The government of India has recently proposed amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Rules, ostensibly to tighten the norms related to disability certification. The timing of this move is difficult to miss. We are still embroiled in the Puja Khedkar controversy as it has reignited the debate over the potential misuse of disability to gain untoward advantages. While an allegedly fake disability certificate is not the only reason Khedkar has found herself in the middle of scrutiny, the disabled community are having to face the brunt of the backlash that has followed this incident.
The proposed amendments, while well-intentioned, come as a knee-jerk reaction, that is unlikely to contribute to fixing the systemic issues, at best; and at worst, will result in an already cumbersome certification process for persons with disabilities becoming even more so. The proposed amendments have the potential to exclude persons with invisible disabilities, those who have migrated to other cities and states, and those who do not have access to the internet and mobile phones. There are several key changes that have been proposed.
First, the amendment explicitly states that disability certificates can only be issued by competent medical authorities, thereby eliminating the possibility of certificates being issued by non-medical personnel, such as those affiliated with NGOs or principals of special schools. This reflects a gross disconnect with the ground realities since district hospitals in our country are highly understaffed. The scarcity of experts such as haematologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists is also a pressing issue which does not find any attention in the proposed amendments. Putting further burden on already overstrained medical officers also makes assessment of non-visible disabilities difficult, whose assessment requires a discerning eye.
Second, the amendments increase the requirements for identity verification by mandating the use of Aadhaar along with additional proof of identity and residence. The removal of the previous stipulation that no other proof of identity shall be insisted upon seems to be a step towards stricter identification processes. However, this also opens the door to potential bureaucratic hurdles, particularly for those from marginalized backgrounds who may struggle to provide multiple forms of identification. The issuance of Aadhaar itself is a problematic process for persons with disabilities, as it may not be accessible to all. The biometric process can be inaccessible for those with locomotor disabilities, psychosocial disabilities, etc. Additionally, the accessibility of Pragya Centres, where Aadhaar cards are issued should also be assessed before making it a mandatory document for disability assessment.
Third, the amendments give legal force to the Unique Disability Identification (UDID) cards which are to be colour-coded based on the extent of disability, with different colours being used to denote less than 40% disability, 40-80% disability and more than 80% disability. This unnecessary demarcation will further the reluctance of certifying institutions to assess and certify individuals with less than 40% disability. This problem is not merely theoretical; the Karnataka government recently issued a circular against such practices and the Delhi High Court had to intervene in a matter where the certifying institution had refused to assess a candidate whose disability percentage was ostensibly less than 40%. Yet the amendments are silent on this issue. By not covering this, the rules leave a significant loophole unaddressed, which could lead to continued discrimination against those with milder disabilities.
Moreover, the amendments miss the opportunity to ensure that UDID cards are universally accepted across all platforms, including by authorities who currently insist on separate verification processes. Without clear guidelines, the purpose of the UDID card as a uniform proof of disability risks being undermined.
In addressing the Puja Khedkar-type situations, the proposed amendments appear ineffectual. This is because the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) insists on conducting its own independent disability assessments for successful civil servants, thereby cocking a snook at the self-same UDID cards that these rules seek to formalize. This raises serious questions about the utility of the amendments in preventing fraud within the civil services.
Another glaring omission in the proposed amendments is the failure to strengthen the enforcement of Section 91 of the RPWD Act, which penalises those who fake disabilities. The Khedkar incident clearly underscores the need for more robust enforcement mechanisms, yet the amendments do not address this at all. In fact, the proposed amendment puts the onus of proof on the person with disabilities and solely penalizes them for fake certificates by making the process more bureaucratic and complex.
Finally, the proposed extension of the time period for the issuance of disability certificates from one month to three months is troubling. It is also ambiguous because the amendment is not clear in stating whether this three-month period starts from the date of applying for a disability certificate or the date when the assessment is done. This makes the process opaque and arbitrary. Currently, anecdotal evidence suggests that it often takes six months to a year for a disability certificate or UDID to be issued. By extending the official timeline, the government risks further delays in an already sluggish process, exacerbating the difficulties faced by disabled individuals in obtaining the necessary certification.
In conclusion, while the intention behind tightening the rules to prevent fraud is understandable and appreciable, the government’s proposed amendments to the RPWD Rules fall short in several crucial respects. By failing to account for the realities of resource-poor settings, neglecting to address the reluctance of certifying authorities to recognize milder disabilities and not streamlining the acceptance of UDID cards across the board, these amendments risk placing persons with disabilities under even greater hardship while doing precious little to prevent a recurrence of Puja Khedkar type incidents. To truly protect the integrity of the disability reservation system, the government must revisit these amendments and address these critical gaps. Only then can the system be both fair and less susceptible to manipulation.
Rahul Bajaj is a practicing lawyer, co-founder, Mission Accessibility, senior associate fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and adjunct faculty, BML Munjal University School of Law. Vaishnavi Chaudhry is advocacy fellow, Women of the South Speak Out. The views expressed are personal
