Recently, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a fresh Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, to reassess the eligibility of a candidate with benchmark disabilities for MBBS admission, highlighting that the denial of admission solely based on outdated norms cannot override the rights conferred under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court observed that “merely because the NMC is in the process of revising its guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot be allowed to hang in limbo.”
The petitioner, a person with benchmark disabilities, aspired to gain admission to the MBBS course and had cleared the NEET UG 2024 examination with commendable marks under the SC/PwBD category. He suffers from a congenital absence of multiple fingers in both hands and deformities in the left foot. Despite these challenges, he secured a score of 542, far exceeding the prescribed cut-off for his category.
However, when he approached VMMC-Safdarjung Hospital for issuance of the NEET Disability Certificate, the hospital, while assessing his disability at 68%, concluded that he was ineligible to pursue medical education under existing NMC norms. His writ petition before the Delhi High Court was dismissed, and the same conclusion was later upheld by the Division Bench based on reiteration of ineligibility by AIIMS medical boards. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the medical boards and the High Court failed to consider the concepts of assistive devices and reasonable accommodation as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Om Rathod v. DGHS and Anmol v. Union of India, the counsel submitted that these principles enable disabled candidates to pursue medical education with necessary support mechanisms in place.
He emphasized that the petitioner not only surpassed the required merit threshold but also had better physical attributes and academic scores than the candidates in the referenced judgments who were allowed admission with accommodations. It was urged that reassessment be conducted through a specialist like Dr. Satendra Singh, as done in earlier cases, or in the alternative, the petitioner be considered for admission in the next academic session.
The Supreme Court noted that the NMC is in the process of revising its guidelines following its own rulings in Om Rathod and Anmol. It acknowledged that multiple meetings toward this end had already taken place. However, it observed that deferring the petitioner’s claim until such revision would be unjust and inconsistent with the rights guaranteed under the law.
The Court remarked, “Denying relief to the petitioner on this premise would be totally unjustified in view of the ratio of this Court’s judgments... Merely because the NMC is under the process of revising the guidelines, the petitioner’s fate cannot be allowed to hang in a limbo...”
It emphasized that the concept of reasonable accommodation is not a matter of charity but of statutory entitlement, and performance in NEET coupled with academic merit should be integral to the eligibility consideration.
The Supreme Court directed the constitution of a fresh Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, which must include at least one expert nominated by Dr. Satendra Singh. The Board is required to conduct a functional assessment of the petitioner and submit its report within three weeks. The Court clarified that the findings of the new Board shall be treated as final and binding for determining the petitioner’s eligibility for MBBS admission under the PwBD category for the academic session 2024-2025.
Picture Source :
