Shillong, Jul 22: The Meghalaya state unit of the Association for Empowerment of Divyangjan (AED) has submitted a memorandum to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities demanding immediate and comprehensive implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, citing widespread institutional gaps, lack of awareness and non-compliance with key provisions.
AED Meghalaya, which comprises six organisations including Blind Lead Trust, Meghalaya Deaf Association and A’chik Disability Association, said persons with disabilities continue to face structural barriers and discrimination across government departments nearly a decade after the act came into force.
In the memorandum submitted today, the body highlighted what it called “pervasive unawareness” among departmental heads about the RPWD Act. It said PWDs seeking workplace accommodations, accessible infrastructure or welfare provisions are met with bureaucratic indifference due to this knowledge gap, leaving no clear internal grievance mechanism.
AED also questioned the state’s response on backlog vacancies. Citing RTI replies claiming “zero backlog vacancies” for PWDs, the body called the figure erroneous and demanded a retrospective audit. It referred to Supreme Court rulings that backlog must be computed based on total appointments made since 1995 at 3 percent and at 4 percent from 2016 up to the present.
The memorandum further flagged inaccessible recruitment processes. It said job notifications are published only on poorly designed portals or physical notice boards, with portals often not screen-reader compliant. Public announcements also lack sign language or captions for the deaf, while rural outreach remains absent. The group demanded that all notifications comply with Section 42 of the RPWD Act and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 standards.
Other grievances raised include lack of scribes for visually impaired candidates, absence of compensatory time and accessible exam venues, and alleged bias during interviews where qualified PWD candidates are judged on disability rather than merit. AED said this violates Sections 3 and 20 of the Act.
The body also drew attention to the continued non-implementation of Sections 24, 29, 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act. It said there is no dedicated social security scheme with 25 percent higher assistance as mandated under Section 24, no cultural and recreational participation programme under Section 29, no expert committee with PWD representation for identification of posts under Section 33, and incorrect computation of the 4 percent reservation under Section 34.
AED warned that if structural changes, transparency measures and recruitment demands are not addressed, the six organisations will pursue legal remedies and initiate peaceful state-wide agitations.
