Showing posts with label Convention on the Rights of the Child. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Convention on the Rights of the Child. Show all posts

Friday, August 31, 2012

Death toll 228 at Asha Kiran since 2005, unabated

Dear Colleagues,

Those of you who work with person with multiple disabilities have seen them living ordinary life if given proper medication for epilepsy and care. However, there is utter chaos at Asha Kiran centre where no one want to take the blame for the deaths which are happening in the Govt. run institution. The centre says it is the severe mental retardation and epileptic fits that is leading to deaths while the court appointed committee and any person involved or with experience in caring for a person with multiple disabilities would say that it is unhygienic conditions, lack of medical facilities and mismanagement at the Asha Kiran which is resulting in avoidable deaths. Human life doesn't seem to have a value here.

I wanted to share a personal experience of one and half year back. One day on my way to work, I suddenly saw, a person with mental disability roaming on the ring road and then sitting under a flyover. I really got worried about his life and always thought some day some vehicle might strike him down and I thought of admitting him to the state run centres where he will be cared. Sooner, I realised the pathetic condition of the Centres that we are discussing here, I decided not to even think that way. I consulted several of my friends who expressed that this person may live a better, safe and longer life under a flyover than a State run Centre and that I should stop thinking of making efforts to have him shifted to a "safer" place like Asha Kiran.

Today after more than one and half year, when I continue to see him every day at the same place while on way to work, I feel how mistaken I was. He is at least happy & safe here and leading his life though with help from passer byes. I am sure if I had decided otherwise, I wouldn't see him alive!

Here is the news from Hindustan Times of 31st Aug 2012 giving you the update:

At Asha Kiran, 228 inmates have died since 2005


The Delhi government has admitted that 228 deaths have taken place at Asha Kiran, the Capital’s lone home for mentally challenged children and adults, since 2005. In an affidavit filed recently before the Delhi High Court hearing a PIL complaining of lack of medical care and shockingly  unhygienic conditions at the home in Rohini, the Delhi government said 59 inmates died in 2005-06, 28 in 2006-07, 34 in 2007-08, 37 in 2008-09, 46 in 2009-10, 11 in 2010-11 and 13 in 2011-July 2012.

During a hearing on August 8, the court had slammed the government for the inhuman manner in which the inmates were kept at the home and termed it the "worst kind of human rights violation". The court was perusing a report submitted by a court-appointed committee which inspected the premises of the welfare home.

Expressing shock at the revelation of 228 deaths, human rights activist and a member of the court-appointed committee Colin Gonsalves said: "This figure is high but the government feels it is low. They thought that by stating it on an affidavit it would save them before the court. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has repeatedly said deaths were taking place at the home due to negligence."

A bench of acting chief justice AK Sikri and justice RS Endlaw is to take a stand on the issue on Friday. The government denied the deaths were due to negligence and mismanagement. "Biological factors play a major role in high mortality rates among the mentally-challenged persons. A large number of inmates at Asha Kiran fall in the categories of severe and profound mental retardation with multiple disabilities and suffering from epileptic fits. Studies show that such types of individual keep very shortened life expectancy," the government said.

DP Bharal, deputy director with the department of social welfare, said in an affidavit: "From 59 deaths in 2005-2006, the same has come down to 13 in 2011-12. None of the deaths occurred due to negligence. The inmates who died were extreme cases of mental retardation or having chronic medical ailments."

Monday, September 21, 2009

Dear Friends,

Our archaic laws still exists while new ones keep coming but there is hardly an attempt to scrap or amend the old laws. This often leads to situations like this. In the instant case while a family wanted to adopt a girl child under the new child friendly legislation called Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 but they couldn't because the archaic law on adoption named Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act came in the way.

The family had to approach the court to get the matter settled but why can't such exercise be carried out while notifying the new law that no relevant existing law is in contradiction of the law, so that a process to amend /scrap the old law could be taken then and there. Well, in the instant case, the Hon'ble Supreme court finally held that the New law will override the old provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Also it is all the more important to do this in view of the paradigm shift that we see in the status of SC/ST, gays, HIV patients, the women, the disabled, the elderly and those who were not in the mainstream till now, with the introduction of new laws, signing of new international treaties, landmark judgements from the Supreme Court of India etc.

In fact, a detailed exercise is needed by the Union Ministry of Law and also by the Law Ministries in various Indian States to ensure that no existing laws/rules/practices/norms etc are in contradiction the new socio-economic and legal order based on equal rights and non-discrimination.

regards

SC Vashishth, Advocate

To read from source click here

MUMBAI: Hindus who have always wanted to adopt a girl even though they already have a daughter can now do just that. The Hindu adoption law prohibits same gender adoptions but, in a landmark judgment this week, the Bombay High Court has thrown open the legal doors to allow Hindus adopt a child of the same gender as their existing one.

In the verdict, the HC allowed a recent petition by Mumbai-based actor couple (names withheld on request) to be legally declared as adoptive parents of a girl they had taken in as their ward over four years ago under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The couple had a two-year-old biological daughter of their own when they sought and were allowed by the court in 2005 to become guardians of a year-old destitute baby girl. Stating that courts must harmonise personal laws with secular legislation, Justice D Y Chandrachud held the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000 — a secular law enabling rehabilitation of abandoned children through adoption — would prevail over the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (Hama), a personal law that has placed certain restrictions on adoption.

Justice Chandrachud took up the Pathaks’ issue seriously as it “involved the larger issue of encouraging adoption and giving an abandoned child a chance in life’’. He looked closely at adoption laws under their various avtars and at the Indian Constitution as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child which India had ratified in 1992 before ruling that “adoption is a facet of right to life and that freedom and dignity are the foremost values of governance in civil society and freedom and dignity of the young must count above all’’.

This was the first time the court was interpreting provisions of two conflicting legal provisions on adoption; it had a 54-year-old Hindu Adoption Act and the more progressive nine-year-old Juvenile Justice Act, which introduced adoption of abandoned children and gave it a wider platform. The Hindu law places stringent conditions and prohibits adoption of a child of the same gender where an adoptive father or mother already have a child living at that time.

For instance, if the adoption is of a daughter the adoptive parent must not have a Hindu daughter or a son’s daughter living at the time of adoption. Conditions are stricter while adopting a son and adoptive parents must not have a Hindu son, a grandson or even a great-grandson alive.

The Juvenile Justice Act, a countrywide beneficial social law, came in 2000 and introduced a ‘child-friendly’ approach towards adoption “in the interest of ultimate rehabilitation of a narrow sub-class of children who are orphaned, abandoned or surrendered’’.

The HC, after hearing advocate Vishal Kanade for Pathak, held: “Right to life includes rights of parents and of individuals, women and men, who wish to adopt to give meaning to their lives on the one hand and, on the other hand, is the right of abandoned children who are in need of special care and protection."