Madras High Court declines to entertain PIL challenging use of "Divyang" to refer to persons with disability

The Madras High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the use of the Hindi expressions "divyang" and "divyangjan" to refer to persons with disabilities, which the petitioner claimed was derogatory (M Karpagam v. The Chief Commissioner and ors)..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the plea after noting that the decision to use these expressions was taken after several consultations by the Central government with States and Union Territories, in an effort to replace terms such as "handicapped" and "viklang" for being "harsh, rude and humiliating to the classes of persons sought to be described thereby..The Court said that while it has to be ensured that hurtful epithets are not used for describing persons with disability, the matter cannot be stretched to the point of absurdity. ."What is of importance is the measures taken by the State to help the lot of some of our brethren who may not have the use of all faculties like most others or may be challenged in some form or the other. While it is also proper to ensure that hurtful epithets are not used for their description, the matter can only be taken up to a point and not be stretched to the point of absurdity ... While the effort of the petitioner is appreciated to ensure that otherwise abled persons or persons with disabilities are not demeaned or treated as pariah as a result of the manner of description of such persons, the greater emphasis should be on the effective measures adopted by the State rather than following the fad of political correctness as to the expressions used to describe them," the Court said..The petitioner had contended that the use of the terms "divyang" and "divyangjan", which translates literally to "person with divine organs" in English, is derogatory and controversial. In this regard, he also referred to a communication made by the United Nations to the Indian government urging that the usage of these terms be halted. .He, therefore, contended that such expressions ought not to be used in government legislation, regulations or policy in referring to persons with disabilities. .The Central government, through Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan, however argued that the usage of these expressions are not discriminatory. In this regard, Sankaranarayanan submitted that literal English translation of these terms are not equivalent to the Hindi connotation. A counter affidavit filed by the Centre also adverted to the consultations undertaken with State and Union Territory governments before the use of such expressions were adopted..The Bench, in turn, took on record that the government has been introducing changes in expressions to refer to persons with disabilities in the interest of ensuring that no derogatory terms are used unintentionally. ."Of late, there has been a change in the use of several expressions since they were found to be derogatory or not according dignity to a class of persons despite there being intent to humiliate by use of such expressions. Accordingly, corrections have been enforced across the board and it is no longer appropriate to call a person disabled but refer to such person as a person with disabilities. Similarly, the more hurtful 'blind' is not used… and the more appropriate 'visually challenged' is in vogue ....Indeed, it is noticed that the expression "mental retardation" has been corrected as 'intellectual disabilities'," the order stated. .In this backdrop, the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, although it added that the government may evolve better expressions with time. "Nothing in this order will prevent better expressions for those complained against being evolved upon due consultation so that persons with disabilities and those who are otherwise abled or even suffer from intellectual disabilities may be included in mainstream activity to the extent possible," the Court said.. [Read Order]