jn Letter dated 22-09-2009 to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 F.No. 32-79/2008-DD III dated 04-11-2009,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 Please answer each of the following questions separately:
  1. Did the Ministry in a communication to Ms. Veronica Mathais, Bangalore on the matter of "Inclusion of Autism as a disability under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995",  on 8 December 2003, write  "A considered view has been taken that the list of disabilities considered under the PWD Act, 1995 should not be expanded as doing so would shift attention and resources away from those whose needs is the greatest"?
  2. At which meeting was the above mentioned "considered view" taken? Please share with us the minutes of the meeting. If this decision was taken based on any specific policy, guideline, recommendation, or the like, the same may please be shared with us also.
  3. Has the Government of India apologized to all persons with autism in this country, for classifying them thus as second class citizens?
Please refer to your letter dated 22-09-2009 seeking information under "RTI Act, 2005" and to say that the requested information is not available in this section. However, the inclusion of Autism as a disability under the Persons with Disability Act, 1995 has been taken up in the 13th meeting of Central Coordination Committee held on 21-07-2009. The proposed amendment will come into force after getting the approval of the competent authority.

Appellate authority in the case is Dr. Arbind Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Room No. 612, A-Wing, 6th floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

 Letter dated 30-11-2009 to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 F.No. 32-79/2008-DD III dated 08-12-2009,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 As said in the letter "the inclusion of Autism as a disability under the Persons With Disability Act, 1995 has been taken up in the 13th meeting of Central Coordination Committee held on 21.07.2009"

Question 1. Please supply me the minutes of the 13th meeting of Central Coordination Committee held on 21.07-2009.
Question 2. Names and contact details of the participants of the 13th meeting of Central Coordination Committee.
Question 3. List of disabled persons in this meeting? Please supply their names and contact details for correspondence.

Further, your letter says "the proposed amendment will come into force only after getting the approval of the competent authority".

Question 4. Please inform me who is the competent authority? Please provide name of the contact person and contact details of this competent authority.
Question 5. What is the composition of this competent authority? Please provide me names and address for correspondence of members of competitive authority.
Question 6. Is there any disabled person in this competent authority? If yes, please inform me the names and correspondence addresses. If no, please inform why no disabled person is part of this competent authority?
Question 7. When is the next meeting of the competent authority planned? Is inclusion of autism as a disability under PWD Act on the agenda?

Please answer each question separately. Kindly note that I would bear the cost of photocopies of relevant documents that are part of your response to me. Towards this end please attach a bill to your response.
 Points 1 to 3 : The minutes of the 13th meeting of Central Coordination Committee held on 21-07-2009 and available information about the participants are of 44 pages. If you need a hardcopy of the same, kindly deposit Demand Draft/Pay order or any other authorized mode of payment of Rs. 88/- @ Rs.2/- per page towards photocopy charges payable to PAO, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.



Points 4 to 6 : In the letter 'The competent authority' means 'Government of India'. So the decision will be taken by Government of India.






 Appellate authority in the case is Dr. Arbind Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Room No. 612, A-Wing, 6th floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

 Appeal on 30-11-2009 to Appellate Authority Dr. Arbind Prasad, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 No. 32-79/2008-DD III dated 27 January 2010,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
 Sub: Appeal: Inappropriate answers to RTI query dated 22-09-2009

In response to my RTI query on letter dated 8-1-2009 of the Ministry to Ms. Veronica Mathais (Letter attached for your reference), inappropriate answers were provided to me. Also two of my questions were not at all answered.
Please supply me answers to the following questions:

Q.1.- Did the Ministry write this letter to Ms. Veronica Mathais?

Q.2.-
At which meeting was the above mentioned "considerate view" taken? Please share with us the minutes of the meeting. If this decision was taken based on any specific policy, guideline, recommendation, or the like, the same may please be shared with us also.

Q.3.-
Has the Government of India apologized to all persons with autism in this country, for classifying them as second class citizens?

Q.4.- As your response says "the requested information is not available in this section", please inform me if any investigation has been launched to trace this information/letter in the Ministry? If yes, kindly  share the update with me.
 Professor Arun Mehta has filed an appeal as he is not satisfied with the response given to him by the Director and CPIO vide his letter 4 November, 2009, in response to his request for information dated 22.09.2009. In the application dated 22.9.2009, he has asked about the response of the Ministry to Ms. veronica Mathais, Bangalore, on the subject of inclusion of autism as a disability under the Person with Disability Act, 1995.

Shri Arun Mehta has rightly been informed that in the amendment draft "autism" has been proposed to be included as a disability. The present move by the Ministry should adequately address the concern of Shri Mehta. Whereas I appreciate the sentiments expressed by Prof. Mehta, I feel that no useful purpose would be served in going over the stand taken in the past. With this, the appeal is disposed off.

Comments