Editor,
I am writing to draw attention to an issue that, while perhaps trivial to some, has a significant impact on the quality of life in our neighbourhood – the growing problem of dog owners neglecting to clean up after their pets.
Matters such as these belong far away from the editorials of a newspaper; if anything, they are simply to be flushed down opaque pipelines and never spoken about. But in Laitumkhrah, you can find such matters in every street and lane aplenty, and a conversation of some kind is necessary.
This progressive hub of style and sophistication is home to many individuals for whom the cleaning of animal excrement is too crappy a business to meddle with, even when the animal is a beloved member of the family. Certainly, I am writing about the countless canine faeces discharged on neighbourhood lanes by domestic dogs belonging to owners who conveniently refuse to train them for the benefit of all. I stay in a relatively proper area; what I mean by that is, it is quiet, gives a nice view of the sky, and is highly sought after in terms of accommodation. However, an everyday walk through our serene little lane will require skilful maneuver, lest one steps on the incompetence of some dog owner.
While I acknowledge that there are few who ensure that their pets empty their bowels in designated areas within the limits of their compounds, it cannot be refuted that many others simply do not care. Requests to neighbours have only resulted in cold wars that bring nothing positive. Scat sticking to car tyres, spurting water on areas outside gates, shielding noses, and chasing dogs mid-crap have become daily affairs. We are sick and we are tired!
It is relevant that I mention that in many parts of the world, dog owners clean up after their dogs, using methods that help keep surroundings healthy for everyone. Bags for proper collection and disposal of excreta, odour neutralizers, and above all, training for pets, are what separate responsible dog owners from their divergent counterparts.
I write this with hopes that dog owners who notoriously let their dogs out to finish their business and return home, and those who take their dogs on walks while letting them relieve themselves anywhere, find some sense to rethink their ways. It is high time they recognise that their recklessness is not only a disturbance to the community but also a serious health hazard for those forced to endure it. This is also an appeal to the erudite leaders of Laitumkhrah, who, I believe, read newspapers and listen to the people’s concerns voiced in columns such as these. Whether legislator, Rangbah Shnong, Rangbah Dong or nongpeit-dong, I request that they treat my letter with utmost seriousness. If the deceptively trivial nature of this situation inspires a peal of laughter in their offices, then let an order be effected with a cackle!
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request,
Via email
Supreme Court’s directive on disabled a welcome step
Editor,
The Supreme Court’s directive to the Centre to establish mandatory accessibility standards for persons with disabilities with the apex court setting a three month timeline for the Centre to implement legally enforceable standards is encouraging. Moving beyond the current self-regulatory approach and with a firm yet forward-looking stance, the three-judge bench has underscored the importance of ‘meaningful access ‘ to public spaces for persons with disabilities because accessibility is not merely about compliance with legal standards but about honouring the dignity and autonomy of the disabled who are being ignored at every stage of life by officials at the helm of affairs.
A few days ago such a decision was also delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court which has directed the States of Punjab and Haryana to rectify infrastructural deficiencies in court premises to ensure compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The direction includes ensuring the availability of necessary apparatus and facilities for differently-abled persons at all court premises, from sub-divisional and district courts to the high court and it is expected that all courts should provide similar facilities in their respective courts and should not wait for separate instructions for their courts.
The Court’s directive came after amicus curiae Tanu Bedi ,representing the High Court submitted a tabular report “revealing the extent of deficiencies in minimum infrastructural requirements necessary for differently-abled persons mandated under the Act. The ruling by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court while hearing a petition of a 60-year-old “disabled” woman unable to walk as her right leg was amputated while her left leg was infected. She was seeking transfer of her case from the first floor courtroom to the ground floor at Malerkotla. She approached the High Court after Sangrur District Judge, vide order dated November 17, 2023, dismissed her transfer application. Pointing to the lack of appropriate infrastructure in judicial complexes, Justice Brar asserted the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India was not limited to mere animal-like existence. It included the right to live a meaningful life with dignity “In the truest sense of the term ”
India has made significant strides in disability rights over the years, yet physical and social barriers persist in almost every public domain. People with disabilities encounter significant challenges when trying to navigate cities, access public services, or even participate in everyday activities due to poor infrastructure that fails to accommodate their needs. This landmark Supreme Court ruling acknowledges this reality and takes a definitive step toward reshaping how India addresses the rights and needs of this community. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, of 2016, was a transformative law aiming to ensure equality and inclusivity for persons with disabilities. However, one major flaw in implementing the Act has been the reliance on non-binding guidelines and self-regulation. Without a concrete, legally enforceable set of standards, progress has been inconsistent and painfully slow. This lack of progress prompted the Supreme Court to step in, demanding that mandatory standards replace vague guidelines. The Court’s directive now mandates that these standards be both specific and legally binding, setting a “non-negotiable” baseline. This shift from general recommendations to a robust framework is essential for transforming intent into action, particularly in a nation where infrastructural disparities are pronounced.
The Supreme Court has laid out a two-pronged approach to addressing accessibility. First, it mandates retrofitting existing public infrastructure to meet accessibility standards. This is a crucial step, as many of India’s public spaces, transport facilities, educational institutions, and workplaces were designed without consideration for persons with disabilities. Making these spaces accessible will involve structural changes, adaptations, and modifications-a task requiring technical and financial commitment. Second, the Court’s directive emphasises that all new infrastructure projects be designed inclusively from the start. This principle of “universal design”-the idea that spaces should be usable by all people, regardless of age, disability, or other factors-is not only efficient but cost-effective. The directive thus sets India on a path toward building a future where accessibility is ingrained in the foundation of infrastructure development. To ensure compliance, the Court has recommended mechanisms such as withholding completion certificates for non-compliant infrastructure and imposing fines. These measures represent a practical approach to enforcing standards, as they create direct consequences for entities that fail to meet accessibility requirements.
Courts have undoubtedly delivered many disabled-friendly decisions but the disabled continue to face many problems. It will take a long time before disparities are done away with, but a beginning has been made.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email