Karnataka HC Lays Down Guidelines For The Fair Treatment Of Disabled Women Atheletes

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In an order passed by the high court recently, the idea of gender based discrimination distributed to handicapped ladies competitors by virtue of their sexual orientation and disability, has been discussed by the Madras High Court.

DETAILS

• Name of the case : M. Sameeha Barvin v. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Youth & Sports &Ors.
• Foundation of the case :
• The competitor, Sameeha Barvin, was not at first chosen to partake in the World Deaf Athletics Championship, 2021 in spite of her outstanding performance in the selection rounds.
• The explanation refered to by the selection authority was that they were 'not leaned to send a solitary female part to the occasion and accordingly, they have favored male individuals for the occasion'.
• Court proceedings :
• With the assistance of the court's interim order, the solicitor had the option to partake in the Championship and meet all requirements for World Deaf Olympic Championship, 2022 just as Paralympic Olympics, 2023.
• The court noticed that the recommendation of Kimberle Shaw has relevance in the Indian applicability factors like sexual orientation and rank are inherently connected and the pivot of segregation quite often cross while breaking down the obstructions looked by individuals.
• Among the headings given, the court has guided the authorities including the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Sports Authority of India, All India Sports Council Of The Deaf, Tamil Nadu Department of Welfare of Differently Abled Persons to empower debilitated sportswomen to partake with 'pride and regard' at all degrees of competitions and regard' at all degrees of contests.
• The overall headings given by the court incorporates denial against oppression ladies competitors who are impaired on the grounds of sex, sex, religion, incapacity, conjugal status, social beginning and so forth.
• The court additionally ordered that sufficient monetary help should be given to such competitors and to one of the relatives who are going with them.
• Furthermore, the respondent authorities likewise have the obligation to give impaired agreeable garments, prosthetics and different materials while guaranteeing that the guideline of 'sensible convenience' is given impact to.
• One more order specifies about sharpening male partners about the balance among them and their female partners, compensating the impaired ladies competitors satisfactorily and giving them equivalent treatment comparable to guys.
• The court saw that the current case was an unmistakable occurrence of 'segregation dependent on the sexual orientation just as the handicap' and that the state and focal legislatures have fizzled in their obligation to guarantee backing and security to crippled ladies competitors.

QUESTIONS

• In your opinion, is this case considered as discrimination against women?
• Do you agree with the decisions taken by the court ?