Persons with disabilities face multiple barriers to their effective participation in society and the workforce. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The recent controversy involving Puja Khedkar, who allegedly faked her disability and caste to obtain benefits, has ignited a debate on the reservations granted to persons with disabilities (PwDs). The issue gained further traction when a former chief executive officer of NITI Aayog tweeted that reservations for PwDs need to be reviewed. Although 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 from other civil servants, raises troubling questions about societal attitudes towards disabilities and reservation policies.
Deep-rooted ableism
First, how many disabled individuals have these officers interacted with, or had the opportunity to know? Have they ever been introduced to the challenges faced by PwDs, during a session or a workshop? The deep-rooted ableism that their statements reflect are the lived realities of many PwDs.
PwDs face multiple barriers to their effective participation in society and the workforce. These include infrastructural challenges, the education system, and exam curricula and formats that are designed to be used by, and suit, able-bodied individuals. Reservation policies aim to level the playing field by providing equitable opportunities to PwDs. That a few individuals are exploiting these benefits should not overshadow the broader purpose and impact of such policies. Sweeping generalisations based on isolated incidents are unfair and counterproductive. Certain officers have asked whether PwDs who hold positions within the civil services have the “physical fitness” to fulfil their duties. Such statements reflect the unconscious bias that many people hold against PwDs.
Also read | Disabled staff to get quota in promotion with effect from 2016
PwDs continue to face challenges in both the education and employment sectors, yet those are hardly highlighted. The 76th round of the National Sample Survey in 2018 found that only 23.8% of PwDs were employed, whereas the Labour Force Participation Rate at the national level was 50.2% the same year. This can be attributed to lack of access to accessible education; stigma and biases at the hiring stage; and lack of reasonable accommodation at the workplace for PwDs.
Why did the Puja Khedkar case cause a ruckus over the disability quota?
These structural issues, however, are hardly ever pointed out by the same individuals who question the validity of affirmative action provided to PwDs. For instance, take the case of Kartik Kansal, who is affected by muscular distrophy. He has not been allotted a service despite clearing the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)’s civil service exam four times. Similarly, due to her disability, Ira Singhal had to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to secure her rightful posting despite having secured the first rank in the civil service exams. These are the moments when the conscience of our intellectuals should be stirred.
Potential misuse
In a related context, the Supreme Court addressed the potential misuse of scribes in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021). The argument was that PwDs, if allowed to choose their scribes and if their disability percentage is less than 40%, might misuse this provision. The Court countered this saying: “If some incidents come to light of able-bodied candidates hiding chits in their dress code and misusing them to cheat in an exam, the normal consequence is suitable punitive action against such students. It is not to switch to a different dress code that is so uncomfortable that many competent students find it hard to sit in it for the entire duration of the exam and perform to the best of their ability.” This principle should similarly apply to reservations for PwDs.
Certification system
India’s certification system for disabilities also has significant flaws. The practice of quantifying disabilities by percentage 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. Also, the UPSC insists on a separate and independent disability assessment, thereby cocking a snook at the disability certification process recognised by the government that results in the issuance of a disability certificate and Unique Disability ID (UDID). This gives rise to the possibility of the two sets of assessments yielding contradictory results
An additional challenge is the lack of specialists to evaluate 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 constrained in terms of both infrastructure and resources. This leaves the assessment of the disability and its extent open to interpretation. Psychosocial disabilities, whose assessment is relatively more subjective, are assessed based on the outdated IDEAS (Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale) scale. In many cases, such tests are not even conducted. Persons with invisible, hidden, or less apparent disabilities, such as blood disorders, often face rejection because they “do not look disabled”.
The focus should be on addressing these systemic issues. Ms. Khedkar’s alleged fraudulent activities should be met with stringent punishment. This is the solution, not the unwarranted review of the reservation system that provides crucial support to a marginalised group.
Rahul Bajaj, practicing lawyer; Co-Founder, Mission Accessibility; Senior Associate Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; and adjunct faculty, BML Munjal University School of Law; Ayushmita Samal, Research Fellow with the Center for Inclusive Policy
