DATE: 21/02/2025
BENCH: Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan
FACTS:
The appellant, a person with disabilities, had an exemplary academic record and aspired to pursue a career in medicine. He appeared for the NEET-UG 2024 examination and secured a rank of 2462 in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category, which was well above the cut-off for the OBC-PwD category. Following the examination, he approached the Government Medical College, Chandigarh, the designated Disability Certification Centre, for an assessment of his disability. Despite his eligibility, the Disability Assessment Board, without providing any specific reasons or evaluating his functional abilities, declared him ineligible to pursue a medical course. Aggrieved by this decision, he filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to quash the disability certificate and obtain a fresh assessment. However, the High Court dismissed his petition, stating that it could not override the expert opinion of the Disability Assessment Board.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which, on 25.11.2024, directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to constitute a medical board to reassess his eligibility for the MBBS course. The board, consisting of six members, provided a divided opinion. Five members concluded that the appellant’s disabilities made him unfit to pursue the MBBS course under the existing National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines but acknowledged that these guidelines might require revision. In contrast, Dr. Satendra Singh, a member of the board, provided a detailed assessment supporting the appellant’s ability to complete the course with clinical accommodations and assistive technologies. Taking into account Dr. Singh’s report, the legal position, and the need for a possible revision of the NMC guidelines, the Supreme Court, by its order dated 12.12.2024, found the appellant fit for the MBBS course and directed his admission to Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, against a seat reserved for OBC-PwD candidates.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is whether the admission of a person with disability into a MMBS course and to see whether the dismissal of the admission arbitrary or not.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appeal is allowed, and the judgment and order dated 23.09.2024, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 24293 of 2024 (O&M), is set aside. The admission granted to the appellant in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan, by virtue of the Court’s order dated 12.12.2024, is confirmed. The report of the five-member Board of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences is rejected, and the report of Dr. Satendra Singh is accepted as it aligns with the legal principles established in previous judgments. The National Medical Commission (NMC) is directed to file an affidavit on the status of revised guidelines before the next hearing on 03.03.2025.
The Court's decision is based on the recognition that the current NMC guidelines, specifically the requirement that candidates must have “both hands intact, with intact sensations,” are rigid, overbroad, and discriminatory, thereby violating the principles enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The existing regulations glorify ableism by failing to provide a functional assessment of individual capabilities and disregarding the principle of reasonable accommodation. The judgments in Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India and Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services have already mandated a revision of these guidelines to ensure that candidates with disabilities are assessed based on their functional abilities rather than a blanket exclusionary rule.
Furthermore, the Court found that the five-member Board of AIIMS failed to conduct a meaningful functional assessment and did not provide any reasons to support the appellant’s ineligibility. In contrast, the report of Dr. Satendra Singh conducted a comprehensive functional evaluation, suggested clinical accommodations and assistive technologies, and upheld the principle that competence cannot be presumed at the threshold. The Court emphasized that candidates should be given the opportunity to complete the MBBS course with accommodations and later decide on their specialization rather than being disqualified outright. This approach ensures compliance with the directives issued in previous landmark cases and aligns with the principles of inclusion and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case marks a significant step toward inclusivity and the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in medical education. By setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order and confirming the appellant’s admission, the Court recognized the inadequacy of the existing National Medical Commission (NMC) guidelines, which impose rigid and exclusionary criteria without conducting a meaningful functional assessment. Rejecting the five-member AIIMS Board’s report, which lacked substantive reasoning, the Court instead accepted Dr. Satendra Singh’s detailed assessment that emphasized clinical accommodations and assistive technologies. The judgment underscores the principles of equality and reasonable accommodation enshrined in the Constitution, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and international conventions. By directing the NMC to file an affidavit on revised guidelines, the Court reaffirmed the need for a shift from a blanket exclusionary approach to an individualized assessment model, ensuring that candidates are evaluated based on their actual functional abilities rather than arbitrary physical criteria. This decision not only upholds the right to education for persons with disabilities but also challenges systemic ableism, paving the way for more inclusive medical education policies.
info@adhwaitha.com
