Laws in India With Discriminatory Provisions

7/29/2019 Laws in India With Discriminatory Provisions

1/8

Stand Up

For People Affected By Leprosy

Respect their rights... Restore their dignity

CALL or Change... thats what CALL Project is all about. Its a call

to the conscience o every citizen o this country to end discrimination

against people afected by leprosy and also to advocate or repealing laws

discriminating them.

CALL is about working or respecting the rights and restoring the dignity

o people afected by leprosy.

LAWS IN INDIAWith Discriminatory Provisions

Towards People Affected by Leprosy

Challenging Anti-Leprosy Legislation (CALL) Project

4ChangeC A M P A I G N

CALL


2/8

Te Government o India passed the Protectionof Human Rights Act, 1993 to ensure protectiono the human rights o all its people. Tis Actprovides or the constitution o a NationalHuman Rights Commission, State Human RightsCommission in States and Human Rights Courts,

or better protection o human rights.

Tough India accounts or 55% o leprosy casesin the world1, with a total o 127,000 new cases oleprosy reported2 by the Government in 2011-12,human rights o people afected by leprosy andtheir amily members are still not given dueimportance.

Legal discrimination o people afected by

Leprosy Gross Violation o Human Rights.

In India, there are several laws discriminatingagainst people afected by leprosy. Te British incolonial India passed the Lepers Act, 1898 whichsegregated leprosy patients to control spreadingo leprosy. With Multi-Drug Terapy (MD)proving to cure leprosy completely, the law wasrepealed in 1985. However, many laws that were

ramed on the basis o the Lepers Act, 1898 arestill in orce, and they continue to discriminateagainst people afected by leprosy.

We know 8 laws that directly discriminate againstpeople afected by leprosy. Tese laws allow leprosy

Laws in IndiaWith discriminatory provisions

towards people affected by Leprosy

1. Weekly epidemiological record - 2 September 2011, WHO, No. 36, 2011, 86, 389400, http://www.who.int/lep/situation/en/

2. NLEP Progress Report or the year 2011-12, Central Leprosy Division, Directorate General o Health Services, New Delhi

as a ground or divorce, discriminate againstpeople afected by leprosy who resort to beggingor livelihood and provide or charging higherlie insurance premium rom people afected byleprosy.

We also know 7 laws that can be used against peopleafected by leprosy (travelling in trains, obtainingdriving licences, etc) due to the misconceptions inthe society about leprosy.

It is pertinent to note that these laws were passedwhen there was no cure or leprosy. Now thatleprosy is completely curable with MD, there isno justication or these discriminatory laws toexist.

Violation o Human Rights: Tough peopleafected by leprosy have the same human rights aseveryone else, in reality, their rights oten violateddue to the above-mentioned inequitable laws andsocial discrimination, due to the acute stigmaassociated with the disease.

Tese acts o discrimination against people afected

by leprosy and their amily members are an abuseo human rights and also a denial o equal rights,guaranteed by the Constitution o India, under

Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 1 oUniversal Declaration o Human Rights.


3/8

Laws that have Direct Discriminatory Provisions

1) NAME OF THE ACT:HINDU MARRIAGE AC, 1955

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section 13

(1) (IV) Any marriage solemnised, whether beoreor ater the commencement o this Act, may, ona petition presented by either the husband or the

wie, be dissolved by a decree o divorce on theground that the other party has, or a period onot less than three years immediately precedingthe presentation o the petition, been suferingrom a virulent and incurable orm o leprosy.

COMMENT:Leprosy is no longer an incurableand virulent disease, and hence the law should beamended suitably.

2) NAME OF THE ACT:

DISSOLUION OF MUSLIMMARRIAGE AC, 1939

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section 2

(VI) A woman married under Muslim law shall

be entitled to obtain a decree or the dissolution oher marriage - i the husband has been insane or aperiod o two years or is sufering rom leprosy or

a virulent venereal disease.

COMMENT:Leprosy is no longer an incurabledisease, and hence the law should be amendedsuitably.

3) NAME OF THE ACT:

INDIAN DIVORCE AC, 1869

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section10: Grounds or dissolution o marriage.(1)

Any marriage solemnized, whether beore orater the commencement o the Indian Divorce(Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petitionpresented to the District Court, either by thehusband or the wie, be dissolved on the groundthat since the solemnization o the marriage, therespondent - (iv) Tat the spouse has, or a period

o not less than two years immediately preceding


4/8

the presentation o the petition, been suferingrom a virulent and incurable orm o leprosy;


4) NAME OF THE ACT:

INDIAN CHRISIAN MARRIAGE AC,1872

(Te divorce o Christian spouses is governed bythe Provisions o the Indian Divorce Act, 1869)

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Any

marriage between spouses proessing Christianreligion may be dissolved on the ollowinggrounds by a District Court: (iv) at the spouse has,or a period o not less than two years immediatelypreceding the presentation o the petition, beensufering rom a virulent and incurable orm oleprosy.

COMMENT:Leprosy is no longer an incurable

and virulent disease, and hence the law should beamended suitably.

5) NAME OF THE ACT:

HINDU SPECIAL MARRIAGE AC, 1954

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section 27(g) states: Subject to the provisions o this Act,and to the rules made thereunder, a petition or

divorce may be presented to the district courteither by the husband or the wie on the groundthat the respondent has or a period o not lessthan three years immediately preceding thepresentation o the petition been sufering romleprosy, the disease not having been contractedrom the petitioner.

COMMENT: Leprosy is no longer an incurabledisease, and hence the law should be amended suitably.

6) NAME OF THE ACT:

HINDU ADOPION ANDMAINENANCE AC, 1956

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section18 (2 (c) A Hindu wie shall be entitled to live

separately rom her husband without oreitingher claim to maintenance,- 2.(c) i he is suferingrom a virulent orm o leprosy.


7) NAME OF THE ACT:

PREVENION OF BEGGING AC, 1959(Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka)

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: MedicalExamination and detention o leprosy patientsand lunatics.

1. Where it appears to the Chie Commissionerthat any beggar detained in a CertiedInstitution under any order o a court is

o unsound mind or a leper, the ChieCommissioner may by an order setting orththe grounds o belie that the beggar is ounsound mind or a leper, order his removalto a mental hospital or leper asylum or otherplace o sae custody, there to be kept andtreated as the Chie Commissioner directduring remainder o the term or which hehas been ordered to be detained or, i on

the expiration o that term it is certied bya medical o cer that it is necessary or thesaety o the beggar or o others that heshould be urther detained under medicalcare or treatment, then until he is dischargedaccording to law.

2. Where it appears to the Chie Commissionerthat the beggar has ceased to be o unsoundmind, or is cured o leprosy, the Chie

Commissioner shall, by an order direct to


5/8

as the orders o the Chie Commissioner beobtained in the matter.

COMMENT:Leprosy is completely curable nowand the rst dose o MD makes people afectedby leprosy non-inectious. Tereore, there is no

need to detain or remove them. People affectedby leprosy should not be referred to as lepers.

Te word leper reinforces the already strong

stigma against leprosy and contributes to the

heartbreaking ostracism people affected by leprosy

face. Using the word leper today is considered

inappropriate and an offence to the hundreds of

thousands affected by leprosy.

8) NAME OF THE ACT:LIFE INSURANCE CORPORAION

AC (As amendment in November, 1987)

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section 12provides or charging o very high premium ratesrom people afected by leprosy.

COMMENT: According to the Ministry o

Finance, the primary reason or extra premiumcharges on lie insurance o people afected byleprosy is their low lie expectancy. However, thereis no scientic evidence or assuming higher riskto lie or people afected by leprosy.

the person having charge o the beggar i stillliable to be kept in custody to send him tothe Certied Institution rom which he wasremoved or i the beggar is no longer liable tobe kept in custody order him to be discharged.

3. Te provisions o section 31 o the Indian

Lunacy Act, 1912, (IV o 1912) or (subjectto the provisions o sub-section (2) o section14 o the Lepers Act, 1898 (III o 1898) shallapply to every beggar conned in a mentalhospital or leper asylum under sub-section (1)ater the expiration o the period or whichhe was ordered to be detained; and the timeduring which a beggar is conned in a mentalhospital or leper asylum under that sub-

section shall be reckoned as part o the periodor which he may have been ordered by thecourt to be detained:

Provided that where the removal o a beggardue to unsoundness o mind or leprosy isimmediately necessary, it shall be open tothe authorities o the Institution in whichthe beggar is detained to apply to a courthaving jurisdiction under the Indian Lunacy

Act, 1912 (IV o 1912), or the Lepers Act,1898 (III o 1898), as the case may be, oran immediate order o committal to a mentalhospital or a leper asylum until such time


6/8

9) NAME OF THE ACT:

INDIAN RAILWAYS AC, 1989

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section 56o the Act gives power to railway authorities toreuse to carry persons sufering rom inectious orcontagious diseases.

COMMENT:Although leprosy is not specicallymentioned in the Act, lack o awareness aboutleprosy on the part o Railway authorities and thesociety may result in discrimination and removalo people afected by leprosy rom trains.

10) NAME OF THE ACT:

REHABILIAION COUNCIL OF

INDIA AC, 1992

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Inaccordance with Section 2 (C) o the Act, the termHandicapped means a person who is;

(i) Visually handicapped;

(ii) Hearing handicapped;

(iii) Sufering rom locomotor disability; or

(iv) Sufering rom mental retardation.

COMMENT: Leprosy leaves its mark on theperson in many ways and can make him disabled.Loss o sensation in hands or eet as well as losso sensation and paralysis o the eyelids are verycommon, and it maniests efects on the person

who is afected by leprosy. Coping with thisdisability and carrying out everyday activities

needs proper training. It is, thereore, proposed

that this disability also should be specicallyrelected under this Act.


PERSONS WIH DISABILIIES AC,1995

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS: Inaccordance with Section 2 o the Persons withDisabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protectiono Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, theterm Disability, inter-alia, includes the termsleprosy-cured.

Te petitioners have held the view that i leprosycured person is treated as disabled under the

aoresaid Act, there is no reason as to why theperson who is sufering rom leprosy should notbe considered as disabled.

Accordingly, they have proposed that in Section 2(iii), the words leprosy cured should be replacedby the words leprosy, whether cured or not.Section 2(t) o the Act ibid denes the person

with disability as a person sufering rom not lessthan orty per cent o any disability as certied bya medical authority.

COMMENT: Physical deormity or paralysiscaused by leprosy, attaches stigma to the personconcerned and subjects him to all sorts odiscrimination. He losses many opportunities thatmay be available to the normal person as well aspersons sufering rom other diseases includingthe diseases that are contagious and inectious.

Opportunities to engage in normal economic

Laws that have Indirect DiscriminatoryProvisions


7/8

activities may be taken away rom him/her i his/her past or present leprosy a iction is maniestedby physical disability or paralysis caused byleprosy. Tereore the petitioners have proposedthat the expressions leprosy cured should bereplaced by person afected by leprosy in Section

2(n) o the Act.

Deep-rooted prejudices against leprosy in thesociety make people afected by leprosy, disabledeven ater the person is cured. Tere is everypossibility o opportunities or getting educationor employment denied to such people on accounto leprosy. Tere is no question o how muchdisability s/he sufers on account leprosy; s/he maybe having slight or even no medical disability butsocial prejudices make him disabled.

Tereore, the condition o orty percent disabilityshould not be made applicable in case o leprosyafected person.


MOOR VEHICLE AC, 1988

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section8 (4) o the Act states that i the applicant issufering rom any disease or disability which is

likely to cause his driving o a motor vehicle, othe class which he would be authorized by thelearners license applied or to drive, to be a sourceo danger to the public or to the passengers, thelicensing authority shall reuse to issue the learnerslicense.

COMMENT: Tere is no specic mention oleprosy as a reason or ineligibility to hold adriving licence in this Act, but usually, ignoranceon the part o the licence issuing o cer results indiscrimination against people afected by leprosy.


MAHARASHRA SAE ROAD

RANSPOR CORPORAION AC, 1980

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Te Actprovides concession to the extent o 75% tonon-inectious leprosy persons. However, theconcession is not available in the buses run byBrihanmumbai Electricity and State ransport(BES), the State-run public transport network,in Mumbai.

COMMENT:Amendment o the Act to extendthe concession to all people afected by leprosy isproposed.


8/8


BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORAIONAC, 1888

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section421 o the Act requires inormation to be given

o existence o dangerous disease or continuouspyrexia o unknown origin to the Health O cerby the medical practitioner or prevention ospread o the disease.

COMMENT: Tis provision is resorted to inrespect o the person afected by leprosy whetherhe is cured or not. Te person afected by leprosymay be removed to premises reserved or him.However, the act remains that leprosy is no morea dangerous disease. Tereore, this provision othe Act should not be made applicable or peopleafected by leprosy.


INDUSRIAL DISPUES AC, 1947

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION: Section2 o the Act, inter-alia, provides termination oservice o workman on the ground o continued

ill-health.

COMMENT: It is apprehended that the personwho is sufering rom leprosy or the one who hasin the past sufered rom leprosy, attract socialstigma and the employers may try to get rid ohim by resorting to the above-mentioned legalprovision o the Act. It is thereore necessary toprovide saeguard in the law or protection o thepeople afected by leprosy.

Connect with us on Facebook

acebook.com/tlmindia.CALL

Published by:

CALL Project

Te Leprosy Mission rust IndiaB-13 A, Institutional Area, Sector 62, NOIDAUttar Pradesh 201 307, INDIA.

Landline: 0120-4077200Mobile: +91-9999795316

Email: [email protected]

Laws in India With Discriminatory Provisions

Documents