Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45. Therefore, we are of the view that the legal right of a disabled person under Section 16 as well as Section 41 of the act has to be read together to give effect to both of them and in essence to the objective of the Act and it is incumbent upon the State as well as the University of Delhi to ensure that such rights were not infringed.

46. The seriousness attached by the Legislature to the rights guaranteed to the disabled by the legislation is reinforced by the incorporation of Section 89 which appears in Chapter XVI of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 captioned as "Offences and Penalties" which provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations thereunder. Section 89 reads thus:

"89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder. Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thounsand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees."

Rights violated

47. In the present case, Vaibhav Shukla - respondent No.4, has been physically prevented from boarding the only means of transport available to him despite having been made efforts to reach the examination hall in time. Vaibhav Shukla, though holding a valid ticket and reservation, was physically prevented from getting into the compartment of the Gorakhdam Express which was reserved for the persons with disability. There has thus been a complete denial of the Constitutional right guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution as well as his statutory rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In fact, by failing to ensure that on 5 th July, 2017, at the Unnao Railway Station, Vaibhav Shukla - respondent no.4 a disabled person could not actually access the carriage reserved for persons with disability, the respondents have failed in their statutory duties resulting in prevention of access to the only mode of transport available to the disabled person to reach the examination center at the scheduled time. The present case has to be examined keeping this legal position in mind.

Discussion

68. In support of the submission that the Delhi University was authorized and empowered to reduce the eligibility marks so far as persons belonging to SC/ST category as well as the persons with disability were concerned, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Ordinance II of the Delhi University Ordinance which casts an obligation on all colleges to fill up seats in the SC/ST category.

69. So far as persons with disability are concerned, reliance is placed on the provision of Section 39 of the Persons with Disability Act. Delhi University has placed before us a Circular dated 4th-6th July, 2015 which prescribed the modality for implementation of reservation for persons with disability. The relevant extract whereof reads as follows :

Conclusion

114. We certainly cannot stop at holding that the rights of the visually impaired persons have been impaired and that only the railways has to effect redressal because it was responsible. It is the responsibility of every authority and person to facilitate the compliance with the Constitutional mandate ensuring social justice and equality to marginalized and that the spirit, intendment and purpose of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 are ensured. The University of Delhi cannot isolate itself from undertaking such enabling measures as would secure the rights of respondent no.4 in the present case which can only be by grant of an opportunity to participate in the entrance exam for the M.Phil (Sanskrit) course for the academic year 2017-18 just as all other candidates, including the other persons in the disabled category who were not obstructed, as the respondent no.4 and consideration for admission to the course as per merit. Therefore, in making such a direction, this court is only complying with the Constitutional mandate and ensuring equality and non-discrimination to a disabled person who is visually impaired and has been exposed to the most callous treatment because the respondents did not take effective steps as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.