2007, Rajiv Rajan

Private airline offloads wheelchair-bound man


Rema Nagarajan, TNN Jun 19, 2007, 01.01am IST


NEW DELHI: When NGO activist Rajiv Rajan, a cerebral palsy patient, was invited from Chennai to attend an urgent meeting in Delhi, little did he know of the airlines' bias against the disabled.


He uses a wheelchair and had flown earlier. But not this time. Rajan was booked to fly on an Air Sahara flight on Monday morning. But he was not allowed to board the aircraft by the airline staff as it deemed that he was not fit to fly and that he needed an escort or a "fitness to fly" certificate. Rajan explained he was a frequent flyer, but the staff wouldn't relent.

The staff of the airline - which has been taken over by Jet Airways and internally branded as Jet Lite - demanded to see the boarding passes of Rajan's previous air-trips and tried to push his wheelchair out of the airline office.

Rajan told TOI: "They even called in the police to send me out of the airport. A couple of policemen recognised me as a frequent flyer and tried to intervene on my behalf but the airline staff refused to listen."

And the flight (S2-142), scheduled at 6.35 am, took off leaving Rajan behind. Rajan, a sub-committee member of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities had been invited to a Trust meeting in Delhi.
The meeting was to discuss and plan national level training for local level committee members across 593 districts of the country - Rajan even explained the purpose of his travel to the airline staff, but to no avail.

After the scheduled flight left, and upon Rajan's insistence, the airline staff finally got in touch with the director of Rajan's NGO, Vidya Sagar, which works with children and young adults with neurological impairment. Finally, light dawned upon them and they offered to fly him by a different airline. However, Spice Jet which was approached, refused to issue him a ticket.
When contacted by TOI, a Jet spokesman claimed that Sahara was actually not under Jet's administrative control.

He, however, later offered to give a reaction to the incident the next day. A Spice Jet spokesman denied the incident altogether.

He said no wheelchair passenger had been denied a ticket by the airline on Monday. An angry convener of the Disability Rights Group, Javed Abidi, said: "The conduct of the employees of Air Sahara and Spice Jet amounts to violation of Rajan's constitutional rights to a life of dignity, equal opportunities, non-discrimination and to his freedom of movement. We are going to file a complaint in the consumer court and ensure that Rajan gets justice."

He added that this was not an isolated incident but one of several such similar incidents of marginalisation faced by the disabled. "Most of the mushrooming private airlines seem to have no disability policy in place and there have been several such complaints. They seem to associate wheelchairs with illness, and so, wheelchair users have the toughest time," he said.


http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-06-19/india/27965622_1_airline-staff-jet-airways-air-sahara

2005, Ahed Prithviraj

Is autism a threat at airport?


For a country with an estimated 1.7 million autistic people, we are probably the most insensitive bunch of people. On Thursday, eleven-year-old Ahed was denied entry into the airport. Reason: he is autistic. 


Ahed and his parents, Tamil actor Prithviraj and his wife Beena, were stoppedat the security gate of the Bangalore airport. CISF inspector Bhavesh Kumar told them that Ahed could not board the Air Deccan flight to Chennai because he looked different.


Furious at this insinuation, Prithviraj asked the officer to explain the rules under which he was stopping his son. "The officer merely replied that there are rules, but could not quote any. He kept saying my son could be a threat to other passengers," Prithviraj told the Hindustan Times.


"I started filming the argument and he kept blocking the camera lens. We had to argue for 30 minutes before the officer relented," Prithivraj said.


While his parents fought back vehemently, little Ahed kissed his mother repeatedly. Beena interpreted it as his way of saying, "It is all right. Don't worry."


This is not the first time Prithviraj has had to deal with such insensitive remarks about his son. An official at the Delhi airport once asked Prithviraj if his son was mad and the actor shot back: "You seem to be mad."


"We have never encountered such problems in Europe or other Asian countries," recalled Ahed's mother Bheena who runs a school for autistic children.


So has Prithviraj ever tried shoving a medical certificate at such ignorant officials? The actor said he once tried to get an autism certificate for his son from a medical authority in Delhi. "But autism has not been classified as a disability under the Disability Act. The authorities asked me if I could accept a certificate that labeled him mentally retarded," Prithviraj said.


The CISF, however, defended its official. And while doing so, its spokesman only betrayed his level of ignorance. He said the CISF officer was only following rules since international civil aviation rules do not permit a “mentally retarded person abroad an aircraft”.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM17/Is-autism-a-threat-at-airport/Article1-157627.aspx

At airports, autism too is a threat!




Chennai: In an incident that reflects on the utter insensitivity of security agencies manning India's airports, security staff in Bangalore Airport recently tried to stop an autistic child from boarding a plane, branding him a threat to other passengers.


This is a story sent to CNN-IBN by Tamil film actor Prithvi Raj, whose son was at the receiving end of this misdemeanour of airport security.


Says Prithvi Raj, who turned Citizen Journalist for CNN-IBN, "Our struggle is to integrate my son into the main stream society. We don't want special privilleges, but please do not treat him miserably."


The reason Prithvi Raj is angry is because he and his wife were told by the airport security in Bangalore that their autistic son Ahed, 'cannot board the flight to Chennai'.


When they asked why, this is how the security staff reacted:


Prithvi Raj: "Why can my son not board the flight?"


Security Officer: "You cannot shoot here with your camera."


Prithvi Raj: "Why can my son not go? Tell me why?"


Security Officer: "Because he's mentally Ill. That's why."


Prithvi Raj caught it all on camera.


"When my wife asked them they said, 'Aapka beta flight mein jayega aur baki passenger ko danger karega' (your son will be a danger to other passengers on the flight). Please, I understand we don't permit a toothpaste on a flight, but for God's sake, don't treat an 11-year-old like a terrorist," says Prithvi Raj.


The name of the officer who told this to Prithvi Raj is Bhavesh Kumar and Prithvi Raj had to argue with him for over half an hour before he could finally get Ahed on board their flight to Chennai.


The couple have had to endure such behaviour at other airports in the past, but it was as never this severe. They finally decided that enough was enough.


'It's happened to me in Delhi a couple of times and in other places. They ask me, 'Aapka beta pagal hai? (Is your son mad?), and I ask them 'Aap pagal hai? (Are you mad?). Is this the way you ask someone. And then they keep gesturing to each other, saying that my son is mad," says Prithvi Raj.


Says his wife Beena, "Ahed gets vibes when we are upset about something and after all that, he kept kissing me on my cheek as if to tell me, 'Mama it's okay'."


The question is here, how can people not be nice to a child like Ahed? The parents don't want venegance, they don't want suspensions or dismissals. All they are asking for is a concentrated effort to sensitise the society about the beauty of a differently-abled child.


AUTISM TRAITS


Difficulty in expressing needs, using gestures or pointing instead of words.


Repeating words or phrases in place of normal, responsive language.
Laughing or crying for no apparent reason or showing distress for reasons not apparent to others.
Preference to being alone.
Little or no eye contact.
Unresponsive to normal teaching methods.
Obsessive attachment to objects.
Apparent over-sensitivity or under-sensitivity to pain.
No real fears of danger.
Noticeable physical over-activity or extreme under-activity.
Non-responsive to verbal cues, acting as if deaf, although hearing tests in normal range.


WHAT IS AUTISM


Autism is a bit of a difficult disability to detect as it is a hidden disability of sorts.


Autistic children have a fascination with language, but they may be unresponsive towards normal teaching methods.


It is a developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life and affects the normal functioning of the brain. It leads to difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication and social interactions.


(With inputs from Vibha Sachdev in New Delhi)


http://ibnlive.in.com/news/at-airports-autism-too-is-a-threat/23197-3.html

2005, Arman Ali

Airlines discrimination sparks protest


The Telegraph - Calcutta : Guwahati


June 24: The project co-ordinator of Regional Disabilty Law Unit, Northeast, an organisation dealing with rights of the disabled, Arman Ali, today moved the Gauhati High Court against what he calls a “deliberate and sustained policy of discrimination against disabled persons” by the state-owned Indian Airlines.


Arman himself is afflicted with locomotor disability. “Ali is not only speaking for himself but for his entire community,” said Siddharth Sankar Dey, Arman’s counsel.


The court of Justice A. Roy has fixed the matter for admission on July18.


Arman had booked a ticket with the Indian Airlines for travelling to Mumbai on a Guwahati-Calcutta-Mumbai flight on January 15 last year. Ali was scheduled to attend an international seminar on disability at Mumbai.


Indian Airlines issues what it calls M category tickets at concessional rates to visually-impaired persons and persons with locomotor disability of 80 per cent and above. “Though Ali had booked the ticket three weeks in advance, he was placed on the waiting list. But on the day of the journey, Ali found that his seat was not confirmed,” Dey said. He feels that the act was deliberate. “Passengers who had booked their tickets much later were given confirmation,” Dey said. “Ali was repeatedly told by the airlines that “everything will be arranged”. But no arrangements were made. Left with no choice, Ali had to purchase a ticket on a private airline to reach Mumbai.”


Dey said that it has become a standard practice for the airlines to place people like Ali on the waiting list.


“Regardless of when they may have booked the ticket, their tickets are not confirmed until the time of departure so as to accommodate other passengers who pay the full fare.”


Dey said as per the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and a 1999 Supreme Court ruling, state-owned Indian Airlines is under legal obligation to pursue disabled-friendly policies. “That’s why persons with locomotor disabilities are provided concessional tickets under the M category. But unfortunately, in reality, Indian Airlines follows a blatant policy of discrimination.”


Ali is actively involved in creating awareness about disability-related laws and providing legal aid to disabled people.


The Regional Disability Law Unit works in collaboration with Shishu Sarothi, a local NGO and the National Centre for Promotion of Employment of Disabled People, New Delhi.


http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050625/asp/guwahati/story_4911678.asp

1998, Javed Abidi

Javed Abidi vs Union of India & Others

In the Supreme Court of India

W.P. (C) No. 326 of 1997
Decided On: 17.12.1998
Appellants: Javed Abidi
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Hon'ble Judges: K. Venkataswami and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Subject: Constitution

Acts/Rules/Orders: Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 2, 3(2), 9, 13 and 57; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 32

Order
Pattanaik, J.

1. Shri Javed Abidi has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Union of India to implement the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, alleging inter alia that though the Act is intended to grant opportunities to the people with disabilities for their full participation and the Act has come into operation with effect from 7.2.1996 but no effective steps are being taken for implementation of the provisions of the Act. 

The petitioner himself is an orthopaedically impaired person and has incurred the disability within the meaning of Section 2(i)(v) of the Act. He appeared in person in this Court and successfully presented his case indicating several infirmities as well as callousness of the different organisations of the State in implementing the provisions of the Act. In the Writ Petition the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(a) Direct the Indian Airlines to immediately provide for aisle chairs in every aircraft;

(b) Direct the Indian Airlines to provide ambulift in all the airports of the country;

(c) Direct the Indian Airlines to provide 50% concession to all the disabled persons as defined in Section 2(I) of the Act because to provide this concession only to visually impaired persons is discriminatory and directly violative of the fundamental rights of the other disabled, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

(d) Direct the Central Government to appoint only disabled persons defined under Section 2(I) of the Act as per the provisions of Section 3(2)(I) and not to include any other person who is not a disabled person under the Act;

(e) Direct the Union of India to immediately appoint the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners as per Section 57 of the Act;

(f) Direct the Central Government to immediately constitute the Central Executive Committee as defined under Section 9 of the Act;

(g) Direct all the States of the country to form their own State Coordination Committee as defined under Section 13 of the Act;

(h) Direct all the State Governments to immediately constitute their respective State Executive Committee for the implementation of the Act;

(i)Direct the State Government to appoint a Commissioner for their States for proper implementation of the Act in the States of the Country"

As one of the grievances of the petitioner was that the Central Government has not constituted the Central Co-ordination Committee under Section 3 of the Act and States also have not constituted the State Co-ordination Committees as required under Section 13 of the Act, this Court issued notice to all the State Governments and the Union Territories by order dated 20th October, 1997, to get responses from them. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice the Union of India through its Secretary in the Ministry of Welfare Department filed an affidavit on 30th September, 1997, indicating the steps taken by the Union Government for implementation of the provisions of the Act including the Constitution of the Central Committee under Section 3 thereof. Different States also filed their respective affidavits indicating the constitution of the State Co-ordination Committees under Section 13. In view of the constitution of the Central Co-ordination Committee as well as the State Co-ordination Committees in most of the States. 

We do not think any further direction is necessary in that regard, but, we hope and trust that the respective Committees will discharge their obligation under the Act so as to achieve the objectives for which the Act has been enacted. It may be borne in mind that the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region held a meeting at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992, and adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Region and India is a signatory to the said Proclamation. The Act in question was passed by the Parliament which intends to provide for the following as apparent from the Statements of Objects and Reasons:

"(i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;

(ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities;

(iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis-a-vis non-disabled persons;

(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities;

(v) to lay down strategies for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and

(vi) to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream."

The Committees constituted by the Central Government as well as by the respective State Governments must, therefore, make earnest endeavour to achieve the objectives, as indicated above, in exercise of their powers conferred under the Act.

2. The petitioner also made a specific grievance in the Writ Petition alleging the lack of facilities like providing aisle chair and ambulift by the Indian Airlines which according to the petitioner is a social obligation of the Airlines and the said Airlines must provide these minimum facilities to permit easy excess to the disabled persons particularly those who are orthopaedically impaired and suffer from locomotor disability. The Indian Airlines in course of the hearing of this Writ Petition indicated the steps taken by it in relation to providing of aisle chair in the aircraft and providing ambulift at different airports. Initially Indian Airlines had indicated that providing ambulift at major airports would be a costly affair but in its last affidavit filed in this Court it has been indicated that the major airports are going to be provided with ambulift and aisle chairs are now available in aircrafts to be used by disabled persons. Having considered the affidavits filed by the Indian Airlines we are satisfied that effective steps have been taken in that regard and it is not necessary for issuing any further direction on that aspect.

3. One of the major grievances of the petitioner is that the Indian Airlines is not giving any concession to such disabled persons for their movement by air even though such concessions are being given to only blind persons, who are also disabled persons under the Act. According to Mr. Abidi, the petitioner in this case, orthopaedically handicapped persons with locomotor disability require the relief of concession for their travel by air more as it becomes an impossible task for them to travel from one corner to the other corner of the country by train and there is no justification for the airlines not to grant such concession to such people when the concession is made available to the blind people. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned Attorney General appearing for the Indian Airlines on the other hand impressed upon the Court that the concession to the blind people was being given much prior to the commencement of the Act. 

According to Mr. Sorabjee, the learned Attorney General the economic condition of the Indian Airlines is such that it is not feasible to grant any further concession to any other category of disabled people and the Act itself postulates for providing facilities to the disabled persons within the limits of economic capacity. Detailed affidavits have been filed indicating the present economic position of the Indian Airlines. It has also been indicated in the said affidavits that the airlines is now reconsidering the question to withdraw such facilities to several group of citizens or to move the respective departments of the Government to get the re-imbursement.

4. According to Mr. Sorabjee granting such concession to only disabled persons suffering from locomotor disability may be construed to be a discriminatory attitude towards them and, therefore, the Court should not issue such direction, but he does not dispute the fact that blindness is one of the disability under Section 2(i) of the Act and the Airlines is granting concession for travelling by air to those suffering from the disability of blindness. While we agree with Mr. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General that the economic capacity is a germane consideration while deciding the question as to whether all persons suffering from disability as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act should be granted concession like blind persons for travelling by air, at the same time we cannot ignore the true spirit and object with which the Act was enacted. To create barrier-free environment for persons with disability and to make special provision for the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream apart from the protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation are some of the prime objectives of the Act.

In this context the question that arises for consideration is whether at least persons suffering from locomotor disability to a particular extent can be granted the facility of concession while travelling by air which facility is already being given to those suffering from the disability of blindness. When we consider the different types of disabilities mentioned in Section 2(i) of the Act and examine the same in relation to the difficulties one may face by travelling by train to far off places, say from Delhi to Trivandrum, those who are suffering from locomotor disability would stand by a separate class itself because of their imobility and the restriction of the limbs. 

It may not be difficult for a person with low vision or a person with hearing impairment or mental retardation or a person suffering from leprosy to travel by train even to far off places whereas a person suffering from locomotor disability above certain percentage of the same will find enormous difficulty in travelling by train or bus. We are considering the question of such disabled persons in the context of granting them the facility of concession for travelling by air.

Having considered the affidavits filed by different parties and having considered the submissions made by Mr. Sorabjee appearing for Indian Airlines as well as Mr. Abidi, petitioner in person and bearing in mind the discomfort and harassment a person suffering from locomotor disability would face while travelling by train particularly to far off places we are inclined to issue direction to the Indian Airlines to grant them the same concession which the Airlines is giving to those suffering from blindness. But each and every person suffering from such disability would not be entitled to get the concession in question as it would depend upon the degree of disability.

We think it appropriate to direct that those suffering from the aforesaid locomotor disability to the extent of 80% and above would be entitled to the concession from the Indian Airlines for travelling by air within the country at the same rate as has been given to those suffering from blindness on their furnishing the necessary certificate from the Chief District Medical Officer to the effect that the person concerned is suffering the disability to the extent of 80%. Such District Medical Officer wherein the disabled ordinarily reside will constitute a Board with Specialist in Orthopaedic and one other Specialist whom he thinks suitable for the purpose and examine the person and would grant necessary certificate for that purpose.

We are quite conscious of the financial position of the Indian Airlines but yet we are issuing the aforesaid direction keeping in view the broad objectives of the Act, as already narrated, and keeping in view the fact that concession is already being granted by the Airlines to the persons suffering from blindness. With these directions and observations the Writ Petition is disposed of.

5. Before we conclude the matter we cannot but thank the petitioner who appeared in person and brought this matter to the notice of the Court which resulted in acceleration of the implementation of different provisions of the Act not only by the Union Government but also by the State Governments.


http://www.ncpedp.org/policy/judg-ac01.htm