The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

Image
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 is a critical topic for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, particularly under GS Paper II (Social Justice and Governance) . It replaced the PwD Act of 1995 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Key Highlights of the RPwD Act, 2016 1. Expanded Definition of Disability The Act increased the number of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21.   Added Disabilities : Cerebral Palsy, Dwarfism, Muscular Dystrophy, Acid Attack victims, Speech and Language disability, Specific Learning Disabilities, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Chronic Neurological conditions (Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s), Blood Disorders (Haemophilia, Thalassemia, Sickle Cell disease), and Multiple Disabilities.   The Central Government maintains the power to add more types of disabilities to this list. 2. Rights and Entitlements  ✅  Education : Children with "benchmark disabilities...

Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly case (2020)

 The Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly case (2020) is a significant judgment concerning the Anti-Defection Law under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Here are the key points:

Background:

  • Election Context: The case arose after the 2017 Manipur Legislative Assembly elections, which resulted in a hung assembly. The Indian National Congress emerged as the single largest party, but the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) formed the government with the support of other parties and independent MLAs.

Key Issues:

  • Disqualification Petitions: Several petitions were filed seeking the disqualification of MLAs who had defected from the Congress to support the BJP.
  • Speaker’s Delay: The Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly delayed the decision on these disqualification petitions, leading to legal challenges.

Supreme Court Verdict:

  • Timely Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions within a reasonable time frame, ideally within three months.
  • Judicial Review: The Court emphasized that the Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review, ensuring that they are not arbitrary or biased.
  • Independent Tribunal Recommendation: The Court suggested that Parliament consider establishing an independent tribunal, headed by a retired judge, to handle disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule to avoid potential partisan behavior by the Speaker.

Significance:

  • Strengthening Anti-Defection Law: This judgment reinforced the importance of the Anti-Defection Law in maintaining the integrity of the legislative process.
  • Ensuring Accountability: By setting a time frame for the Speaker’s decisions and allowing judicial review, the Court aimed to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the handling of disqualification petitions.

This case has had a significant impact on the functioning of legislative assemblies and the enforcement of the Anti-Defection Law in India.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

What is Underfueling?

The Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1565 CE)