In early 2024, the Government of India introduced amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules. These changes, implemented by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, aim to refine the procedures for applying for disability certificates and Unique Disability Identity (UDID) cards. This move follows a high-profile case of alleged forgery, prompting scrutiny over the existing processes. Disability rights advocates have raised concerns that these amendments may complicate access to essential services rather than enhance them.
About the Amendments
The amendments primarily affect Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the RPwD Rules. Rule 17 outlines the application process, including the authority to which applications must be submitted and the required documentation. Rule 18 governs the issuance of disability certificates and UDID cards, specifying the timeframe for their delivery. Notably, the UDID portal will now issue colour-coded cards based on the severity of disability, a system designed to provide clearer identification of needs.
Key Changes in Application Process
Under the revised Rule 17, applicants are mandated to submit their applications exclusively through the UDID portal, an important shift from previous rules that allowed for more flexibility. This digital-only requirement raises concerns about accessibility for those lacking digital literacy or resources. Furthermore, applicants must now provide proof of identity and a recent photograph, which adds layers of complexity to the process. The emphasis on submission to a notified competent medical authority also limits the role of independent medical experts who previously assisted in assessments.
Issuance of Certificates and UDID Cards
Amendments to Rule 18 stipulate that disability certificates and UDID cards should be issued within three months, an increase from the previous one-month timeframe. While the government cites feedback from medical institutions to justify this change, it has been met with criticism from activists who argue that urgent cases, such as those needing immediate educational support or job reservations, may suffer from these delays. Additionally, the new rules state that applications can be rendered void if no decision is made within two years, raising concerns about potential bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Criticism from Disability Rights Groups
Disability rights organisations, including the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD), have expressed strong opposition to the amendments. They argue that the burden of preventing fraud has shifted to applicants rather than the government, potentially disenfranchising those with disabilities. The insistence on a digital application process assumes a level of technological access that may not be universally available, particularly among older adults or those in rural areas. Moreover, the added requirements for documentation can disproportionately affect individuals with mobility challenges or sensory impairments.
