Bombay HC Directs State To Make State Advisory Board Under RPWD Act Functional Within A Month
|The Bombay High Court directed the constitution of the State Advisory Board under Section 66 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court noted that as per the information furnished in respect of the constitution of the State Advisory Board (Board), the State of Maharashtra had simply informed the Court that the Board had been constituted. However, the Court stated that even though the Board was formed in 2018, it was not functional on account of vacancies of the non-official members.
A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Accordingly, we direct that the State Advisory Board shall be constituted in terms of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2016”) and made functional within a month from today.”
Amicus Curiae Jamshed Mistry appeared for the High Court, while Sr. Advocate Anil C. Singh represented the respondents.
In a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL), the Court acted on its own motion against the Government authorities to direct the constitution of the State Advisory Board within a month.
The Court recorded a letter from the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra's Persons with Disabilities Welfare Department, stating that the State Advisory Board would be constituted within 15 days after the current assembly session, which ends on 12th July 2024.
The Bench reminded the State Government of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2017) where it was held that the rule of law includes adherence to parliamentary legislation by both the State and the Union Government as it would be “extremely unfortunate” if the Governments were voluntarily flouting provisions of law enacted by the Parliament. The judgment also pointed out that the laws enacted by the Parliament cannot be ‘insulted’ by putting hurdles in the effective functioning of these Commissions, such as by not appointing the Chairperson or Members.
“The State of Maharashtra is under obligation to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act of 2016, however, because of vacancies of the non-official members in the Board, the Board is not functional, depriving disables in the State, which forms a sizable section in the society, of the benefits which they can derive in case the Board starts functioning,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Bench stated, “We, thus, hope and expect that, as directed above, within 30 days from today, the Board shall be made functional in all respects.”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on August 14, 2024.
Cause Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay On its Own Motion v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Amicus Curiae Jamshed Mistry; Advocate Ronita Bhattacharya-Bector
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Anil C. Singh; Advocates Oorja Dhond, Aadarsh Vyas, Ruchita Verma, S. K. Sonawane, Akshay P. Shinde, Prashant P. Chavan, Ravindra Nathani, Reshmarani Nathani; G.P. P. H. Kantharia; Addl.G. P. Abhay L. Patki