Although India has not yet signed these two treaties, its voluntary decision to make its domestic laws comply with these treaty provisions is seen as a demonstration of its respect for international law and institutions. The Bill declares that amendments to the Act were necessary because in the knowledge society in which we live today, it is imperative to encourage creativity for the promotion of the culture of enterprise and innovation.
Moreover, this exception does not cover a whole book and only allows the use of small portions of the book, even if it is for research or for educational purposes.
According to an estimate, almost 7 per cent of Indias population is print-impaired. It is important that this section is able to exercise fully and freely its right to the freedom of speech and expression, right to information, right to read and write, right to education, and, most critically, right to live with dignity.
Even as these concerns remain unaddressed, two provisions of the Bill have dismayed activist groups striving to promote the interests of differently abled persons.
The Bill seeks to insert Section 52 (1) (zb) which reads as follows:
The adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such work in their normal format.
Activists associated with the National Access Alliance, a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing differently abled persons, have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the drafting of this provision. According to them, the exception only permits conversion of printed material to specially designed formats such as Braille and sign language and does not benefit millions of persons affected by cerebral palsy, dyslexia and low vision and the millions of visually challenged persons who do not know Braille and who require mainstream formats such as audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts.
Further, even regular Braille users complement Braille with other mainstream formats. Given that audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts are mainstream formats and not specially designed formats aimed at persons with disabilities, the proposed exception excludes them.
Activists also point out that in modern-day Braille production, the material has to be first converted into mainstream electronic formats such as Microsoft Word because Braille translation software requires input in such formats. Therefore, they say that the exception in favour of specially designed formats is entirely limiting and counterproductive.
For conversion to non-specialised formats, the Bill proposes to insert a new provision Section 31B for introducing a licensing system that will permit only organisations working primarily for the benefit of the disabled to undertake conversion and distribution. The activists are apprehensive that this proposed provision, if enacted, will prevent educational institutions, self-help groups, NGOs and print-disabled individuals themselves from undertaking conversion and distribution.
The NAA has suggested that amendment to Section 52 should be format neutral. Every day new formats are created and specifying the format will mean that persons with disability will not be able to use emerging technologies for their benefit, says Rahul Cherian of Inclusive Planet, Chennai, one of the NGOs that constitute the NAA.
The activists say they met Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal in November last year and conveyed their concerns over the draft Bill. Sibal, according to them, assured them that their concerns would be taken care of. However, the activists found to their dismay that the HRD Minister chose to keep not only Section 52(1) (zb) as it was drafted, but inserted Section 31B into the draft when he introduced it as a Bill in the Rajya Sabha.
India ratified the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities on October 1, 2007. Article 30(3) of this Convention says, State parties shall take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials. Indian courts have held that international conventions that India has ratified can be read into Indian law even without express legislation. With the controversial Bill having been referred to a Standing Committee of Parliament for its consideration, the HRD Ministry should use this opportunity to review the Bill in the light of concerns expressed by the activists.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE