Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on October 15, 2024 held that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. 

A three-judge bench led by Justice B R Gavai said the candidate will be eligible if the Disability Assessment Board opined that notwithstanding the quantified disability, the candidate can pursue the course in question.

The apex court declared that the National Medical Commission's regulations in the notification of May 13, 2019 read with the Appendix H-1 should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be construed in the light of the holdings in the present judgment. 

"The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question. The Disability Assessment Boards should state reasons in the event of the Disability Assessment Boards concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course," the bench said.

The court also directed that the Disability Assessment Boards will, pending formulation of appropriate regulations by the NMC, pursuant to the communication of January 25, 2024 by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, keep in mind the salutary points mentioned in the judgment while forming their opinion.

"Pending creation of the appellate body, we further direct that such decisions of the Disability Assessment Boards which give a negative opinion for the candidate will be amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings. The court seized of the matter in the judicial review proceedings shall refer the case of the candidate to any premier medical institute having the facility, for an independent opinion and relief to the candidate will be granted or denied based on the opinion of the said medical institution to which the High Court had referred the matter," the bench said.

In its judgment, the bench, also comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and K V Vishwanathan confirmed the admission granted to appellant Omkar Ramchandra Gond, a person with disability, in MBBS course, in view of favourable report of September 13, 2024 from Maulana Azad Medical College.

The court allowed the appeal against the Bombay High Court's order of August 29, 2024, which declined to provide any interim relief to him, in view of denial of admission despite qualifying the NEET.

According to NMC regulations, persons who have equal to or more than 40% disability are not eligible for Medical Course. 

The court examined a question whether merely because the disability is quantified at 44% or 45%, the appellant should be disqualified to obtain admission under the PwD Category for the MBBS Course.

The court noted it was in pursuance of the 5% reservation provided for the persons with disabilities that the appellant applied for the MBBS course under the said category. He cleared the exam, however, was denied admission on the ground that his quantified disability was 44%/45%. 

The bench found that Appendix H-I (of the regulation) provides a peculiar scenario. 

"While people with less than 40% disability are not eligible for PwD quota, though they can pursue the Medical Course, persons with equal to or more than 40% disability are not eligible for the medical course. Read literally, while persons with speech and language disability with less than 40% are not entitled to the reserved quota, if they have 40% or more disability they are rendered ineligible for the medical course," the bench said.

"The column under the guidelines 'Eligible for Medical Course, Eligible for PwD quota' is left blank reinforcing the absurd position that under this category no one is rendered eligible for the 5% reserved quota. Certainly that cannot be the legal position," the bench observed.

While adopting a purposive interpretation of the RPwD Act, 2016, and, more particularly, of the provisions, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that merely because of the quantification of the disability for speech and language at 40% or above, a candidate does not forfeit his right to stake a claim for admission to course of their choice".

"We say so for the reason that any such interpretation would render the clause in Appendix H-1 under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations of the Medical Council of India (precursor of the National Medical Commission) dated 13.05.2019, over broad for treating unequals equally," the bench added.

The bench said a constitutional court examining the plea of discrimination is mandated to consider whether real equality exists. 

"This court is not to be carried away by a projection of facial equality. Viewed at first blush, the regulation providing that all persons with 40% or more disability are uniformly barred from pursuing the medical course in the category of speech and language disability, may appear non discriminatory. But here too, appearances can be deceptive. The Court of law is obliged to probe as to whether beneath the veneer of equality there is any invidious breach of Article 14," the bench said.

The court said the NMC should also work out functional classifications and physical requirements consistent with the requirements of medical profession and review its regulations accordingly on line with the exercise undertaken by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). 

It was ordered that NMC should sensitize all the colleges with respect to reservation criteria for persons with benchmark disabilities as per the RPwD Act and also towards the requirements of such candidates once admitted. Suggestion was made for formation of an Appellate Body against the decisions of the Medical Boards, the bench noted.

"We have no reason to doubt that the National Medical Commission will expeditiously comply with the requirements in the communication of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment dated 25.01.2024. In any event, we direct that the needful be done by the National Medical Commission before the publication of the admission brochure for the academic year 2025-26," the bench said.

The court said it was hopeful that in the revised regulations and guidelines which the National Medical Commission will issue, an inclusive attitude will be taken towards persons with disabilities from all categories furthering the concept of reasonable accommodation recognized in the RPwD Act. 

"The approach of the Government, instrumentalities of States, regulatory bodies and for that matter even private sector should be, as to how best can one accommodate and grant the opportunity to the candidates with disability. The approach should not be as to how best to disqualify the candidates and make it difficult for them to pursue and realize their educational goals," the bench said.

The court opined that Disabilities Assessment Boards are not monotonous automations to just look at the quantified benchmark disability as set out in the certificate of disability and cast aside the candidate. 

"Such an approach would be antithetical to Article 14 and Article 21 and all canons of justice, equity and good conscience. It will also defeat the salutary objectives of the RPwD Act. The Disabilities Assessment Boards are obliged to examine the further question as to whether the candidate in the opinion of the experts in the field is eligible to pursue the course or in other words, whether the disability will or will not come in the way of the candidate pursuing the course in question," the bench said.

Keeping in mind the salutary object of the RPwD Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the court held that mere existence of benchmark disability of 40% or above (or such other prescribed percentages depending on the disability) will not disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the course applied for. 

In its judgment, the bench recollected that acclaimed Bharatanatyam dancer Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha who conquered Mount Everest, prominent sports personality, H Boniface Prabhu, entrepreneur Srikanth Bolla and Dr Satendra Singh, the founder of ‘Infinite Ability’, are some of the shining daughters and sons from a long and illustrious list of individuals in India who scaled extraordinary heights braving all adversities.

"The world would have been so much the poorer if Homer, Milton, Mozart, Beethoven, Byron and many more would not have been allowed to realize their full potential. Distinguished Indian Medical Practitioner Dr Farokh Erach Udwadia in his classic work 'The Forgotten Art of Healing and Others Essays’ under the Chapter ‘Art and Medicine’ rightly extolls their extraordinary talent, and of the many more similarly circumstanced," the bench said.

Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs The Union of India & Ors