Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs The Union Of India & 3 Ors on 19 August, 2016
26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the
Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the
documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness
needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears
to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 03/24/2025
05:36:21 PM
15
with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter
head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The
document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the
petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify
about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner
with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122,
123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as
Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and
have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a
prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The
medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also
cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment
given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the
petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been
considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
Nitisha vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2021
"135. Having regard to the complex nature of mental health
disorders, any residual control that persons with mental
disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent
to which the disability contributed to the conduct, it does not
eliminate it as a factor. The appellant has been undergoing
treatment for mental health disorders for a long time, since 2009.
He has been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent of permanent
disability by a government hospital. While all CRPF personnel
may be subject to disciplinary proceedings on charges of
misconduct, the appellant is more vulnerable to engage in
behavior that can be classified as misconduct because of his
mental disability. He is at a disproportionate disadvantage of
being subjected to such proceedings in comparison to his able-
bodied counterparts. The concept of indirect discrimination has
been recognized by this Court in Ltd. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v.
Union of India112, which is closely tied with the conception of
substantive equality that pervades the international and Indian
disability-rights regime. Thus, the disciplinary proceeding
against the appellant is discriminatory and must be set aside."