1. Evolving Accessibility Rules: Toward Principles-Based Frameworks
Introduction:
The Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) declared Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, as violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This landmark decision underscores the need for principle-based accessibility frameworks to ensure the inclusion and dignity of persons with disabilities (PwDs).
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
- Discretionary vs. Mandatory Standards:
- Rule 15 allowed discretion to ministries and departments, contradicting mandatory provisions in Sections 40, 44, 45, 46, and 89 of the Act.
- It led to diluted minimum accessibility standards and delayed their implementation.
- Non-Compliance with Accessibility Guidelines:
- Ministries failed to adhere to guidelines for barrier-free environments (e.g., housing, sports, transport, and broadcasting).
- Lack of statutory status for accessibility standards further aggravated the issue.
The Idea of Accessibility:
- Reasonable Accommodation:
- Conceptualized by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a facilitation of equality in specific contexts.
- Extends to both reasonable accommodation and universal accessibility for all.
- Intersectionality in Accessibility:
- Accessibility measures must account for intersecting vulnerabilities (e.g., women, elderly, rural populations).
- This ensures inclusivity and tackles attitudinal, physical, and digital barriers.
Need for a Principle-Based Approach:
- Dynamic Frameworks:
- Incorporate advancements in AI, IoT, and assistive technologies to address evolving needs.
- Uniform Guidelines:
- Periodic reviews and a unified approach across Central and State governments to harmonize standards.
- Clear Implementation Strategy:
- Accountability mechanisms to ensure effective application of rules.
International Best Practices:
- Canada’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005) emphasizes a clear roadmap with periodic reviews.
- Ensuring a minimum threshold of standards while scaling gradually toward universal accessibility.
Challenges in Implementation:
- Bureaucratic Hurdles:
- Multiple agencies with overlapping roles dilute responsibility.
- Attitudinal Barriers:
- Addressing biases and promoting digital literacy.
Conclusion:
The Court’s judgment highlights the urgent need for direct, understandable, and actionable accessibility rules. Such frameworks should address the intersectional challenges faced by PwDs while ensuring uniformity across governance structures. This shift will bridge the gap between legal mandates and practical realities, fostering a truly inclusive society.
Mains Practice Question: |
The concept of accessibility is dynamic and requires constant adaptation to new challenges and technologies. Critically evaluate India’s approach to accessibility for persons with disabilities in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024). |
2. Section 152 of BNS: Guarding Against the Misuse as Sedition Proxy
Introduction:
The Rajasthan High Court, in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024), highlighted concerns over Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, cautioning against its misuse to suppress legitimate dissent. While the BNS aimed to replace archaic colonial laws like sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 152 raises apprehensions of becoming a proxy for the same.
Key Features of Section 152:
- Criminalizes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
- Covers acts of rebellion, subversive activities, and encouragement of separatism.
- Does not formally use the term “sedition” but retains similar implications.
Problems with Section 152:
- Ambiguity in Definition:
- Lacks a clear definition of “endangerment,” enabling misuse for stifling dissent and criticism.
- Broad interpretative scope by enforcement agencies.
- Lower Threshold for Offense:
- The term “knowingly” lowers the standard for prosecution, especially in the context of social media, where intent may not be malicious.
- Absence of Causal Link:
- No statutory requirement to establish a direct link between speech and consequences before curtailing personal liberty.
- Potential chilling effect on free speech.
- Historical Data on Sedition Misuse:
- National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data shows minimal convictions under sedition laws despite numerous cases, indicating misuse for suppression rather than justice.
Judiciary’s Approach:
- Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab (1995): Differentiation between casual sloganeering and sedition based on actual consequences.
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): Distinguished disloyalty from strong criticism of government policies.
- Advocated for a careful balance between national interest and freedom of expression.
The Way Forward:
- Guidelines for Interpretation:
- Supreme Court to craft guidelines akin to K. Basu v. State of West Bengal for safeguarding personal liberty.
- Delimit terms like “endangerment” under Section 152.
- Upholding Free Speech:
- Liberal space for dissent and criticism to foster democratic dialogue.
- Emphasis on the marketplace of ideas as envisioned in Abrams v. United States.
- Statutory Safeguards:
- Introduce checks to prevent arbitrary arrests and misuse of provisions.
- Periodic judicial review of enforcement practices.
Conclusion:
Section 152 of the BNS, though not explicitly termed as sedition, risks becoming a proxy for its predecessor due to its broad and ambiguous scope. The judiciary’s intervention and comprehensive guidelines are pivotal to ensuring that this provision does not undermine constitutional freedoms. A balanced approach that prioritizes national integrity without stifling dissent will strengthen India’s democratic fabric.
Mains Practice Question: |
Critically analyze Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in light of its potential misuse as a proxy for sedition laws. Discuss the challenges and suggest measures to ensure a balance between free speech and national security. |
