The New Human Rights Paradigm: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Implementation in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.6.3Abstract
As any other vulnerable group, the journey of persons with disabilities to be treated as equals with others was long. A change from the tragic picture of helpless beings, who live at the mercy of others to dignified humans, remained as a long cherished desire. The stereotypic social attitude towards persons with disabilities resulted in denial of their basic rights and fundamental freedoms. The widespread exclusion and extreme isolation of persons with disabilities from social institutions was the major reason why it was felt that specific human rights instruments to protect their rights were required. Albeit, the initial fail with unenforceable soft laws, later the human rights perspective started recognizing persons with disabilities as complete human beings with UNCRPD. It introduced a paradigm shift from prejudiced social perception of persons with disabilities as incomplete human beings to complete and equal humans on par with all others. This paper seeks to examine the paradigm shift brought by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its impact in India within the theoretical framework of international obligation and constitutional perspective.References
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.1, Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
Declaration on Social Progress and Development, art.11(c), Dec. 11 1969, G.A. res. 2542 (XXIV), 24 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 30) at 49, U.N. Doc.A/7630 (1969).
Id.
(It must be noted that this soft law instrument was not included in the perambulatory statement of the CRPD. The World Network of Users & Survivors of Psychiatry has explicitly denounced this instrument as it was formulated without the participation of persons with disabilities).
(The term mentioned for persons with mental disabilities was ‘mentally retarded persons’, points out the prejudiced socio-legal perception sustained against persons with disabilities).
General Assembly Resolution 3447 (XXX) of 9 December 1975.
General Assembly Resolution 3447 (XXX) art. 13(3) of 9 December 1975.
UN General Assembly, Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities : Resolution / Adopted By The General Assembly, 20 December 1993, A/RES/48/96 available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f2e80.html.
Id.
Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 48/96 of December 20, 1993.
Amita Dhanda, Constructing a New Human Rights Lexicon: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 50 SUR-INTERNATIONAL J. HUM. RTS. 8 2008.
Id. at 46.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.10, Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
Dhanda, supra note 11 at 46.
Smitha Nizar, Impact of UNCRPD on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, IND. J. MED. ETH. VII(4) 2008, 227.
Id.
Tara J. Melish, Perspectives on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The UN Disability Convention: Historic Process, Strong Prospects, and Why the U.S. Should Ratify, HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF 14(2) 2007.
.Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.5(1), Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
.Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.5(2), Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
.Gerard Quinn and Theresia Degener, The Current Use and Future Potential of United Nations Human
Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability (New York and Geneva: United Nations 2002) http://uncrpd.nileshsingit.org (Visited on March 11, 2014).
. Id.
Dhanda, supra note 11 at 46.
Dhanda, supra note 11.
(While ratification brings in a positive obligation, signature inducts a negative duty with the ratified States).
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 125 (Daniel Mockeli, Sangeeta Shah, et.al. eds., Oxford University Press, 2010).
Id. at 127.
THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE FOR NEW HUMAN RIGHTS (Clifford Bob ed., University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).
Rosemary Kayess & Philip French, Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities 8(1) HUM. RTS. L. R. 2008, 1-34, 1.
S. Fredman, “Disability Equality: A Challenge to the Existing Anti-Discrimination Paradigm?”, in A. Lawson and C. Gooding (ed.), DISABILITY RIGHTS IN EUROPE: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE199(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005).
Gramophone Company of India Ltd., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 667.
Vishakha, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241.
Dhanda, supra note 11.
(UNCRPD Article 2 defines reasonable accommodation to mean necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others all human rights and fundamental freedoms) Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.2, Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.5(3), Dec. 10 1948, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., U.N. Doc.A/810.
Ranjit Kumar, 2009(5) BomCR 227, MANU/MH/0452/2009.
Ranjit Kumar, 2009(5) BomCR 227, MANU/MH/0452/2009.
(For instance, Right to life in India is perceived as ‘not restricted to ‘mere animal existence’, but imported human dignity into its peripheries in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608; A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746. Right to life was interpreted and extended to many rights such as right to live with human dignity in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 S.C.C. 161; right to free and compulsory education in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993]1 S.C.R. 594; right to privacy in Kharak Singh v State of U.P., 1963 Cri. L. J. 329; right to healthy environment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1037; right to health in Consumer Education and Resource Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 etc.).
Nikhil D. Dattar and Ors. v. Union of India, (2008)110 Bom. L. R. 3293.
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 235: (2009) 9 S.C.C. 1.
Renu Addlakha, A Commentary on the case. (I owe the author a lot for sending me the personal copy of the paper).
Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010 http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org. (A working draft is the preliminary form of possible future document prepared by a working committee. It indicates the commitment on the part of the legislature to do further work on the working draft. Draft put out by ministry to seek the stakeholder or public opinion is the final draft. Sec. 3(1) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2014, states that, “The appropriate Government shall ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others”).
Amita Dhanda, A Retrograde and Incoherent Law, THE HINDU 6 Feb. 2014 at 9; Faizan Mustafa, NALSAR Disassociates itself from Disability Bill, THE HINDU 6 Feb. 2014. (A legislation, which was drafted on a consistent deliberation with the stakeholders, finally became a ‘mincemeat’ at the hands of executives as termed by Faizan Mustafa. He called it as a ‘breach of trust’ and an ‘act of impropriety’ on part of the State. According to him, the new Disability Bill 2014, has negated the benefits of the existing law as interpreted by the Supreme Court).
Id.
Id.
