGE 208 (2001), in Gary Blasi, Framing Access to Justice: Beyond Perceived Justice for Individuals 42 Loyola L. Rev. 913 (2009).
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Art. 14.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Arts.15, 41. (It may be argued that Part IV of the Constitution of India provides for the recognition of disability through the exhortation on the State to provide for effective provision for securing the right to work, right to education, and right to public assistance in Article 41. Also note that Article 15 of the Constitution of India bars denial of access to certain public institutions on the ground of disability).
See, State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 S.C.R. 284; Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 S.C.R. 435.
See, RONALD DWORKIN, LAW’S EMPIRE (Harvard University Press, 1986).
PETER BARTLETT & RALPH SANDLAND, MENTAL HEALTH LAW: POLICY AND PRACTICE 4 (Oxford, 2009).
JAYNA KOTHARI, THE FUTURE OF DISABILITY LAW IN INDIA 175 (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Subordination, Stigma, and Disability, 86 VA. L. REV. 397, 426 (2000).
Id. at 427.
See, ERIC STOKES, THE ENGLISH UTILITARIANS AND INDIA (Oxford University Press, 1989). (This is evident from the fact the most of Indian procedural law was framed in the 1800s and early 1900s, when India was a nation of colonized persons. For an excellent account of colonial laws and the dilemmas of transplantation).
PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SIGNING AND RATIFICATION OF THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY INDIA (29 March 2007) available at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=26474 (last visited Oct. 13, 2013).
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES – INDIA, RATIFICATION OF U.N.C.R.P.D BY INDIA available at http://uncrpdindia.org/achievements/ratification/ (last visited Oct. 13, 2013).
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY art. 13, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.
M.D.A FREEMAN, LLOYD’S INTRODUCTION TO JURISPRUDENCE 1036 (Sweet & Maxwell 8th ed. 1994).
Id. at 1037.
Angela Harris, Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, 42 STAN. L. REV. 583 (1990).
Jennifer Nedelsky, The Challenges of Multiplicity, 89 MICH. L. REV. 1591 (1991).
FREEMAN, supra note 14 at 936 (1994).
Id. at 935.
Calvin Woodard, Toward a "Super Liberal State", THE N. Y. TIMES, SUNDAY, Nov. 23, 1986.
Roberto Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement, 96 HAR. L. REV. 561, 675 (1983). (“When we came, they [the law professors] were like a priesthood that had lost their faith and kept their jobs. They stood in tedious embarrassment before cold altars. But we turned away from those altars and found the mind's opportunity in the heart's revenge.'').
Id. at 4; Robert W. Gordon, New Developments in Legal Theory, THE POLITICS OF LAW 962 (David Kairys, ed. Pantheon, 1982).
Jack M. Balkin, Critical Legal Theory Today, in Francis J. Mootz, ON PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICAN LAW 6 (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Roberto Unger, Politics, LLOYD’S INTRODUCTION TO JURISPRUDENCE 1054 (Sweet & Maxwell 8th ed. 1994).
Robert Gordon, Law and Ideology, LLOYD’S INTRODUCTION TO JURISPRUDENCE 950 (Sweet & Maxwell 8th ed. 1994).
Id.
Jack M. Balkin, The Proliferation of Legal Truth, 26 HARV. J. LAW & PUB. POL'Y 100, 103 (2003).
Id. at 104 (For eg. If the law says that the fetus is not a person, it is not longer a person legally, even though it may continue to be so in the eyes of religion).
Jack M. Balkin, The Proliferation of Legal Truth, 26 HARV. J. LAW & PUB. POL'Y 100, 103 (2003).
William E. Conklin, Whither Justice? The Common Problematic of Five Models of ‘Access to Justice’, 19 WINDSOR Y.B. ACCESS JUST. 297, 300 (2001).
Elizabeth A. Pendo, Substantially Limited Justice?:The Possibilities and Limits of a New Rawlsian Analysis of Disability- Based Discrimination, 77 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 225 (2003).
See, THOMAS MORE, UTOPIA (1641) (Wherein the island of Utopia presents a situation on an imaginary island wherein there exists a perfect society).
Martha Albertson Fineman, The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition, 20 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 1, 3 (2008).
Martha Albertson Fineman, The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition, 20 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 1, 5 (2008).
Ani B. Satz, Disability, Vulnerability, And The Limits Of Antidiscrimination, 83 WASH. L. REV. Vol. 513, (2008).
Supra note 13.
Veena Sethi, 1982 (2) S.C.C. 583.
V. C. Chacko v. T-C. State, A.I.R. 1957 Ker. 7.
In Re Sankaralingam, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 24.
Veena Sethi, 1982 (2) S.C.C. 583.
Id.
World Facts and Statistics on Disabilities and Disability Issues, available at http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/statistics/ (last visited Oct. 2013).
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, §10.
Md Jani Miya v. APSRTC, 2000(5) A.L.D. 166; K.V. Ranga Reddy v. DIG Border Security Force, MANU/GJ/0579/2004.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, § 3.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, § 4.
Tamil Nadu Cement Company v. N. Jayapalan, (1994) 1 L.L.J. 838 (Mad.)
Id.
S.N. MISHRA, LABOUR & INDUSTRIAL LAWS 369 (Central Law Publications, 2009).
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, §§ 4, 5.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 1 L.L.J. 1035 (S.C.)
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 4, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106. (The twin track approach is essentially a requirement of Article 4 of the Convention which lays down two distinct obligations as regards domestic laws of a state party. The approach recognizes the fact that a single, isolated law, no matter how comprehensive, is insufficient to put into practice the mandate of the UNCRPD. It further recognizes the fact that in order to realize the aspirations enshrined in the Convention, it is necessary to overhaul a country’s legal system as a whole and therefore a law enshrining the rights and entitlements of PWDs cannot be effective if it is independent and isolated from a supporting legal framework in the general law of a country).
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES art. 10, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.
The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, § 46.
Disability Rights Group, Writ Petition No 3063 of 2004.
Our Achievements, Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, available at http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/page.php.
See, Offices of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, India Planning a Barrier-Free Environment, available at http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/content/en/docs/PlanningBarrierFreeEnvironment.doc (Last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
UNNATI AND HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL, DESIGN MANUAL FOR A BARRIER- FREE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, December 2004, available at http://www.unnati.org/pdfs/manuals/barrier-free-built-environment.pdf (Last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
In Re: Death, A.I.R 2002 S.C. 979.
Saarthak Registered Society, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 3693.
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, § 61.
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, § 62.
Our Achievements, Office of The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, available at http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/page.php?s=reg&t=def&p=achievements (last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
Id. Office of the CCPD.
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT COMPILATION OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURES UNDERTAKEN IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: 2011 UPDATE, Fourth session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 7-9 September 2011) available at www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/crpd_csp_2011_crp.5.doc.
Id. Secretariat Note.
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS, NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT COMPILATION OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURES UNDERTAKEN IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: 2011 UPDATE, Fourth session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 7-9 September 2011) available at www.un.org/disabilities/documents/COP/crpd_csp_2011_crp.5.doc.
GREAT BRITAIN. OFFICE FOR DISABILITY ISSUES, UK INITIAL REPORT ON THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Office for Disability Issues, May 2011).
Secretariat Note, supra note 65.
IMMANUEL KANT, KANT'S POLITICAL WRITINGS 66 (Hans Reiss, ed., 1970).
JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 18 (1971).
John Rawls, Social Unity and Primary Goods, in UTILITARIANISM AND BEYOND 159, 168 (Amartya Sen & Bernard Williams eds., 1982).
Ralph Sandland, et al., Out of the Darkness and Into the Light: Introducing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 8(4) HUM. RTS. L. REV. 741 (2008).
Martha Albertson Fineman, The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition, 20 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 1, 3 (2008).
NEIL GILBERT, TRANSFORMATION OF THE WELFARE STATE: THE SILENT SURRENDER OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY 135 (2002); Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Future of Disability Law, 114 YALE L. J. 1, 70 (2004).
