19-06-2025
Odisha to identify laws derogatory to leprosy affected
BHUBANESWAR: The state government has constituted a three-member committee headed by principal secretary, Law department to identify discriminatory, derogatory, and demeaning provisions in state laws targeting leprosy affected or cured persons.
The committee will examine all state laws that are discriminatory and offending towards leprosy patients for suitable amendment. The Law department has requested all other departments to furnish a list of laws which are still part of the statute book.
The directive came in the wake of the Supreme Court's May 7 order asking states to go for suitable amendments in all the statutes governing different departments.
The state government was sitting over the matter despite a direction from the Supreme Court in 2017 to look into its legislations and carry out necessary exercises, leaving no scope of discrimination to leprosy affected individuals or persons cured of the disease.
Section 16(1)(iv) of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, specifically disqualifies individuals who have been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind or who are leprosy or tuberculosis patients from being qualified for election as a councillor of a municipality.
Similar is the provision for disqualification of a candidate in the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 which said, 'A person shall be disqualified for election as a Corporator, if such person at the date of nomination has been adjudged by a competent Court to be of unsound mind or is a leprosy or tuberculosis patient.'
Earlier in 2008, Dhirendra Kandua, a leprosy patient from Balasore, had challenged the provision debarring him from holding the post of councillor of Balasore municipality.
While upholding the validity of sections 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its September 2008 order said it is true that now with aggressive medication, a patient may be fully cured of the disease, yet the legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to retain such provisions in the statute in order to eliminate the danger of its being transmitted to other people from the person affected by the disease.
'Having regard to these circumstances, we are convinced that the said classification does bear a reasonable and just relation with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question and cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Accordingly, we hold that Sections 16(l)(iv) and 17 (l)(b) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,' the SC order said.
Hearing a public interest litigation, the apex court's May 7 order said, 'We are informed that there might be more than 145 State legislations, besides regulations, bylaws ... where the offending provisions still continue across States.'
