DB’s directives in PIL regarding avoiding calling PwDs as ‘mentally retarded, sick & handicapped’
STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to restrain the government as well as general public from mentioning or referring persons with disabilities (PwDs) 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 and further amending laws using the words mentally retarded in Multiplicity Disability Act, 1999, besides some other laws on the subject, a Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Rahul Bharti, issued notice to respondents and directed respondents to ensure expeditious recognition of the claim of petitioner.
DB while hearing PIL observed that the concern of the petitioner is that the respondents who use the language guidelines already introduced universally as prescribed and the list of words and their alternate words enumerated, mentioned, illustrated so that internal and external communications must be respectful physically as well as mentally. It is submitted that across the world respectful language, disability communication, disability etiquette have been prescribed, mentioned and used during communications, pleadings, Judicial orders, academic writings, official work, educational textbooks, pamphlets, across Public and Private offices. Petitioner, as stated, has approached all the respondents for ensuring adherence to the inclusion strategy launched at international level for having reference to language guidelines so introduced in the terminology used in the office/Courts etc. DB on consideration of the matter was of the view 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 petitioner has also highlighted the difficulties faced with the specially abled persons while approaching the different offices/courts in the UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh. DB issued notice to Union of India and UT and directed all the respondents to ensure expeditious recognition of the claim of the petitioner for the specially abled persons. During the course of hearing counsel made a request for asking the respondents to ensure that in the event any of specially abled person become victim of some commission of offence(s), it shall be ensured that the Police records their statements by approaching at their place of convenience/residence so as to avoid bringing them to the Police Station. DB expected that respondents shall ensure full respect and honour to all citizens in terms of their personality without letting them suffer any impression that the society and State sees and address the physically and mentally challenged persons as liabilities carrying personalities and, as such, sensitivity has to be in full operation.
