New Delhi, 18th December, 2021 (Saturday)
A bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said that a person with a disability is entitled to protection under the Right to Persons with Disability (RPwD) Act as long as the disability is one of the factors for the discriminatory act.
Disciplinary action against people with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination, held the Supreme Court on Friday as it set aside inquiry proceedings against an assistant commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) over charges of misconduct.
“The mental disability impairs the ability of persons to comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination,” said the court.
Where people with mental disabilities find themselves falling foul of the standards of workplace conduct on account of their disability, the court said, disciplinary proceedings may take the form of discrimination because a person with a mental disability may have an impaired ability to comply with workplace standards.
“Often the process of the disciplinary proceedings is the punishment...While the stigma and discrimination against persons with mental health disorders are rampant in society, as the highest constitutional court of the country, it falls upon us to ensure that societal discrimination does not translate into legal discrimination,” underlined the bench.
It further emphasised that is extremely important to not stigmatise or discriminate against people having mental health issues or any other form of disability because such discrimination would only further entrench the feeling of being ‘disabled’.
The court made these observations while allowing an appeal by the assistant commandant, who faced disciplinary proceedings after he used unparliamentary language, appeared in television channels and other print media without the prior approval of the department, tried to intentionally cause an accident, and assaulted a deputy commandant in 2010. While he was placed under suspension in October 2010, a notice was issued to him in August 2015 following an enquiry.
CRPF defended its action arguing that he was involved in various acts of misconduct during 2010 and 2011, for which three different departmental inquiries were initiated against him. It also rebutted the officer’s submission that he developed mental health issues in 2008, after he was continuously posted in areas where anti-insurgency operations were being conducted from 2003 to 2010. CRPF said that exposure to insurgency does not result in the development of mental health issues. Innumerable officers are posted in such areas and are performing their duties.