Telangana High Court seeks State response on Commissioner for PwDs

The petition was filed by the All India Confederation of the Blind (AICB) and the Development & Welfare Association of the Blind (DWAB), who were represented by Advocate Sahithi Sri Kavya.

BY LEGAL CORRESPONDENT

Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court on Monday sought a response from the State Government regarding a writ petition that calls for the appointment of an independent State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), as required under Section 79(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. The petition was filed by the All India Confederation of the Blind (AICB) and the Development & Welfare Association of the Blind (DWAB), who were represented by Advocate Sahithi Sri Kavya. The writ highlights the failure of the Telangana State Government to fulfill its statutory obligation under the RPwD Act, which mandates the appointment of an independent State Commissioner to oversee matters related to the welfare and rights of PwDs. Currently, under G.O. Ms. No. 13, dated July 15, 2017, the Telangana government has designated the Director of Welfare of Disabled & Senior Citizens to perform the functions of the State Commissioner. The petitioners argue that this arrangement creates a significant conflict of interest, as the same individual is responsible for both overseeing welfare schemes for PwDs and adjudicating complaints related to these schemes. This, they contend, violates the principles of natural justice, including the foundational legal concept that no one should be a judge in their own case. The petition further asserts that such dual responsibility compromises the independence and impartiality required for an effective grievance redressal mechanism, leaving PwDs vulnerable to a system that lacks transparency and accountability. The petitioners argue that this arrangement breaches the doctrine of separation of powers and infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. In their petition, AICB and DWAB stress that the current setup undermines PwDs’ access to a fair and independent mechanism for addressing their grievances, which is critical to ensuring justice and equity for this marginalized group. Justice Nanda, after hearing the initial submissions, issued a notice to the State Government and directed it to file a response. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.

---