Directions to Implement Schemes

Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed under: Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice
Respondent:Union of India and Ors
Citation: (2000) 10 SCC 542
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: Dr. AS Anand and VN Khare

Facts

The Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice filed this petition based on some news items, which appeared in certain newspapers about a case that was still pending in the High Court. The UOI, in response filed a counter-affidavit along with which the following scheme was also filed: “Scheme for periodical check-up and treatment of visually-handicapped persons admitted to blind schools run by the Delhi administration or voluntary organizations for education/rehabilitation of visually handicapped individuals.”

Observations of the Court

The Court held that in light of Article 41 of the Directive Principles it was the duty of the State to make effective provisions for securing the rights of the disabled and those suffering from other infirmities. It was further stated that it was imperative that the State undertook all necessary steps to help the visually handicapped regain their eyesight to whatever extent possible, within the limits of the economic capacity and development of the State.

According to the Court this scheme, attempts to meet the situation arising out of various problems connected with the medical check-up and treatment of blind persons. Therefore, the Court pointed out the need for the adoption of this scheme by all the States and Union Territories in the whole country. According to the Court, in doing so, assistance in the shape of medical check-up and treatment would become available to the visually handicapped and none of them would be denied corrective surgery.

Accordingly, the Court issued notices to the Health Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories asking them the reason for this scheme not being implemented. It was stated on behalf of the UOI that such notices had already been issued and forwarded to all the States and Union Territories. In response to this the Court ordered that Health Secretaries to communicate the actions they had taken in repose to this notice to the UOI.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Union of India and Ors

Filed under: Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice
Respondent:Union of India and Ors
Citation: (2000) 10 SCC 542
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: Dr. AS Anand and VN Khare

Facts

The Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice filed this petition based on some news items, which appeared in certain newspapers about a case that was still pending in the High Court. The UOI, in response filed a counter-affidavit along with which the following scheme was also filed: “Scheme for periodical check-up and treatment of visually-handicapped persons admitted to blind schools run by the Delhi administration or voluntary organizations for education/rehabilitation of visually handicapped individuals.”

Observations of the Court

The Court held that in light of Article 41 of the Directive Principles it was the duty of the State to make effective provisions for securing the rights of the disabled and those suffering from other infirmities. It was further stated that it was imperative that the State undertook all necessary steps to help the visually handicapped regain their eyesight to whatever extent possible, within the limits of the economic capacity and development of the State.

According to the Court this scheme, attempts to meet the situation arising out of various problems connected with the medical check-up and treatment of blind persons. Therefore, the Court pointed out the need for the adoption of this scheme by all the States and Union Territories in the whole country. According to the Court, in doing so, assistance in the shape of medical check-up and treatment would become available to the visually handicapped and none of them would be denied corrective surgery.

Accordingly, the Court issued notices to the Health Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories asking them the reason for this scheme not being implemented. It was stated on behalf of the UOI that such notices had already been issued and forwarded to all the States and Union Territories. In response to this the Court ordered that Health Secretaries to communicate the actions they had taken in repose to this notice to the UOI.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Chairmaine A. Lobo Sanford F Facho v. State of Goa thru’ The Chief Secretary Alto–Bentim Goa, Union of India thru’ The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Corporation of The City of Panjim thru’ The Chairperson Panjim –Goa, Konkan Railways

Filed under: Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection fo Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995.
Appellant: Chairmaine A. Lobo Sanford F Facho
Respondent: State of Goa thru’ The Chief Secretary Alto –Bentim Goa, Union of India thru’ The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Corporation of The City of Panjim thru’ The Chairperson Panjim –Goa, Konkan Railways
Citation: Writ Petition No. 539 of 2004 decided on 25.10.2005.
Court: In the High Court of Judicature of Bombay
Judge: R.M.Lodha & N.A Britto

This is a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions for the State of Goa to implement the Provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Facts

The meeting of the State Executive Committee under Section 91 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was convened on 21.10.2005 and the plan of action for implementation of the Access Audit recommendations was scrutinized. Along with the affidavit the Secretary, Social Welfare Department had annexed a summary of the plan of action.

The summary reflected the acceptance/rejection of the Access Audit’s recommendations, and the period function within which the accepted recommendations would be implemented. Chairmaine filed the present Writ Petition on the ground that the State Coordination Committee whose function was to develop a State policy to address issues faced by persons with disabilities had failed to discharge the said function.

Arguments made on behalf of Charmaine

It was argued that the whole object of developing a State policy was to solve the problem faced by the persons with disabilities and take steps to ensure a barrier free environment in public places, work places, public utilities, schools and other institutions. In this regard, it was pointed out that the State Coordination Committee was also required to monitor and to evaluate programmes and design for achieving equality and full participation of persons with disabilities.

Observations of the Court

The Court agreed as prayed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Departments to grant six months time to the State Coordination Committee to develop the state policy to address issues faced by persons with disabilities. It was also held that once the State Coordination Committee had taken the necessary steps to monitor and evaluate the impact of such a policy and programme designs for achieving equality and full participation of persons with disabilities the Writ Petition would have come up for more directions after six months.

Top