Summary
Giving reasons for its earlier order admitting a NEET-UG candidate with 58% locomotor and speech disability to MBBS, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of 'both hands intact' in Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations is ableist, overbroad and contrary to Article 41, the UN Convention and the RPwD Act. It rejected the unreasoned five-member AIIMS board report, accepted the dissenting member's functional assessment, and confirmed the admission.
Issues
- Whether a candidate with benchmark disability within the 40-80% range could be declared ineligible for MBBS solely because he did not meet the 'both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion' condition in Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019.
- Whether the report of the majority of the AIIMS medical board, which gave no reasons and did not show how functional assessment was carried out, could be the basis to deny admission.
- What the scope of judicial review is over the opinions of Disability Assessment Boards.
Provisions considered
- Appendix H-1 (Guidelines for admission of persons with specified disabilities), note on 'both hands intact', Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019The appellant's 58% disability made him eligible under the PwD quota, but the note requiring both hands intact rendered him ineligible. The Court held this prescription has no sanctity in law as it excludes individual functional assessment, and is antithetical to Article 41, the UN Convention and the RPwD Act. (¶¶ 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 34, 35)
- Section 2(y) (reasonable accommodation) and Section 2(h) (discrimination), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Applied, as construed in Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod, to hold that reasonable accommodation must be read broadly and tailored to the individual, and that its denial is discrimination; the Guidelines must be read purposively to further these objects. (¶¶ 19, 20, 28, 35)
- Article 41, Constitution of IndiaThe directive to make effective provision for the right to education of persons with disabilities was relied on to hold the 'both hands intact' prescription antithetical to constitutional objectives. (¶¶ 15, 21, 34)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaBoard decisions based merely on quantified disability were held antithetical to Articles 14 and 21; reasonable accommodation is a facet of substantive equality, and courts have a duty, not just jurisdiction, to ensure boards act according to law since courts enforce fundamental rights. (¶¶ 16, 19, 28, 30)
Held
- Following Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod, quantified disability alone does not disentitle a candidate from admission; Disability Assessment Boards must make an individual functional assessment, positively record whether the disability will come in the way of pursuing the course, and give reasons for any negative opinion. (¶¶ 16, 19, 22, 28)
- The prescription in Appendix H-1 that 'both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion' are essential for eligibility is antithetical to Article 41, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the RPwD Act; it is an overbroad classification that glorifies ableism, has no sanctity in law as it precludes functional assessment, and has no place in a statutory regulation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 25, 34, 35)
- The report of five members of the AIIMS board could not be the basis to deny admission: it did not show how functional assessment was carried out, gave no reasons, did not consider whether the candidate aided by modern tools and devices could pursue MBBS, and itself recorded that the NMC Guidelines needed revision. (¶¶ 13, 24, 29, 31)
- Courts are not medical experts, but they have the jurisdiction, and indeed a duty as enforcers of fundamental rights, to ensure that Disability Assessment Boards proceed in compliance with established principles of law. (¶ 30)
- The separate report of the co-opted expert, which conducted a detailed functional assessment in a simulated setting, gave elaborate reasons and suggested clinical accommodations and assistive technology, satisfied the governing parameters. The correct approach is not to presume incompetence at the threshold but to let the candidate decide, after completing MBBS, whether to pursue a non-surgical branch or serve as a general duty medical officer. (¶¶ 27, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44)
- As the NMC had been directed in Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod to frame revised guidelines through a committee including persons with disabilities or disability-rights experts, the matter was listed for the NMC to file an affidavit on the status of the revised guidelines. (¶¶ 45, 46)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appellant's admission to MBBS at Government Medical College, Sirohi under the PwD (OBC) seat, granted by order dated 12.12.2024, confirmed; NMC to file an affidavit on revised guidelines, matter listed on 03.03.2025; no order as to costs.