Defence of Reservations for the Disabled – The Hindu

TThe recent controversy surrounding Puja Khedkar, who allegedly falsified her disability and caste to get benefits, has fueled a debate over the reservations granted to persons with disabilities (PwDs). The issue gained further traction when a former CEO of NITI Aayog tweeted that reservations for PwDs should be reviewed. While he later clarified that he was referring only to mental disabilities (thereby drawing an unnecessary and baseless wedge between physical and mental disabilities), his statement, along with similar comments by other officials, raises troubling questions about societal attitudes towards disability and reservation policies.

Deep-rooted ableism

First, how many disabled people have these officers interacted with, or had the opportunity to get to know? Have they ever been introduced to the challenges that PwDs face, in a session or workshop? The deep-seated ableism that their statements reflect is the lived reality of many PwDs.

PwDs face multiple barriers to their effective participation in society and the workforce. These include infrastructural challenges, the education system, and examination curricula and formats that are designed to be used by, and suitable for, able-bodied individuals. Reservation policies aim to level the playing field by providing equal opportunities to PwDs. The exploitation of these advantages by a few individuals should not overshadow the broader purpose and impact of such policies. Sweeping generalizations based on isolated incidents are unfair and counterproductive. Some officials have questioned whether PwDs holding positions in the government services have the “physical fitness” to perform their duties. Such statements reflect the unconscious biases that many people hold against PwDs.

Read also | Disabled people will receive a quota for promotion from 2016

PwDs continue to face challenges in both the education and employment sectors, but these are hardly highlighted. The 76th round of the National Sample Survey in 2018 found that only 23.8% of PwDs were employed, while the Labour Force Participation Rate nationally that same year was 50.2%. This can be attributed to lack of access to accessible education; stigma and bias at the hiring stage; and lack of reasonable workplace accommodations for PwDs.

However, these structural problems are hardly addressed by the same individuals who question the validity of affirmative action for PwDs. Take the case of Kartik Kansal, who suffers from muscular dystrophy. He was denied service despite having cleared the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) civil service examination four times. Similarly, Ira Singhal had to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to secure her rightful appointment due to her disability despite having secured first rank in the civil service examination. These are the moments when the conscience of our intellectuals should be touched.

Possible abuse

In a related context, the Supreme Court has ruled on the potential abuse of writers in Vikash Kumar v UPSC (2021). The argument was that if PwDs were allowed to choose their scribes and if their disability percentage was less than 40%, they could abuse this provision. The Court countered this by saying: “If incidents come to light of able-bodied candidates hiding slips in their dress code and misusing them to cheat in an examination, the normal consequence is to take appropriate punitive measures against such students. The intention is not to change to a dress code which is so uncomfortable that many able-bodied students find it difficult to remain in that dress for the entire duration of the examination and perform to the best of their ability.” This principle should apply equally to reservations for PwDs.

Certification system

India’s disability certification system also has major flaws. The practice of quantifying disability in percentage terms is outdated and not supported by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Functional limitations, rather than medical percentages, should be the basis for assessment. Furthermore, the UPSC insists on a separate and independent assessment of disability, casting a squint on the government-recognized disability certification process that results in the issuance of a disability certificate and a unique disability ID (UDID). This raises the possibility that the two sets of assessments may yield contradictory results.

An additional challenge is the lack of specialists to assess various disabilities, which makes the certification process inaccessible and time-consuming. The complicated assessment guidelines prescribed by the state are often unrealistic at the level of district hospitals, which are limited in terms of both infrastructure and resources. This leaves the assessment of disability and its extent open to interpretation. Psychosocial disabilities, the assessment of which is relatively more subjective, are assessed based on the outdated Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS). In many cases, such tests are not even conducted. Persons with invisible, hidden or less visible disabilities, such as blood disorders, are often rejected because they “don’t look disabled”.

The focus should be on addressing these systemic issues. Ms Khedkar’s alleged fraudulent activities should be punished severely. This is the solution, not the unwarranted overhaul of the reservation system that provides crucial support to a marginalised group.

Rahul Bajaj, Practicing Advocate; Co-Founder, Mission Accessibility; Senior Associate Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; and Associate Professor, BML Munjal University School of Law; Ayushmita Samal, Research Fellow at the Centre for Inclusive Policy