Category Archives for Judicary

HC to rlys:Care for the differently-abled

Urvi Mahajani

Asking the Railways to be sensitive towards the needs of the differently-abled, the Bombay high court on Monday asked the body to address two primary issues immediately — disabled-friendly toilets and ticket windows of a lower level to make it accessible for a wheelchair-bound person.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by India Centre for Human Rights, an NGO, in 2007, seeking easy access for differently-abled persons to the railway platforms in the city.

A division bench of chief justices Mohit Shah and Roshan Dalvi has asked the court-appointed committee to devise a plan for implementing the 1998 government resolution which recommends establishing of disabled-friendly toilets and lower level ticket window at all city stations.

In October 2011, the HC had appointed a committee – one from the petitioner NGO, an officer from the accounts department, one engineer and three officers each from the Western and Central Railways – to come up with solutions for problems faced by the differently-abled.

“Without telling you (Railways), your officers should address the issues. You know your own recommendation since 1998. Why should someone else point it out to you?” asked chief justice.

The 1998 GR was pointed out by Kranti LC, advocate for the NGO, saying that the Railways have not been taking the initiative for making the platforms disabled-friendly.
Kranti pointed out that some of their NGO’s members had taken a survey of 104 stations. “Only 3% of toilets are accessible to the disabled,” he said. He further pointed out that in their July 2011 affidavit, they had suggested that slopes for access to platforms were too steep at several stations and this had not been rectified.

Beni Chatterji and Suresh Kumar – counsels for the Western railways – said that the NGO should point out the deficiencies to them and they would then take necessary actions. To this, chief justice frowned and said, “Why should anyone point out deficiencies? That’s why we have constituted the committee. What have you been doing?”

Chatterji assured the court that this time they would definitely look into their grievances. The chief justice suggested that Chatterji remain present in the next committee meeting.

Directing the railways to give priorities to the issues of toilets and lower ticket windows, the court has asked the railways to submit an Action Taken Report on the next date of hearing on March 1.

DNA, Mumbay

FILE PLAN IN 4 WEEKS: HC flays railways for ignoring disabled

Rosy Sequeira TNN

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday lambasted the railways for not implementing a 1998 circular for providing general commuter amenities, including separate toilets and low-height ticket windows, at every station for the disabled.

Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Roshan Dalvi were hearing a PIL filed in 2007 by NGO Disability Rights Initiative for making railway facilities accessible for the physically challenged. The NGO’s advocate, Kranti L C, said though by its circular dated December 30, 1998, the railways was to provide one accessible toilet and one ticket window at every station, it has taken a stand that it is not possible. The Western Railway (WR) advocate Beni Chatterji said that the circular was not pointed out before. “If you have your own norms, then why do you need someone else to tell you?” Justice Shah asked Chatterji.

Kranti also pointed out that additional solicitor general Darius Khambatta called a meeting, on the court’s instruction, but even his recommendations that the railways should provide the amenities at every station as a start was not complied with. Chatterji said the NGO must give details of the deficiencies. Kranti said the last audit in May 2011 shows that the basic facilities are missing at the railway stations. When Chatterji sought the court’s order to have a railway officer to assist a committee appointed by the court, the judges were perturbed at his request. “Why do you want the court to pass such orders? This is a bureaucratic approach,” said Justice Shah. The railways administration has been directed to submit a plan for implementation of amenities within four weeks.

TOI

Killing of Unborn Children with Downs – Genocide

It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Relevant section of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Our complaint is that in February 2010 the government of New Zealand instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and other conditions – Quality Improvements” programme. This programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU] without public consultation. Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act state that the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of people with Down syndrome, with around 90% of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being aborted.  The programme is funded by the state and targets all pregnant women in New Zealand in their first trimester on the basis of providing information to women to make decisions about their pregnancies, including abortion.  People with disabilities are the only group of people in New Zealand targeted for selective abortion. Down syndrome, and other conditions that are targeted, are genetic conditions that have no cure. The basis of first trimester screening is to enable woman to have an abortion within the 20 week timeframe if an abnormality is detected. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as parent education, hospital selection and delivery management, do not require testing during the first trimester and can be safely left until the later stages of pregnancy.  The preventing of birth of a group of people falls within the definition of genocide under international law.

This Programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU]. Documentation obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Health included the document Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down Syndrome Screening Final Report which states that, “The programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system. The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome.”

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a search and destroy mission and is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. Right to Life contends that the government has decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community. Its intention then is to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome. The insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth. With the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources the health care for the disabled will be restricted.

It is the opinion of this Society that the screening programme is in violation of Article II [d] of the Convention, Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. People with Down syndrome fall within the definition of “disabled persons” and are recognized under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as a group which forms part of a nation. Under that Declaration disabled persons “have the same civil and political rights as other human beings” and must be protected, against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature.” These rights are further reinforced under Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled, which states “State Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”

We request that the government cease this screening programme. In the event that the screening programme is not terminated Right to Life New Zealand will lay a formal complaint with the United Nations [The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide] against the government of New Zealand for genocide by imposing measures to prevent births of children with Down syndrome. The World Health Organisation [WHO], states that the classification for Down syndrome is a “mild to moderate disability.” Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome or any other disability need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

The government should promote a culture of life by ensuring that families who have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement and support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.

Scoop Politics Independent News

Disability law: Hunger strike called off

After the Centre partially conceded their demands, a group of disabled people on Wednesday called off their hunger strike held to protest against their poor representation on a committee which is drafting a new law to protect their rights.  Javed Abidi, convenor of the Disabled Rights Group, said the strike had been called off after the Centre’s positive response.

A S Narayanan, secretary of the National Association of the Deaf, told The Indian Express through a translator that Gopal Reddy, personal secretary to Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Mukul Wasnik, had confirmed that six more people would be added to the committee, of whom three were disabled. This would bring the total number of disabled people on the committee to six.  Following pressure from various disabled groups, the Social Justice And Empowerment Ministry had formed a committee in April to draft a new legislation, reflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to replace the Disability Act, 1995. The first meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday.

Disability activists are looking for three main changes to the Act.

VINAY SITAPATI
Indian Express

Centre defers postal insurance amendment for disabled again

The Centre has again sought more time to amend its postal insurance rules for disabled to bring them at par with the insurance rules of others.  A petition was filed in the High Court by one Vikas Gupta, an Assistant Professor in Department of History, Delhi University, who is visually impaired.

The petition said, ‘Rules of the postal insurance for government employees are discriminatory as it gives a cover of Rs five lakh to a normal person, but a handicapped has to pay much more premium and gets an insurance cover of Rs one lakh only.’ Counsel appearing on behalf of Solicitor General (SG) Gopal Subramanium told a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw that the amendments in the postal insurance rules to stop discrimination against the disabled government employees are in the pipeline and will be soon finalised.  Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Pankaj Sinha, also a visually impaired, and lawyer Ms Roma Bhagat told the Court that Article 25 E of the United Nations Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) prohibits discrimination in the insurance policy.  The High Court had directed the Centre to not only consider to change the rules so that a person with disability is given an equal sum assured for the premium paid but also ascertain that no extra premium has to be shelled out by them.

The Court had also directed the SG to consider the rules again and draft a policy in a manner that it should not be discriminatory and must consider the distinction between various types of disability as well as mortality factor caused by it.  ‘The SG had assured the Court that the LIC will consult the Actuaries, who will further consider the amendments and get back to us, but nothing has happened so far,’ Ms Bhagat told UNI.  Ms Bhagat also said there is no data to suggest that the disabled are more prone to accidents. ‘So why they have to pay more to get a less insurance cover,’ she added.  ‘We are only getting assurances from the Government, but no amendments have been brought about to give relief to the handicapped,’ she rued.

From DNIS: “No to Amendments,” is the writing on the wall!

While the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment continues to take an ostrich like attitude and push for Amendments to the Disability Act 1995, disabled rights activists from across the country were in Delhi on October 29 and 30 at the National Consultation on ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act, 2010’ organised by N.C.P.E.D.P., to take their demand for a fresh new law forward. Dorodi Sharma of D.N.I.S. takes a look at it.

Amendments to the Disability Act of 1995 have become like an urban legend in the disability sector. And why not? After all, from Maneka Gandhi to Meira Kumar to now Mukul Wasnik, amendments to the Act seem to be their favourite taMinistersk. Although, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (M.S.J.E.) is all gung-ho about the amendments, for the disability sector it has come a tad too late – so late that it is time for a fresh new Act.

The Disability Act of 1995 came at a time when the rights based movement in India was at a nascent stage. Thus, it was like manna from heaven for a sector which till then had been neglected and segregated. However, 14 years since then, the paradigm has shifted considerably, more so with India ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (U.N.C.R.P.D.). Popular sentiment in the disability sector is that any amendments to the old Act will merely be cosmetic and mostly a patchwork.

Disabled Rights Group (D.R.G.) had formed a Core Group which took up the task of drafting a new law. A delegation met with Mukul Wasnik giving him a detailed representation on how the proposed amendments left out several provisions of U.N.C.R.P.D. There is an infectious excitement throughout the sector regarding a new law. So much so, that the D.R.G. Core Group even thought of a new name!

With a view to broadbase this discussion, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (N.C.P.E.D.P.) organised a National Consultation on ‘The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Respect for Dignity, Effective Participation and Inclusive Opportunities) Act, 2010’ in New Delhi on October 29 and 30. The top notch and most respected disabled rights activists from across the country were there. The Consultation was divided into different sessions over 2 days. The topics for discussion included ‘New Law and not Amendments’, ‘Definition of Disability’, ‘Legal Capacity’, ‘Accountability’ and ‘One Law and not Four Laws’. All the leaders and activists present unanimously agreed that the Disability Act of 1995 was archaic and had served its time.

What was interesting to see was that the issue attracted instant support from most mainstream, national level political parties. Prakash Karat, General Secretary of C.P.I. (M) and L.K. Advani of B.J.P. personally wrote to N.C.P.E.D.P. and nominated senior members from their parties to attend the Consultation. “Let me assure you that C.P.I. (M) is committed to the rights of people with disabilities. It would not be content with mere expression of solidarity or support. We will very much be part of your movement,” said Muralidharan, member of C.P.I. (M) at the Consultation.

“The 1995 Act was inadequate even when it was enacted. Today, in a changed circumstance, amendments by themselves even if aimed at overhauling the Act would not suffice. Only a fresh law replacing the 1995 Act would satisfy,” he stated categorically.

Najma Heptullah, Member of the Rajya Sabha from B.J.P. promised support on behalf of her party. She is the Chairperson of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and promised that she would also look into the lack of implementation of the Disability Act of 1995. She gave an assurance at the Consultation that she would personally take this issue up with Mukul Wasnik. Incidentally, Heptullah was the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha when the Disability Act of 1995 was passed.

M.S.J.E. also seemed to be feeling the heat. Javed Abidi. Honorary Director, N.C.P.E.D.P. personally met Mukul Wasnik on October 22, who assured him that Ministry officials would be present at the Consultation. And sure enough Dr. Arbind Prasad, Joint Secretary and Nidhi Khare, Director, M.S.J.E. attended the Consultation on the first day. Dr. Prasad said that the Ministry was open to “suggestions”.

Although officials from M.S.J.E. seemed cagey about the whole issue, officials from the Prime Minister’s Office (P.M.O.) seemed to be more than willing to listen. Sanjay Mitra, Joint Secretary and Rajeev Topno, Deputy Secretary at P.M.O. answered queries from disabled activists ranging from the non – implementation of the XIth Five Year Plan to the question of a new law. Mitra said that disability was an issue close to the Prime Minister’s heart. He advised the sector to be resilient in their demand.

The discussions on both the days saw some exciting views come up. While the definition of disability was most debated, it was finally settled that the current definition envisaged in the draft Disability Act 2010 would be circulated and debated upon at a larger level to reach a consensus. Legal capacity and accountability were also discussed at length. Implementation of the law in general and accountability on part of both, government and the private sector in particular were a major concern at the Consultation.

“It is unfortunate that in this country a person can be penalized for cutting down a tree or for jumping a traffic light but there are no punitive measures to ensure that the rights of disabled people are judiciously implemented and that they are not exploited and abused,” said Abidi.

Praveen Kumar and Victor Cordeiro spoke at length about the need to take the grassroots level disabled population into consideration and ensure that the law is implemented properly. Another topic which saw a much heated argument was the issue of having one consolidated law rather than four different laws on disability. The leadership seemed to be clearly divided on the issue. Even though the merits of having an umbrella law were articulately placed by the speakers, the jury on this one is still out.

It became very clear by the end of the Consultation that there can be no two ways on the sector’s stand on amendments. However much the Ministry tries to play with semantics, the writing on the wall is loud and clear: “No to Amendments and Yes to New Law.” The leadership who attended the Consultation vouched to carry this cry to the length and breadth of India. N.C.P.E.D.P. is planning to follow this National Consultation with four Zonal Consultations, sometime around January next year. In the meantime, the drafting process of the Disability Act 2010 by the D.R.G. Core Group in New Delhi is expected to be over by December. This draft would be widely circulated and discussed in the sector and the final draft would then be submitted to the government.

The Indian disability sector has always been accused of being reactive. But this time around, they have decided to take control of things and play a strongly proactive role. If the Ministry officials have a quarter of pragmatism and intelligence they credit themselves with, they would surely see a golden opportunity to set an example by joining hands with the disability movement, rather than fight with them or mock at them. An example of Government – N.G.O. ‘partnership’. An example that probably will take the meaning of democracy to a new and higher level.

From DNIS

Stall the Right to Education Bill which excludes the education of all children with disability

A recent press release issued by Mithu Alur stated that ‘The Right to Education Bill’ that is to be tabled in the Lok Sabha today July 30, does not include education of all children with disability! “100 million people in the poorest areas of our country will be affected by this short sighted omission” says Mithu Alur, who has been fighting for the educational rights of children with disabilities, for over three decades.

Definitions of any target group that has suffered years of marginalization and neglect requires a positive discriminatory statement/clause she has said, which clearly identifies the group being marginalized, in this case children with disability. This point has been repeatedly told to the government and the authorities concerned. The Legislation of the country or the law of the land states it as well, so do all the Government’s flagship programmes such as the ICDS and SSA who speak of zero rejection The exclusion is a violation of the PWD ACT 1996 also a violation of what has been tabled in Parliament before.

The Bill has a gap which needs to be addressed. To prevent exclusion from programmes and budgets it is crucial to insert a phrase in Chapter 1 Clause 2(d ) where other disadvantaged groups have been clearly defined, to make an inclusive statement that children with disability are also included. The insertion of positive discriminatory phrase stating, “including children with disability” will ensure cross referencing cutting across all sectors

During the recent Lok Sabha elections, four major political parties had included disability issues in their political manifestos. Despite all efforts, one of the first Bills being tabled by the Lok Saba has excluded children with Disabilities! This can be corrected if the phrase children with disabilities is included in the Bill –Chapter 1 Clause 2(d).

“India can never achieve ‘Education for All’ unless ‘all’ includes children with disability as well” Mithu Alur

“The ultimate resort will be the judiciary of the country.  It should not be necessary for the ordinary citizen to have to access the courts, but when all fails and there is no option there has to be an ultimate remedy.  It is heartening to read the following quote:

When a citizen fails to get redress from other branches of the state, the courts do sometime need to step in because if the courts also ‘shut their doors to the citizens….(that) would be bad for the preservation of the rule of law’  Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Supreme Court, Times of India, August 27,1997 ‘…the courts must not shy away from discharging their constitutional obligations to protect and enforce human rights’, while acting within the bound of law they must rise to the occasion as guardians of the constitution, criticism of judicial activism no withstanding’.


Press Release by Dr. Mithu Alur, Chairperson ADAPT

Sign Language in Court

Dear All

It’s encouraging that the Court is now accepting Sign Language as a Language  for Deaf People in Bangladesh. Here is a link of the Daily Prothom Alo with news of Narshingdhi District where the Court accepted Sign Language for two Deaf witness. This is not for the first time in Bangladesh. There are few such examples in the past. It actually depends on the desire of the Judge. But this is first time (so far I know) such a news has been published in the leading National Daily.

I am sure that this news will encourage other Courts to accept Sign Language in Judicial System.


http://www.prothom-alo.net/V1/mcat.news.details.php?nid=MTY1ODY3&mid=NQ==

Thanks Masura Apa (the reporter of the news) for your passion and your commitment for Deaf Community, as well as for the disability movement. Bravo Munmun Apa (the interpreter at the Court), you are brave and hardworking. Thanks to SDSL. Special thanks to the President of Nashigdhi Deaf Club Abdul Mabud Bhai. Gratefulness to the Honorable Judge Mr. Anwar Sadat.

Finally salute to a Change Agent who is still invisible but working as a real fighting personality. Salute

–

Md. Zahidul Kabir
Coordinator & Team Leader, Programs
NFOWD
8/9, Block-A, Lalmatia
Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh

Phone: 88-02-8120415, 9124487 (Ext-103)
Cell:  01711667197
Fax:  88-02-9124487 (Ext-107)
E-mail:  zahid.nfowd@gmail.com

In today’s pages: Schools, Honduras and ‘judicial eugenics’

The Times endorses an unusual idea being considered today by the L.A. Unified School Board: allowing assorted groups inside and outside the district to operate 50 newly built schools over the next four years. Yes, there are pitfalls to this idea, but it’s still the most intriguing experiment to reinvent local education to come along in years. The ongoing crisis in Honduras, meanwhile, is starting to look like it won’t be resolved without some “superpower pressure” from the United States, The Times opines. It’s time to impose sanctions on those behind the coup that ousted the country’s rightful president, Manuel Zelaya, and take other actions aimed at restoring democracy. “Failure to return to constitutional order would send a signal to the rest of Latin America that once again political problems can be solved with an old-style coup.”  And we celebrate the nomination of Regina Benjamin as surgeon general. This “angel-like” figure, known for her work bringing clinics to rural areas, rebuilding health centers devastated by Hurricane Katrina and leading medical associations, “has the potential to be one of the strongest voices in public health in decades.”

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg raises an eyebrow over a recent comment in the New York Times from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  ’Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,’ Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, ‘there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’  Goldberg lists other prominent abortion backers, including former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who appeared to think that abortion was necessary to cull undesirable elements — like the poor and minorities — from the population. He’d like to see more questioning of such attitudes in the media.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project says the Obama administration is breaking its promise to bring transparency to government surveillance programs. The administration is reportedly proceeding with a Bush-era plan to use the National Security Agency to screen government computer traffic on private-sector networks, a program known as Einstein 3 that has no intrinsic security value — but will allow spooks to read e-mail communication between the government and private citizens.  And Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to document all the fraud he claims to have identified in the state’s In-Home Supportive Services program, a quarter of whose funds he says are wasted. The governor not only hasn’t proven the accuracy of that figure, he has proposed fixes that could well cost more than they would save.

The Supreme Court in summation

The Supreme Court term just ended was marked by close rulings but also surprising consensus.
The most important prism through which to view the U.S. Supreme Court term that ended last week is the wisdom of the court’s decisions — or the lack of it. But the results of Justice David H. Souter’s last term on the court also illuminate questions about the court’s role that are
sure to figure in the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Our own view of the court is that it isn’t a legislature by another name in which liberals and conservatives pursue predetermined agendas in the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Although every justice brings personal and philosophical predilections to the bench, the credibility of the court depends on the perception that its members strive to subordinate those preferences in particular cases.

As for “judicial activism,” a charge hurled mainly at liberals by conservatives and occasionally vice versa, we believe that the court ought to defer to other branches of government when the legal issues are clear. The problem is that they often aren’t clear. Justices shouldn’t actas algorithms to process facts; they are selected by presidents to apply enduring constitutional principles to evolving conflicts. In cases in which the Constitution doesn’t clearly command a particular result — on issues as diverse as racial equality, gun ownership and the rights of criminal defendants — there is a principle that should guide the court. It’s the motto engraved on its own building: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Factions vs. consensus

By those two standards — open-mindedness about individual cases, coupled with a special vigilance about violations of individual rights — this past term produced mixed results but not the rightward lurch that some feared.

The fact that 23 out of 74 signed decisions were decided by 5-4 votes, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy again playing the pivotal role, perpetuates the image of inflexible factions on the court. At the same time, in some cases the court achieved consensus in a way that didn’t
upend protections for civil rights or usurp the prerogatives of Congress. That may have reflected a rededication by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to the ideal of judicial modesty he trumpeted at his confirmation hearings — or, as more cynical observers suspect, Roberts may be engaged in an incremental undermining of precedents he opposes. Either way, the wrecking crew feared by some civil rights groups never materialized.

The court didn’t gut a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of voting discrimination to clear changes in election procedures with the Justice Department, though Roberts’ opinion in the 8-1 decision put Congress on notice that it should reconsider whether those states have redeemed themselves. It did not declare unconstitutional a rule requiring employers to show that tests that disproportionately exclude minorities are job-related, even as it held 5 to 4 that New Haven, Conn., misread that principle in discarding a test on which no black firefighters earned a promotion. It upheld on a 5-4 vote punishment for broadcasters who inadvertently air vulgar expletives, but left for another day whether such reprisals violate the 1st Amendment. In one action that does suggest the court might soon abandon a precedent, it postponed a ruling on whether an anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton documentary violated part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. In September, it will hear arguments on whether that section of the law violates the Constitution.

Other rulings were unalloyed victories for those who depend on the court to right wrongs committed, or ignored, by other institutions. By an 8-1 vote, the court ruled that school officials violated the rights of a 13-year-old girl when they strip-searched her on suspicion that she was hiding a prescription painkiller. By a 5-4 margin, it held that an elected West Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a lawsuit involving a major campaign benefactor. In another 5-4 vote, it ruled that the 6th Amendment’s confrontation clause requires that forensic experts be cross-examined about their findings, a recognition that crime labs aren’t infallible. Deferring to Congress’ decision to make special accommodations for disabled students, it ruled 6 to 3 that parents may be reimbursed for private-school tuition if a public school is found to have ignored a child’s disability.

There was one decision that can only be deplored as a dereliction of the court’s duty to provide a last resort for victims of injustice. By another 5-4 vote, it ruled that convicted defendants have no constitutional right to DNA evidence that might exonerate them. Roberts’ majority opinion rationalized inaction by noting that most states offer access to DNA results, small comfort for prisoners who live elsewhere.

Questions for Sotomayor

When she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, Sotomayor can expect to be asked about some of the cases decided in the past term, notably the ruling in the firefighters case that overturned a decision by her and two other federal appeals court judges. If Republicans on the committee are fair-minded, they won’t argue that Sotomayor is somehow disqualified because five justices disagreed with her in a complicated case. She followed the rules as written and deferred to the actions of a local government; now the Supreme Court has exercised its right to change those rules. Still, that doesn’t mean Sotomayor can’t be asked if she agrees with the reasoning in that case and others decided this term.

It’s also fair to ask her to pronounce on the broader issues raised in those cases: How important is consensus on the court? How far and in what situations should the court defer to Congress and state legislatures, city councils and school boards? Should the court apply special scrutiny to cases in which civil liberties rather than economic interests are at stake? The fact that Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed easily should make her more willing than past nominees to discuss her view of the court on which she aspires to sit.

From the Los Angeles Times

July 5, 2009

HC permits visually-challenged to screening test

HYDERABAD: The AP High Court, on Thursday, accorded permission to a blind man for appearing for a screening test for the post of civil judge and also write the relevant written examination with the help of an assistant.  R Varahalaswami, a 28-year-old visually challenged advocate from Guntur applied for the post of a civil judge in June when the HC notified the posts for filling them up through a screening test and interview. The judicial authorities rejected his application on June 16 saying that he has hundred per cent blindness and hence cannot be considered for this post. Swami approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his application. B Venkateswarlu, counsel for the petitioner arguing before a division bench comprising Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice Vilas V Afzulpurkar, contended that the proceedings of the Registrar General of the High Court were contrary to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1955.

He said that the Act provides for 3 per cent reservations for persons with disability in every establishment of which one per cent should be reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision.  He maintained that the Registrar General in his notification issued for the recruitment of civil judges did not prescribe any disqualification to the 100 per cent visually challenged applicants.  The counsel told the court that the Madras High Court has appointed a totally blind person as a Munsif and he was also given posting as third additional district munsif at Coimbatore on June 1, this year.  The bench directed the Registrar General to allow the petitioner to attend to the screening test scheduled to be held on July 5 and provide an assistant to guide the petitioner during the test.  It also told the petitioner to challenge the recruitment rules of the AP High Court in this regard.

Times of India, Hyderabad 03/07/2009