What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The recent amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2016, notified by the Union Government, have sparked significant concern among disability rights activists and organizations. These changes, which tighten the norms for obtaining disability certificates, are seen as regressive and potentially harmful to the very individuals they are meant to support.
The amendments, which require mandatory submission of proof of identity, a recent photograph, and an Aadhaar card, along with the stipulation that only medical authorities can process applications, are ostensibly aimed at curbing the misuse of disability certificates. However, these measures are likely to create substantial hurdles for genuine applicants. The increased documentation requirements and the extended processing time from one to three months will undoubtedly add to the bureaucratic burden faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs).
One of the primary concerns is that these changes reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand. The problem of fake disability certificates, while real, is not as widespread as the amendments suggest. By focusing on tightening the process, the government risks penalizing genuine applicants who already face numerous challenges in accessing services and entitlements. The requirement for recent photographs and Aadhaar cards, for instance, may seem straightforward but can be particularly burdensome for individuals with severe disabilities who may have limited mobility or access to these documents.
Moreover, the stipulation that applications can only be processed by medical authorities could lead to significant delays. Medical professionals are often overburdened, and adding the responsibility of processing disability certificates could further strain the system. This could result in longer waiting times for applicants, many of whom rely on these certificates for essential services and benefits.
The amendments also include a clause that allows applications to lapse or become inactive if not decided upon within two years, forcing applicants to reapply or reactivate their applications. This provision is particularly concerning as it introduces an additional layer of uncertainty and potential delay for PwDs. The process of reapplying can be daunting and time-consuming, further exacerbating the difficulties faced by this vulnerable group.
Activists argue that these amendments fail to address the systemic issues that lead to the misuse of disability certificates. Instead of making the process more stringent, the focus should be on improving the efficiency and transparency of the existing system. This could include better training for medical professionals, streamlined procedures, and robust mechanisms to detect and prevent fraud without placing undue burden on genuine applicants.
