Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Disability Assessment Board's opinion declaring a NEET candidate with a locomotor disability above 80% ineligible for MBBS, holding that boards must assess functional competence with assistive devices and reasonable accommodation rather than merely quantify disability. Relying on a court-requested functional assessment finding him suitable, it directed a supernumerary seat at AIIMS Nagpur and issued directions for reforming the guidelines and the working of assessment boards.
Issues
- Whether a Disability Assessment Board may declare a candidate with more than 80% locomotor disability ineligible for the MBBS course on quantification of disability alone, without assessing functional competence with assistive devices under Appendix H-1 of the MBBS admission guidelines.
- What is the nature and constitutional status of the right to reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
- What standards of fairness, transparency and reasoning govern Disability Assessment Boards, and what is the role of courts in reviewing their opinions.
- What relief should be granted to the appellant, who had lost his allotted seat during the litigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(y), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Reasonable accommodation, meaning necessary and appropriate modifications without disproportionate or undue burden, was held to be a gateway right; boards must determine accommodations case by case rather than assume they would lower standards of competence. (¶¶ 21, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Section 2(h), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Discrimination expressly includes denial of reasonable accommodation; a failure to create a conducive environment was treated as discrimination. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- Section 3, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The right to equality and non-discrimination casts an affirmative obligation on Government and private entities to ensure reasonable accommodation and an environment conducive to persons with disabilities. (¶¶ 26, 30)
- Section 32, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Noted as mandating not less than five percent reservation in Government and aided higher education institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities, against which the MBBS admission guidelines were framed. (¶ 18)
- Section 2(s), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016A person with disability is defined by impairment interacting with barriers, without any benchmark; rights cannot be constricted by imposing a benchmark unless the law expressly stipulates it. (¶ 29)
- Section 25, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The obligation to ensure barrier-free healthcare supported the view that including persons with disabilities in the medical profession makes healthcare more humane and informed. (¶ 50)
- Appendix H-1, Guidelines regarding admission of students with Specified Disabilities in MBBS courseRead purposively in light of the RPWD Act as requiring a case-by-case functional competence assessment, with assistive devices, of candidates with more than 80% locomotor disability; the phrase 'brought below 80%' was criticised as reflecting a medical model of disability. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 37)
- Preamble and Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, Constitution of IndiaReasonable accommodation was held to be rooted in fundamental rights and substantive equality; denying it violates these guarantees and the preambular value of fraternity. (¶¶ 29, 42, 46, 47, 60)
Held
- Disability Assessment Boards must not disqualify candidates on quantified disability alone. Under Appendix H-1 read with the RPWD Act, the board's task is to assess functional competence, with assistive devices and accommodations, against the requirements of the MBBS course, asking what measures would enable the candidate to start on an equal footing; ineligibility follows only if no available device or accommodation can do so. (¶¶ 23, 26, 28, 36, 37, 40)
- Reasonable accommodation is a fundamental right and a gateway to all other rights of persons with disabilities; its denial is discrimination under Section 2(h) and violates substantive equality. Accommodation must be tailored to the individual, since disability is a social construct and no one-size-fits-all approach is permissible. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30, 31, 47, 60)
- Boards must act fairly and transparently in accordance with rule of law principles, inform candidates in advance of procedures and standards, and give elaborate reasons, especially when declaring a candidate ineligible; no committee has primacy over the statutory mandate. Persons with disabilities should not have to repeatedly approach courts or undergo multiple burdensome assessments. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 53)
- Courts are not medical experts and rely on the board's opinion, but they may examine whether the board proceeded in accordance with legal principles and conducted a holistic evaluation of competence. Vidhi Himmat Katariya v. Union of India was held inapplicable, as it turned on its facts and preceded the later precedents on reasonable accommodation. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
- Both AIIMS boards failed to apply the correct standard: the first did not assess the appellant with assistive devices, and the second, while using them, reported that no guidelines existed. The court-requested functional assessment, which found him suitable for MBBS with clinical accommodations, was accepted; the respondent regulator accepted his eligibility, and that assessment was stated not to be a precedent for the assessor's qualifications. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- The quantification of disability is properly done for the UDID card; the boards' role at admission must be tailored to functional competence for the specific course. Accessibility information about colleges must be available to NEET applicants, and Enabling Units must serve as contact points for clinical accommodations. (¶¶ 54, 55, 60)
- Fresh guidelines must be framed by a committee including persons with disabilities or disability rights experts, boards must give up the benchmark model and include a doctor or health professional with disability as directed by the circular of 24 March 2022, and boards must be trained in functional competency assessment. (¶¶ 53, 57, 58, 60)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment set aside and the AIIMS Nagpur board report dated 13 August 2024 quashed. A supernumerary MBBS seat directed to be created at AIIMS Nagpur for the appellant if he had not already secured a seat of his choice, with the functional assessment report to be furnished to the college and protection from victimisation; the judgment to apply in rem, with general directions on guidelines, boards, accessibility information and Enabling Units, and a copy to be sent to the concerned Ministries.