The Supreme Court bench order stipulating a 50% disability
limit in hearing and vision impairment for the post of civil judge is all set
to be challenged.
Next week, Advocate V Surendra Mohan plans to file a
review petition seeking that the order be placed before a larger
bench.
Advocate Mohan was held ineligible for the post of civil judge by the bench
of Justices Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph as he has a
75% vision disability. The bench was hearing his appeal against
the Madras High Court’s dismissal of his writ petition
challenging the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
(TNPSC)’s order that only someone with a 40-50% vision and hearing
disability was eligible.
Advocate Mohan, who is all set to join the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) as a Public Prosecutor soon, has made it clear
that he is not interested in applying for a civil judge’s post but is
fighting for a larger cause.
I challenged the Tamil Nadu government and the Commission’s decision to
fix the reservation at 40-50% in the High Court because how can such a
letter be binding? As per the RPWD Act 2016, any change has to be done by a
proper mechanism, by setting up a committee which will conduct a research
into why such an exemption is being made and after that the Disability
Commissioner gets to take a call. But no such step was taken in Tamil Nadu.
– Advocate V Surendra Mohan
The larger question is how the SC bench could give such an order in light of
the fact that Rajasthan has a visually impaired serving civil judge in Ajmer
district, Brahmananda Sharma.
“Judge Sharma is ably discharging his duties with the help of facilities
being given to him like recording witness statements, an e-speak device etc.,
so on what basis you are giving this 40-50% reservation?”, asks Advocate
Mohan. “Where is the equality? When a blind judge in Rajasthan can work,
why not a judge in Tami Nadu? The laws and procedure are the same. This means
the SC has no rights to give directions to the states to improve the dignity
of disabled people. When you are closing the doors for your own department,
then how will your order be obeyed by other departments?”
Representing Advocate Mohan will be Supreme Court lawyer Jai
Dehadrai, who has successfully argued several important cases
relating to accessibility at the apex court.
“I am deeply critical of the Supreme Court’s lack of reasoning in this
judgement. To say a person with 50% vision loss cannot discharge his duty is
one thing but when the judgment is devoid of larger reasoning, it must be
reviewed by a larger bench”.
The judgement passed by the bench is truly baffling and completely at
variance with the progressive stand taken in past matters, notably the
directions given to make 50% of all government buildings of the national
capital and state capitals fully accessible by December 2018. Given the range
of technologies available, the court should be leading the way in bringing
people with disabilities into the mainstream.
The sheer injustice is one that Advocate Mohan is determined to address. “I
am concerned that this order will set a precedent for other states. I may not
be interested in taking up the post of a judge, but I am fighting this so
that no one else is suffers. If this is rejected, I will file a curative
petition”.
Source: https://newzhook.com/story/21394
