The Madras High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation petition challenging the use of Hindi expressions “divyang” and “divyangjan” to refer to persons with disabilities, which the petitioner claimed to be defamatory.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramammoorthy disposed of the plea after noting that the decision to use these expressions was taken after several consultations with the Central Government with State and Union Territories, with the object to replace terms such as “handicapped” and “viklang” for being “harsh, rude and humiliating to the classes of persons sought to be described thereby”.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner challenged the use of terms “divyang and “divyangjan” which translates literally to “persons with divine organs”. The same is derogatory (in the English language) and controversial. It was also pointed out that United Nations had a communication with the Indian government stating that the use of these terms should be restricted.
He, therefore, contended that such expressions ought not to be used in government legislation, regulations, or policy in referring to persons with disability.
Case of the Respondent
The Central government via its Additional Solicitor General R. Sankarnarayanan, however, argued that the usage of these expressions is not discriminatory. In this regard, Sankaranaryanan submitted that the literal English translation of these terms is not equivalent to the Hindi connotation. A counter affidavit filed by the Centre also pointed to the consultation undertaken with State and Union Territory governments before the use of such expressions were adopted.
Observation of the Court
The Bench, in turn, took on record that the government has been introducing changes in expressions to refer to persons with disabilities in the interest of ensuring that no derogatory terms are used unintentionally.
“Of late, there has been a change in the use of several expressions since they were found derogatory or not according dignity to a class of persons despite there being intent to humiliate by use of such expressions. Accordingly, corrections have been enforced across the board and it is no longer appropriate to call a person with disabilities. Similarly, the more hurtful ‘blind” is not used and the more appropriate “visually challenged” is in vogue. Indeed, it is noticed that the expression “mental retardation has been corrected as “intellectual disabilities”, the order stated.
Observing the same, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, though it was added that the government may come up with better terminology with time.
“Nothing in this order will prevent better expression for those complained against being evolved upon due consultation so that person with disabilities and those who are otherwise added or even suffer from intellectual disabilities may be included in mainstream activity to the extent possible”, the Court said.
Case Details
Before: Madras High Court
Case Title: M.Karpagam v. The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justices Sanjib Banerjee and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
