Preventing Multiplicity And Streamlining Processes For Disability Certification

While the issuance of such separate identity cards may be instrumental in enabling PwDs to avail a myriad of concessions in the Indian Railways, the promotion of multiplicity of certification is problematic and will inconvenience PwDs further.

Disability certificates issued in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPwD Act") lay down the nature and percentage of disability pursuant to a medical examination. Additionally, the Unique Disability ID (“UDID”) card framework being operationalised by the Government envisages creating a unique identification number for each PwD and linking the same to the delivery of all benefits and schemes for PwDs.

The requirement of obtaining a fresh photo ID card (“Railway ID card”) may prevent PwDs with a legitimate disability certificate and/or UDID card from availing railway concessions and benefits. More generally, the requirement of obtaining fresh documentation and in some cases also undergoing concomitant verification and assessment procedures warrants urgent attention.

Implications of the Railways Circular

The Railways had taken the policy decision of issuing Railway ID cards for PwDs vide their circular dated March 19, 2015 (“Circular”) with the intention of ensuring that PwDs are not required to produce their disability certificate each time before buying a discounted ticket. The Circular states that such ID cards will be issued on the basis of disability certificates granted under Section 58 of the RPwD Act.

In contrast, the procedure laid down in the Circular places onerous requirements on PwD applicants for obtaining a Railway ID card. Upon the submission of identity documents and the disability certificate, a Commercial Inspector is required to visit/contact the healthcare institution that issued the disability certificate as part of the verification process. This may prevent PwDs from applying for the Railway ID card in cities other than where the disability certificate was issued if there are no proper coordination mechanisms in place. Such a problem is likely to be more rampant in rural areas with low connectivity. The Circular further states that only disability certificates issued by certifying authorities within the jurisdiction of concerned zonal railways will be accepted for the Railway ID card, thereby making it impossible for PwDs to apply for such cards outside of areas where their disability certificates were issued.

Notably, Section 58(3) of the RPwD Act provides that a disability certificate issued in one State should be valid across the country with an objective of ensuring interoperability across all States. However, the modalities of issuance prescribed under the Circular run contrary to the spirit of interoperability envisaged under the Act.

Additionally, while the Circular provides that the issuance of such cards should be completed within a reasonable time period, the absence of any express stipulation in this regard is likely to result in delays thereby adding to the anguish of PwDs who may be denied concessions and other benefits in the absence of such Railway ID card despite the possession of other valid certification evidencing their disability.

The procedure envisioned in the Circular also falters on accessibility as it mandates a physical application and requires either the PwD applicant or their representative to visit the Divisional Railway Managers’ office for collecting the Railway ID card. It is ironic that a process which caters to PwDs fails to consider the mobility constraints that some PwDs may face. It is noteworthy here that the application process for disability certificates/UDID cards has been enabled through an online portal since June 2021.

This Circular, coupled with the order of the Delhi High Court, highlights the lack of clear vision pertaining to disability certification in India. While the Government aims to make certification processes less cumbersome and link the UDID card to the delivery of all benefits to PwDs for reducing multiplicity in documentation, PwDs are forced to undergo protracted and burdensome processes for actually availing benefits in public services at a later stage.

The issue of multiple assessment and certification

The issue of multiplicity of documentation and assessment is much more pervasive and complex in the context of competitive examinations where bodies such as the UPSC require PwDs to undergo additional medical examination and assessment for evidencing a disability.

Currently, a certain proportion of seats are set aside for persons with benchmark disabilities, i.e., those with more than 40% disability, in government higher education institutions and establishments. The civil services examination (“CSE”) rules contemplate conducting a disability examination of candidates with a benchmark disability after they clear the mains examination, through a medical board, before appointment. Possession of a prior-issued disability certificate/UDID card or even examination in a previous cycle for the purpose of the CSE itself is irrelevant. Even candidates with permanent and stable disabilities are required to undergo a fresh medical examination in each CSE cycle. Hence, despite undergoing an assessment procedure for the issuance of a disability certificate/UDID card, that establishes the nature and extent of one’s disability, PwDs have to undergo repeated examination to establish those very attributes for the purpose of the CSE.

Not only does this cause undue burden for PwDs, it can gravely prejudice their interests as contradictory findings can be rendered by different medical boards. In one such case, a candidate was issued a disability certificate for locomotor disability post assessment, which graded her disability at 50% and she appeared for the NEET examination on the basis of this certificate. Under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment) 2019, the reserved seats are open for those with more than 40% disability. In a subsequent examination for NEET at one of their designated disability certification centres, her disability was graded as 30%, making her ineligible for the reserved seat. This matter is currently pending before the Delhi High Court.

Another candidate underwent medical examination once in 2019 and again in 2021 while appearing for the CSE, with contradictory results. On appeal, the appointed medical board came back with yet another finding. The Central Administrative Tribunal in this case ordered a fourth medical examination to establish the nature and extent of disability as relief.

Multiple issues arise here. In case of conflicting assessments, which one holds? What is the solution in such cases apart from a repeat examination? Equally important is the issue of the guidelines for the assessment of specified disabilities and their adequacy and accuracy since they allow such divergent results. But we also here circle back to the initial question- why are multiple assessments needed in the first place? The standards for disability assessment are uniform across States, irrespective of whether such assessment is being done for the issuance of a disability certificate/UDID card or for the purpose of evidencing disability for a competitive examination. Is it because there is a lack of confidence in the assessment and certificate issuance process? Or because there is fear of misuse and of fake certificates being utilised for the purpose of availing benefits?

Multiple assessments do not address either of these concerns. Inefficient assessment and forging of certificates can be done at any stage, whether before or after the examination. This solution would not address the root cause of the issue. If the issue is that assessments have not been carried out by disability certification centres designated by authorities, such as the UPSC, that conduct these examinations, the question asks itself: are all authorities notified for the purpose of disability assessment and certification as per section 57 of the RPwD Act not up to the task, and what standards are utilised to judge their credibility?

Interestingly, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“UNCRPD”) Committee in its Concluding Observations on India’s Report expressed concern over multiple certification and assessment of disability. It also stated that the limited coverage of the UDID card was a problem in that rail service providers do not recognise the same.

Road Ahead

The assessment and certification process for freshly issued disability certificates and UDID cards should be made as robust as possible so that the factum of disability and the percentage of disability can be conclusively evidenced through such documentation. Given that UDID cards were envisaged to provide PwDs with a unique identification ID, the process and systems in place should provide a credible repository of information for all PwDs holding such cards to prevent forgery or identity fraud.

Needless to say, such UDID card and/or disability certificate should suffice for availing all benefits under different schemes and programmes for PwDs across various states and institutions. All organisations, starting with those under the aegis of the Government, must be mandated to accept existing certificates/cards as conclusive evidence of disability to avoid multiplicity in certification and assessment.

In order to ensure that such disability benefits are not wrongfully misused by able-bodied persons, stringent mechanisms for distinguishing fake disability certificates may be put in place. All in all, benefits to PwDs should not be denied at the altar of trying to appear ‘fair’ and where such onerous requirements are brought before courts, they should be immediately weeded out as being contrary to the spirit of the RPwD Act.

While the extant legal framework seeks to empower PwDs, it must be ensured that such rights and benefits are made readily available to them without having to run from pillar to post.

Rakshita Goyal and Lakshita Handa are Research Fellows with the Legal Design and Regulation Team at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi. Views are personal.