The court said, “In one way or the other, each of us suffers from known and unknown disability.”

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court has said that persons suffering from disability are “no different from you or me” and the more appropriate term to use for them would be not “disabled” but “disabled”.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD Act) and all other laws attempt to neutralize disability so that a differently-abled person and his peers stand on equal footing, which violates the principle of equal opportunity. Is “heart”. And the Constitution.

“It is for this reason that the more appropriate term to use would be ‘differently abled’ rather than ‘disabled’. Individuals who are differently abled are just as capable as any of the rest of us; however, since their Capabilities vary, so that is a problem. The challenge is when they try to integrate with the entire society,” the judge said in a recent order.

“Persons who suffer from a disability recognized by the RPWD Act are no different from you or me. In some way or the other, each of us suffers from a known and unknown disability. Yet, we all have to act unitedly A complete human being,” the judge said.

The court’s observations came while directing Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to provide facilities to a visually impaired student who was evicted from the hostel.

In the order, the court said that once the difference is “neutralized”, a differently abled person is able to reach his full stature and utilize his innate talents and abilities to their full extent Is.

“In such a situation, a person who was otherwise considered ‘disabled’ is often at par with, if not superior to, his counterparts in the profession he pursues. Shri Rahul Bajaj (counsel for the petitioner who is visually impaired) is a talented Individuals are examples,” the court said.

Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, 49, had approached the high court against his eviction from the hostel on the grounds that the applicable rules do not allow a student pursuing a second postgraduate course to stay in the hostel.

The high court, while granting relief to the petitioner, said it was indeed ironic that JNU was trying to defend its case by relying on the fact that the petitioner – a 100 per cent visually impaired student – had provided a residential address 21 km away. JNU campus.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)