Summary
A NEET candidate with 44-45% speech and language disability was declared ineligible for MBBS solely because Appendix H-1 to the 2019 Graduate Medical Education Regulations bars candidates with such disability of 40% or more. The Supreme Court held that quantified benchmark disability alone does not disqualify a candidate. The Disability Assessment Board must record, with reasons, whether the disability will actually prevent the candidate from pursuing the course. Since an expert board found it would not, his admission was confirmed.
Issues
- Whether a candidate with speech and language disability quantified at 40% or more can be denied admission to the MBBS course under the PwD category solely on that quantification under Appendix H-1 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (notification dated 13.05.2019).
- How the Regulations should be read consistently with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Articles 14 and 41 of the Constitution, and the principle of reasonable accommodation.
- What procedure Disability Assessment Boards must follow, and what remedy is available against a negative opinion.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(r) and 32, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Section 32 requires at least 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities (40% or more under Section 2(r)) in higher education. The Court found it anomalous that Appendix H-1 left no one with speech and language disability eligible for the reserved quota: those below 40% are not entitled to it, and those at 40% or above are barred from the course altogether. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Sections 2(y) and 3, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The Court held that 'reasonable accommodation' should be construed broadly, not limited to assistive devices, and includes a purposive reading of the NMC Regulations that furthers the Act's objectives of equality and non-discrimination. (¶¶ 18, 40, 41, 42)
- Section 2(m), Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The concept of inclusive education (Avni Prakash) informed the Court's purposive reading of the Regulations. (¶¶ 18, 47)
- Appendix H-1, clause 1(D) (speech and language disability), Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (as amended by MCI notification dated 13.05.2019)The Court held that the clause, read literally as automatically disqualifying everyone with 40% or more speech and language disability, would be over-inclusive and violate Article 14. Pending revision by the NMC, it must be read so that the quantified percentage alone does not make a candidate ineligible. (¶¶ 7, 20, 21, 22, 23, 53)
- Articles 14 and 41, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Ambica Mills, Khandige Sham Bhat, Babita Puniya and Nitisha, the Court held that grouping candidates who can pursue the course with those who cannot is over-inclusive and indirectly discriminatory. Article 41's goal of securing education for persons with disabilities supported a purposive reading. (¶¶ 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 46, 48)
Held
- Appendix H-1, read literally, left the 'Eligible for Medical Course, Eligible for PwD quota' column blank for speech and language disability, so no one in that category could ever claim the statutory 5% reservation. That cannot be the legal position. (¶ 20)
- Treating every candidate with 40% or more speech and language disability as ineligible is over-inclusive, because it groups those whose disability will not affect their studies with those whose disability will, and so treats unequals equally contrary to Article 14. A facially neutral rule must be examined for its real effect, and a 'one size fits all' approach to disability is impermissible. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Reasonable accommodation under Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act is a broad positive obligation that includes construing regulations purposively to enable full and effective participation of persons with disabilities. Authorities should ask how best to accommodate such candidates, not how to disqualify them. (¶¶ 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Quantified disability per se does not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from admission. Disability Assessment Boards must not mechanically reject candidates on the certificate percentage; they must positively record whether the disability will or will not come in the way of pursuing the course, and give reasons if they find the candidate ineligible, keeping in mind the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's communication of 25.01.2024 pending new NMC regulations. (¶¶ 46, 48, 49, 53)
- Until an appellate body is created, a negative opinion of a Disability Assessment Board can be challenged in judicial review. The court must refer the candidate to a premier medical institute for an independent opinion and grant or deny relief on that basis. (¶¶ 50, 53)
- The NMC was directed to comply with the Ministry's communication of 25.01.2024, including reviewing its regulations on functional lines, before publishing the admission brochure for 2025-26. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Since the Medical Board constituted at Maulana Azad Medical College on the Court's direction opined that the appellant's disability would not prevent him from pursuing MBBS, his admission against the seat kept vacant was confirmed as valid. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 53)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order dated 29.08.2024 set aside; appellant's admission to MBBS (granted by order of 18.09.2024) confirmed as valid. Directions issued to Disability Assessment Boards and to the NMC (to act before the 2025-26 brochure); the writ petition pending in the Bombay High Court stands disposed of in terms of the judgment; no order as to costs.