Visual impairment and medical education

The Supreme Court has recently paved the way for visually impaired candidates to become a doctor. The Court has stated that candidates with low vision cannot be denied admission to medical courses. Rejecting the contention of the medical council that medical colleges are technical institutions and are thus not covered in higher educational institutions, the court observed that the term 'higher education institute' includes technical institutions. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act provides a 5% reservation for differently abled candidates in educational institutions. The court observed that there is nothing in law to prevent a candidate with a visual impairment of 40% or more from becoming a doctor.

Hate crimes and accountability

In the past couple of months there has been a spur in the instances of lynching. A number of innocent individuals became victim of hate crimes and public lynching. Most of these cases have their origin based on the forwarded messages on social media. Taking a notice of the rising instances of hate crimes, a limit has been put on the number of times a message is forwarded as well as each forwarded message is marked as such. The Supreme Court had previously taken notice of the issue and had asked the company to take actions to prevent such instances, following which a limit of five times was put on a person forwarding messages.
The Supreme Court taking further cognisance of the matter has issued directives that the whatsapp establishes a grievance office to look into the complaints of the consumers. The Court also directed that the company should follow the RBI directives to know know more about its subscribers (the Know Your Customer-KYC) and also follows all Indian laws on the subject. The company has replied that following the KYC guidelines would infringe the rights off privacy of its consumers.
While the rights of an individual pertaining to privacy and speech and expression are also subjected to certain the restrictions, an action to prevent other innocent victims from hate crimes is also imminent.

Transparency in religious institutions

The Supreme Court recently observed that all religious and charitable institutions should be open for audit of their hygiene, entry, accounts and assets. The Court observed that when a complaint about any such institution is filed, the district authorities should inspect and audit the premises. It observed that the reports sent by the district magistrate to the high courts should be treated as PILs. The Court observed that the issues related to the difficulties faced by the people visiting these shrines and institutions, the matters of hygiene, the inadequacy of the management, the utilisation of offerings is not only the responsibility of the state and central government but also of the courts. Taking a stand on the affairs of the Jagannath Puri temple, the Court observed that its doors should be opened for everyone, observing that the principles of hinduism embrace all kinds. In order to protect the devotees from harassment, the court observed that no sevak can have his individual place from where he sells offerings and instead they should be remunerated from the temple funds. The court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras to check the harassment of devotees in the temple premises.

Child welfare

The latest incident of a Deoria shelter home should be a wake up call for anyone caring for child welfare. Children, specially the ones who are handicapped, abused or separated from their families, are a responsibility of the society and the government. When a child is placed in a shelter, it is important that the shelter is carefully monitored to check the instances of abuse and neglect.
It is important that the government takes a number of steps to ensure the child welfare.
(1) An auditing body should be established that regularly monitors and keep records of the shelter homes. Inspectors should go for surprise checks at the shelters to ensure that no abuse is taking place there.
(2) Separate shelters for lost children, physically or mentally handicapped children and young adults should be created. Young women who have eloped from their homes should not be put in these shelters, rather their right of choice should be respected.
(3) A centralised data base of all children put in shelters should be created and be electronically accessible for people to trace the lost children. The data base should carry the child's name, age, photograph, physical description, location and date of being placed in the shelter.
(4) Shelter homes should be given temporary licences based on their performance. The staff of the shelter homes should be recruited by State agencies and be subject to job transfers.
(5) Children at shelter homes should have access to schools and proper health facilities, so that they can mingle with the outside world, reducing the chances of abuse at the shelter home.
(6) Children who reach majority should be trained can some trades so that they can lead their independent lives and not be dependent on the shelter home till they are married off.
Children are the responsibility of the society at large and people use make a conscious effort that they are protected and helped. The shelter homes should be accountable for their actions and carefully monitored to e ensure that instances of abuse are not repeated.

Taj and pollution

Clean air is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Air pollution has adverse effect on human and animal health and buildings amongst other other things. The marble of the Taj Mahal is being damaged by the growing air pollution in the Agra region. The Supreme Court had earlier this month asked the state government to frame a vision for curtailing the pollution levels. The State government has submitted a draft vision that states the following measures: making the region plastic free zone, having only trees and no buildings around the Yamuna banks, using green vehicles and not widening the roads going towards the Taj and closing down polluting and ailing industries in the region(Taj Trapezium Zone). The Court has warned the government that not taking care of the monument might take away its heritage building tag and that they should make firm steps to protect it. Afforestation, curbing vehicular emissions and closing down ailing industries are important measures for curbing the air pollution.

Preventive detention

A person's liberty can be curtailed either as a punitive or a preventive measure. Punitive detention is detention in the form of punishment for the commission of an offence. Preventive detention is, on the other hand, detention in apprehension of an offence.
Article 22 of the Constitution lays down safeguards and rights for a person who has been detained by the authorities. However, clause 3 states that such rights are not available to a person who has been detained under a preventive detention law. Clause 4 provides that a person detained under preventive detention law cannot be detained for a period exceeding three months unless an advisory board, having the qualifications to be appointed as a judge of a High Court, expresses its opinion before the expiry of three months that there is sufficient ground for detaining him for a longer period.
Article 22(5) provides that when a person has been detained under preventive measures, he has a right that the authority making the detention order:
(1) communicates the grounds of detention to him, unless it is against public interest, and
(2) provide him with an earliest opportunity for making a representation against such an order.
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950, provides that an order for preventive detention can be passed only on the following grounds:
(1) security of state and maintenance of public order,
(2) maintenance of supplies and essential services and,
(3) foreign affairs or defence and security of India. (Section 3)
Section 8 of the Act provides that the Central and State government to constitute one or more advisory boards consisting of three members.

Legalising the live in relationship

The Supreme Court has recently pointed out that two consenting adults have a right to live together without marriage in a case where a woman whose had been annulled. The Court asserted that she had a right to choose with whom she wanted to live with. The Court held that live in relationship have a legal status and have found a place under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the present case, the marriage of the appellants had been annulled because the man was not yet 21 years of age, the legal age for marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, at the time of the marriage. The Court observed that even if the appellants were not competent to enter into wedlock at the time of marriage, being adults, they have the right to live together even outside the wedlock. The Court pointed out that a court cannot interfere in the marriage of two consenting adults and cannot annul a marriage.